為什么阿迪達(dá)斯最后還是賣(mài)了銳步？
Phil Wahba
2020-12-15
圖片來(lái)源：GettyImages
有的時(shí)候，學(xué)會(huì)放棄也是一種智慧。
本周一，阿迪達(dá)斯正式宣布出售它旗下的銳步（Reebook）鞋業(yè)。在1980年代一度輝煌萬(wàn)分的銳步現(xiàn)已不復(fù)當(dāng)年模樣，阿迪達(dá)斯稱(chēng)這個(gè)決定是“公司經(jīng)過(guò)戰(zhàn)略評(píng)估后的選擇”。對(duì)于這次剝離，業(yè)內(nèi)分析師在四個(gè)月前就早有預(yù)言。
2005年，為了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪達(dá)斯斥資38億美元收購(gòu)了銳步。當(dāng)時(shí)的銳步在籃球迷中享有悠久信譽(yù)，還與美國(guó)籃球協(xié)會(huì)簽訂了授權(quán)協(xié)議。此外，銳步當(dāng)年和說(shuō)唱歌手50 Cent聯(lián)名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一陣流行文化潮。
但銳步近年來(lái)卻一直在走下坡路，阿迪達(dá)斯的整體情況也不容樂(lè)觀，不僅要和耐克這樣的傳統(tǒng)對(duì)手對(duì)線(xiàn)，還要提防安德瑪（Under Armour）、Lululemon這類(lèi)后起之秀。2007年，單是銳步一個(gè)品牌就可占到阿迪達(dá)斯總營(yíng)收的1/4，但到了今年9月，這一比例已經(jīng)降至6.9%。
當(dāng)然，阿迪達(dá)斯本線(xiàn)產(chǎn)品的銷(xiāo)量在提升也是造成這種變化的原因之一，但依舊無(wú)法與銳步的長(zhǎng)年衰退脫離干系。除了在2019年實(shí)施的一次短暫改革，銳步這么多年來(lái)幾乎一成不變。
幾年前重推的“銳步經(jīng)典”系列產(chǎn)品并沒(méi)有激起大眾的復(fù)古情懷，沒(méi)能再次幫銳步重塑當(dāng)年的炫酷光環(huán)。屢次聯(lián)名合作最終也以失敗告終，并未助其力挽狂瀾。無(wú)論是卡迪?B、還是肯德里克?拉馬爾，再有名的說(shuō)唱歌手都不能再像當(dāng)年的50 Cent那樣激起浪花。銳步似乎也無(wú)心進(jìn)軍高級(jí)定制鞋市場(chǎng)，目前該品牌在波道夫?古德曼百貨公司出售的高端聯(lián)名足袋靴定價(jià)在1500美元左右。
據(jù)去年十月的媒體報(bào)道，銳步的出售價(jià)可能只有20億美元左右，僅為阿迪達(dá)斯15年前收購(gòu)價(jià)格的一半，可見(jiàn)其衰落程度。
剝離銳步不僅能減少阿迪達(dá)斯的財(cái)務(wù)損失，還能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博資訊分析師近期指出，出售銳步將“讓阿迪達(dá)斯更專(zhuān)注于核心同名品牌，該品牌需要加快發(fā)展勢(shì)頭，以縮小其與耐克在北美的收入差距”。
雖然阿迪達(dá)斯一直在美國(guó)發(fā)展，但它在北美的地位相對(duì)于在其他市場(chǎng)較弱。據(jù)歐睿信息咨詢(xún)公司數(shù)據(jù)，耐克和阿迪達(dá)斯在西歐(±16%)和中國(guó)(±21%)的市場(chǎng)份額幾乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的規(guī)模幾乎是阿迪達(dá)斯的三倍。
同樣勇于“放手”的還有美國(guó)家居零售巨頭Bed Bath & Beyond，該公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收購(gòu)的243家Cost Plus連鎖超市門(mén)店，并表示此舉的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最終選擇放棄一些多余的商店，同時(shí)也會(huì)在此期間整頓財(cái)務(wù)。
Global Data在一份研究報(bào)告中指出，和阿迪達(dá)斯對(duì)于銳步的處理方式一樣，Bed Bath & Beyond賣(mài)出這些門(mén)店以后，其管理層便可以更專(zhuān)注在原來(lái)的核心業(yè)務(wù)上，也無(wú)需再費(fèi)心管理其他小部門(mén)。
The retail landscape is littered with companies mired in fixing brands they bought with the belief that the businesses could be turned around with relative ease—think of Tapestry with Kate Spade, Men’s Wearhouse, and most ill-fated of all, the now bankrupt Ascena buying Ann Taylor. （這些牌子中國(guó)讀者都不太熟悉，故省去）But while no one likes to admit defeat, in the case of Adidas, Bed Bath & Beyond—and perhaps others—it makes sense to cut one’s losses and focus on the winning, core brand.
