为什么阿迪达斯最后还是卖了锐步？
有的时候，学会放弃也是一种智慧。
本周一，阿迪达斯正式宣布出售它旗下的锐步（Reebook）鞋业。在1980年代一度辉煌万分的锐步现已不复当年模样，阿迪达斯称这个决定是“公司经过战略评估后的选择”。对于这次剥离，业内分析师在四个月前就早有预言。
2005年，为了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪达斯斥资38亿美元收购了锐步。当时的锐步在篮球迷中享有悠久信誉，还与美国篮球协会签订了授权协议。此外，锐步当年和说唱歌手50 Cent联名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一阵流行文化潮。
但锐步近年来却一直在走下坡路，阿迪达斯的整体情况也不容乐观，不仅要和耐克这样的传统对手对线，还要提防安德玛（Under Armour）、Lululemon这类后起之秀。2007年，单是锐步一个品牌就可占到阿迪达斯总营收的1/4，但到了今年9月，这一比例已经降至6.9%。
当然，阿迪达斯本线产品的销量在提升也是造成这种变化的原因之一，但依旧无法与锐步的长年衰退脱离干系。除了在2019年实施的一次短暂改革，锐步这么多年来几乎一成不变。
几年前重推的“锐步经典”系列产品并没有激起大众的复古情怀，没能再次帮锐步重塑当年的炫酷光环。屡次联名合作最终也以失败告终，并未助其力挽狂澜。无论是卡迪•B、还是肯德里克•拉马尔，再有名的说唱歌手都不能再像当年的50 Cent那样激起浪花。锐步似乎也无心进军高级定制鞋市场，目前该品牌在波道夫•古德曼百货公司出售的高端联名足袋靴定价在1500美元左右。
据去年十月的媒体报道，锐步的出售价可能只有20亿美元左右，仅为阿迪达斯15年前收购价格的一半，可见其衰落程度。
剥离锐步不仅能减少阿迪达斯的财务损失，还能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博资讯分析师近期指出，出售锐步将“让阿迪达斯更专注于核心同名品牌，该品牌需要加快发展势头，以缩小其与耐克在北美的收入差距”。
虽然阿迪达斯一直在美国发展，但它在北美的地位相对于在其他市场较弱。据欧睿信息咨询公司数据，耐克和阿迪达斯在西欧(±16%)和中国(±21%)的市场份额几乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的规模几乎是阿迪达斯的三倍。
同样勇于“放手”的还有美国家居零售巨头Bed Bath & Beyond，该公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收购的243家Cost Plus连锁超市门店，并表示此举的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最终选择放弃一些多余的商店，同时也会在此期间整顿财务。
Global Data在一份研究报告中指出，和阿迪达斯对于锐步的处理方式一样，Bed Bath & Beyond卖出这些门店以后，其管理层便可以更专注在原来的核心业务上，也无需再费心管理其他小部门。
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. （这些牌子中国读者都不太熟悉，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.
在整个零售领域，有大量公司正和阿迪达斯一样在为“买买买”的后果买单，所有人在前期总会信誓旦旦地以为收购一个热门品牌就能助其扭亏为盈，然而结果却往往事与愿违。尽管鲜有人愿意承认失败，但阿迪达斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子却又在时刻提醒我们：要想减少亏损，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（财富中文网）
编译:陈怡轩
有的时候，学会放弃也是一种智慧。
本周一，阿迪达斯正式宣布出售它旗下的锐步（Reebook）鞋业。在1980年代一度辉煌万分的锐步现已不复当年模样，阿迪达斯称这个决定是“公司经过战略评估后的选择”。对于这次剥离，业内分析师在四个月前就早有预言。
2005年，为了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪达斯斥资38亿美元收购了锐步。当时的锐步在篮球迷中享有悠久信誉，还与美国篮球协会签订了授权协议。此外，锐步当年和说唱歌手50 Cent联名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一阵流行文化潮。
但锐步近年来却一直在走下坡路，阿迪达斯的整体情况也不容乐观，不仅要和耐克这样的传统对手对线，还要提防安德玛（Under Armour）、Lululemon这类后起之秀。2007年，单是锐步一个品牌就可占到阿迪达斯总营收的1/4，但到了今年9月，这一比例已经降至6.9%。
当然，阿迪达斯本线产品的销量在提升也是造成这种变化的原因之一，但依旧无法与锐步的长年衰退脱离干系。除了在2019年实施的一次短暂改革，锐步这么多年来几乎一成不变。
几年前重推的“锐步经典”系列产品并没有激起大众的复古情怀，没能再次帮锐步重塑当年的炫酷光环。屡次联名合作最终也以失败告终，并未助其力挽狂澜。无论是卡迪•B、还是肯德里克•拉马尔，再有名的说唱歌手都不能再像当年的50 Cent那样激起浪花。锐步似乎也无心进军高级定制鞋市场，目前该品牌在波道夫•古德曼百货公司出售的高端联名足袋靴定价在1500美元左右。
据去年十月的媒体报道，锐步的出售价可能只有20亿美元左右，仅为阿迪达斯15年前收购价格的一半，可见其衰落程度。
剥离锐步不仅能减少阿迪达斯的财务损失，还能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博资讯分析师近期指出，出售锐步将“让阿迪达斯更专注于核心同名品牌，该品牌需要加快发展势头，以缩小其与耐克在北美的收入差距”。
虽然阿迪达斯一直在美国发展，但它在北美的地位相对于在其他市场较弱。据欧睿信息咨询公司数据，耐克和阿迪达斯在西欧(±16%)和中国(±21%)的市场份额几乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的规模几乎是阿迪达斯的三倍。
同样勇于“放手”的还有美国家居零售巨头Bed Bath & Beyond，该公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收购的243家Cost Plus连锁超市门店，并表示此举的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最终选择放弃一些多余的商店，同时也会在此期间整顿财务。
Global Data在一份研究报告中指出，和阿迪达斯对于锐步的处理方式一样，Bed Bath & Beyond卖出这些门店以后，其管理层便可以更专注在原来的核心业务上，也无需再费心管理其他小部门。
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. （这些牌子中国读者都不太熟悉，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.
在整个零售领域，有大量公司正和阿迪达斯一样在为“买买买”的后果买单，所有人在前期总会信誓旦旦地以为收购一个热门品牌就能助其扭亏为盈，然而结果却往往事与愿违。尽管鲜有人愿意承认失败，但阿迪达斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子却又在时刻提醒我们：要想减少亏损，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（财富中文网）
编译:陈怡轩
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.
