Adidas 2008 Study Case

We are on a continuous Mission to provide growth opportunity to all stakeholders including Stockists, distributors, retailers, suppliers, etc. and remain ahead of competitors through product-innovation, adopting modern technologies and achieve optimum cost of production.

Prince Sports has managed to remain in their field, but the task was not easy. They have been in business for over forty years and have continued to evolve to fit the needs of the consumers while also managing to expand their products. In doing so, they have needed to keep their company ahead of trends that have occurred in the market. So far, they have managed to do so, but with the continuously changing market and economy, Prince Sports needs to constantly be performing research on how to stay ahead. They also have to take in to consideration how these changes are going to affect the products and customers they

Athletics Supreme has become the top retailer in athletic equipment sales not by accident but by employing marketing operations more efficiently through successful marketing implementation and control. The company stays market and customer driven by effectively applying the appropriate metrics to achieve the objectives of its marketing plan and adjusting its strategic path when elements affecting the company’s goals, mission, and objectives begin to waver. This includes the metrics that affects the organization’s customer base that without them the company would not be successful.

Our goal is to be perceptive, and innovative with new ideas that improves the achievements customer satisfaction, and quality service and product excellence for our customers.

Tree House Foods is a private label food and beverage leader focused on customer brands and custom products. The company’s “about us”, does a great job of explaining the company’s goals for their brands. However, the mission statement for Tree House Foods takes the opportunity to truly expand on the goals and the ambition of the company. The mission statement is: 

Adidas is a sportswear manufacturing company started by Adolf Dassler. Adidas group has incorporated brands including Adidas, Reebok, TaylorMade-Adidas and Rockport. The wings of the company are widespread and have assimiliated other productions including handbags, shirts, spectacles, watches, balls, and sportswear. Adidas is being the largest company that sells footwear in the European market and have achieved a momentous market share at the global platform. Adidas has achieved phenomenal sale and have reached the pinnacle of success on the global scale with other international footwear companies (McDonald & Milne, 1999).

Firstly, we can start be retooling our mission statement. Any prospering organizations must identify whom they are and what they want to accomplish. We must establish what will distinguish us from competitors to ensure our targeted consumers will choose us over them. Our goals and accomplishments make up the foundation of our business and need definite clarification. A narrowly defined set of well-constructed choices is the foundation of a good organization design (Carucci, 2016).

Over the past twenty-five years we have had to reinvent ourselves many times. The first surge was with the Waffle Trainer and the running craze. When that slowed, we thought we ran out of market. We had another surge with basketball behind Michael Jordan, and cross-training with Bo Jackson. Then again, we Thought our growth was dead. Another surge came in 1995, when Nike became fashionable and athletic urban wear became king. But,that too ended in early 2008, as did the health of the Asian economy. There we were, with an over-extended brand. Each time we reinvented our company. In 1995, when we reached $3 billion in sales, we said $5 billion was the absolute limit. Three years later we were closing in on $10 billion. Each time we did succeed it was due, in part, to

Acting as two of the largest companies in the athletic apparel business by market share, both Nike and Under Amour, like the wearers of their products, know how to win. Whether it is the Air Mag, Nikes newest product invention or Under Armours 10 year partnership with Major League Baseball commencing in 2020, each company is taking a different approach to grow their business and become the “it” player in its industry. Although long term strategies devised by Nike CEO Mark Parker and Under Armours Kevin Plank may focus on different growth initiatives, when looked at more closely, one will find the many similarities between both firms. The grounds of comparison and contrast I will be using fall into the categories of product development, brand

As CEO I have determined that we should focus on our core competencies in order to achieve and maintain a competitive edge over the industry as well as stay ahead of the curve on what the consumer needs. In order for us to continue to be successful we must constantly be aware of our external environment and the issues that surround it. Through being aware of our surrounding environment we will be able to continuously adapt and prevail within the market. Through the years we have been able to differentiate our brand through our devotion to research and development, adoption of new technologies, knowledge based offerings, as well as our strategical placement (locations, throughout the Midwest “corn-belt”). While we have extended

We want to be a global brand recognized all over the world. After McDonalds, KFC, burger king, dominos etc.

In 1964, college track athlete Phil Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman started Blue Ribbon Sports, a distribution company for what are known today as Asics shoes. In 1971, Blue Ribbon Sports began designing and selling their own shoes and changed their name to Nike. Nike is no stranger to bad press and highlighted in a 2014 Business Insider article written by Lara O'Reilly, she mentions a few of the bold moves they made over the years that have garnered attention, starting with the change of their name. Another controversial move they made was with their slogan, “Just Do It”, which was admittedly inspired by the last words of a serial killer right before his execution. Furthermore, they also endorsed their first professional athlete who was nicknamed the “Bucharest Buffoon” because of his scandalous reputation. Phil Knight has been quoted as saying, “It doesn't matter how many people you offend, as long as you're getting your message to your consumers...” In this submission, I will explain how Nike came to its sweatshop scandal situation through its expansion strategy, the positive and negative impacts of this strategy, how Nike responded to this situation, how the company could have responded differently, and what would the consequences have been as a result.

In July 2001, NorthPoint Group, a mutual-fund management firm, sought to buy Nike shares for $42.09 per share. Kimi Ford, the portfolio manager, was in a dilemma as some analysts such as Lehman Brothers recommended a strong buy, while others such as USB Warburg and CSFB were against a buy. Kimi decided to find out for herself by developing her own discounted cash flows. She found that Nike at a price of $42.09 is overvalued at a 12% discount rate, but a quick sensitivity analysis revealed that Nike was undervalued at a discount rate below 11.7%. She then had her assistant, Joanna Cohen, calculate the cost of equity. The central issues addressed are:

Nike was known Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS) that was found in 1964 by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight. They came up with the new idea of lighter weight training shoes that had a soft and flexible outsole for fraction in 1971. Nike case background: Kimi Ford, the manager of the North Point Large Cap Fund invested in Fortune 500 companies; Nike started to experience loss, decline in sales growth, decline in share market and profit because of supply chain issue. On June 28, 2001 meeting was held to review the strategy, Nike has estimated that could increases the price on footwear and other multiple segments. There was the signal for Nike’s change from the market. Kimi Ford made her own strategy as discounted cash

Introduction When growing an enterprise that you wish to compete on a global market, what needs to be taken into consideration is scaling. Most importantly for investors, what will it cost to expand this company and offer their products on a global scale? This is what Nike faced in the 1980’s when they expanded by outsourcing their production Asia, 86% of their production housed primarily in Korea and Taiwan by 1986, (Locke, 2002) with only 17% remaining in the US by the end of the 1990’s. By manufacturing off-shores in low-wage countries, Nike garnered the nickname “Sweat Shop” as most people in the 1990’s believed their practices to be unethical. For the ones calling the shots at Nike in the 1980’s and 1990’s, was this just another case of “desperate times call for desperate measures”? Or was there an alternative route they could have taken? How did Nike come to this situation through its expansion strategy?