在整個(gè)零售領(lǐng)域，有大量公司正和阿迪達(dá)斯一樣在為“買(mǎi)買(mǎi)買(mǎi)”的后果買(mǎi)單，所有人在前期總會(huì)信誓旦旦地以為收購(gòu)一個(gè)熱門(mén)品牌就能助其扭虧為盈，然而結(jié)果卻往往事與愿違。盡管鮮有人愿意承認(rèn)失敗，但阿迪達(dá)斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子卻又在時(shí)刻提醒我們：要想減少虧損，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）
編譯:陳怡軒
有的時(shí)候，學(xué)會(huì)放棄也是一種智慧。
本周一，阿迪達(dá)斯正式宣布出售它旗下的銳步（Reebook）鞋業(yè)。在1980年代一度輝煌萬(wàn)分的銳步現(xiàn)已不復(fù)當(dāng)年模樣，阿迪達(dá)斯稱(chēng)這個(gè)決定是“公司經(jīng)過(guò)戰(zhàn)略評(píng)估后的選擇”。對(duì)于這次剝離，業(yè)內(nèi)分析師在四個(gè)月前就早有預(yù)言。
2005年，為了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪達(dá)斯斥資38億美元收購(gòu)了銳步。當(dāng)時(shí)的銳步在籃球迷中享有悠久信譽(yù)，還與美國(guó)籃球協(xié)會(huì)簽訂了授權(quán)協(xié)議。此外，銳步當(dāng)年和說(shuō)唱歌手50 Cent聯(lián)名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一陣流行文化潮。
但銳步近年來(lái)卻一直在走下坡路，阿迪達(dá)斯的整體情況也不容樂(lè)觀，不僅要和耐克這樣的傳統(tǒng)對(duì)手對(duì)線(xiàn)，還要提防安德瑪（Under Armour）、Lululemon這類(lèi)后起之秀。2007年，單是銳步一個(gè)品牌就可占到阿迪達(dá)斯總營(yíng)收的1/4，但到了今年9月，這一比例已經(jīng)降至6.9%。
當(dāng)然，阿迪達(dá)斯本線(xiàn)產(chǎn)品的銷(xiāo)量在提升也是造成這種變化的原因之一，但依舊無(wú)法與銳步的長(zhǎng)年衰退脫離干系。除了在2019年實(shí)施的一次短暫改革，銳步這么多年來(lái)幾乎一成不變。
幾年前重推的“銳步經(jīng)典”系列產(chǎn)品并沒(méi)有激起大眾的復(fù)古情懷，沒(méi)能再次幫銳步重塑當(dāng)年的炫酷光環(huán)。屢次聯(lián)名合作最終也以失敗告終，并未助其力挽狂瀾。無(wú)論是卡迪?B、還是肯德里克?拉馬爾，再有名的說(shuō)唱歌手都不能再像當(dāng)年的50 Cent那樣激起浪花。銳步似乎也無(wú)心進(jìn)軍高級(jí)定制鞋市場(chǎng)，目前該品牌在波道夫?古德曼百貨公司出售的高端聯(lián)名足袋靴定價(jià)在1500美元左右。
據(jù)去年十月的媒體報(bào)道，銳步的出售價(jià)可能只有20億美元左右，僅為阿迪達(dá)斯15年前收購(gòu)價(jià)格的一半，可見(jiàn)其衰落程度。
剝離銳步不僅能減少阿迪達(dá)斯的財(cái)務(wù)損失，還能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博資訊分析師近期指出，出售銳步將“讓阿迪達(dá)斯更專(zhuān)注于核心同名品牌，該品牌需要加快發(fā)展勢(shì)頭，以縮小其與耐克在北美的收入差距”。
雖然阿迪達(dá)斯一直在美國(guó)發(fā)展，但它在北美的地位相對(duì)于在其他市場(chǎng)較弱。據(jù)歐睿信息咨詢(xún)公司數(shù)據(jù)，耐克和阿迪達(dá)斯在西歐(±16%)和中國(guó)(±21%)的市場(chǎng)份額幾乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的規(guī)模幾乎是阿迪達(dá)斯的三倍。
同樣勇于“放手”的還有美國(guó)家居零售巨頭Bed Bath & Beyond，該公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收購(gòu)的243家Cost Plus連鎖超市門(mén)店，并表示此舉的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最終選擇放棄一些多余的商店，同時(shí)也會(huì)在此期間整頓財(cái)務(wù)。
Global Data在一份研究報(bào)告中指出，和阿迪達(dá)斯對(duì)于銳步的處理方式一樣，Bed Bath & Beyond賣(mài)出這些門(mén)店以后，其管理層便可以更專(zhuān)注在原來(lái)的核心業(yè)務(wù)上，也無(wú)需再費(fèi)心管理其他小部門(mén)。
The retail landscape is littered with companies mired in fixing brands they bought with the belief that the businesses could be turned around with relative ease—think of Tapestry with Kate Spade, Men’s Wearhouse, and most ill-fated of all, the now bankrupt Ascena buying Ann Taylor. （這些牌子中國(guó)讀者都不太熟悉，故省去）But while no one likes to admit defeat, in the case of Adidas, Bed Bath & Beyond—and perhaps others—it makes sense to cut one’s losses and focus on the winning, core brand.
在整個(gè)零售領(lǐng)域，有大量公司正和阿迪達(dá)斯一樣在為“買(mǎi)買(mǎi)買(mǎi)”的后果買(mǎi)單，所有人在前期總會(huì)信誓旦旦地以為收購(gòu)一個(gè)熱門(mén)品牌就能助其扭虧為盈，然而結(jié)果卻往往事與愿違。盡管鮮有人愿意承認(rèn)失敗，但阿迪達(dá)斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子卻又在時(shí)刻提醒我們：要想減少虧損，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）
編譯:陳怡軒
Sometimes it’s best to just admit that you can’t make something work.
Adidas announced on Monday that it will put its struggling Reebok footwear business up for sale. The decision, which analysts have been expecting for months, is part of the German sportswear company’s assessment of “strategic alternatives” for Reebok, a brand that reached its cultural zenith in the 1980s.
Adidas bought Reebok for $3.8 billion in 2005, hoping it would help the company take on Nike more effectively in the U.S. market, thanks to Reebok’s long-standing credibility with basketball aficionados and its then licensing deal with the National Basketball Association. (Nike won that license from Reebok a few years ago.) What’s more, Reebok’s pop culture cred was bolstered by products like a line of shoes in partnership with rapper 50 Cent.
But Reebok has been on a long decline. And Adidas, facing off not only with longtime rivals like Nike but also up-and-comers like Under Armour and Lululemon Athletica, has struggled to turn that trend around: In 2007, Reebok generated nearly a quarter of Adidas’s overall revenue, but in the first nine months of 2020, that was down to 6.9%.
Some of that percentage drop has stemmed from the namesake Adidas brand’s healthier growth. Still, it’s hard to deny that Reebok has been flailing for too long, fleeting improvements in 2019 aside.
Despite efforts like relaunching Reebok Classics a few years ago, the brand never regained much of its cool aura, retro or otherwise. Collaborations haven’t changed its overall trajectory either: It has worked with big names like Cardi B and Kendrick Lamar in recent years. Nor has a stab at couture: Reebok is currently selling a Maison Margiela Instapump shoe at Bergdorf Goodman for $1,500.
Reflecting the brand’s decline, media reports in October suggested Reebok could fetch around $2 billion, or barely half of what Adidas paid for it 15 years ago.
In addition to cutting financial losses, shedding the brand should reduce distractions for the company. Selling off Reebok will “allow it [Adidas] to focus more on the core namesake brand, which needs to accelerate momentum to tighten its revenue gap with Nike” in North America, analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence recently wrote.
And true enough, while Adidas has been growing stateside, its position in North America is comparatively weaker than it is in other markets. According to Euromonitor, Nike and Adidas are virtually tied in terms of market share in Western Europe (both at about 16%) and in China (21%). But in North America, Nike is nearly three times as big as Adidas.
As if to echo the wisdom of letting go of brands acquired in long-ago ill-advised M&A, Bed Bath & Beyond announced on Monday that it was selling its 243-store Cost Plus World Market chain, which it bought only eight years ago. The decision is part of the company’s aim to refocus on its core brand, an effort that has included ditching excess baggage like its Christmas Tree Shops stores and fixing its finances.
And just as with Adidas and Reebok, the Bed Bath & Beyond deal “will allow management to focus on the core business without getting distracted by smaller divisions,” GlobalData wrote in a research note.
