Adidas & Reebok

4. Further Research—Gather information on Nike’s recent moves and accomplishments, and those of its rival Adidas. Are both firms following the same strategies and using the same structures to support them? Or, is one doing something quite different from the other? Based on what you learn, what do you predict for the future? Will Nike stay on top, or is Adidas the next industry leader?

In addition, these companies are able to easily compete in the sports apparel market because the barriers to entry are low. On the other hand, many companies should think twice before entering the market. One reason is the large capital costs that are required to meet consumer demand in the market. In addition to large capital costs, some of the largest companies have gained customer loyalty based on their strong marketing skills. For example, Under Armour, Nike, Adidas, Reebok, ASICS, make new entrants into this industry much more difficult to compete with when these companies have a big share in the market already. According to Exhibit 4 in the textbook, it shows the major competitors and brands in 2013. Nonetheless, competition is intense in the sports industry market but, the high levels of product differentiation can also act as a barrier to entry for many companies because company’s need a high level of marketing to market their brand to consumers.

Competitors in the industry can wreak havoc on the bottom line for a company. With rivals, a price competition usually ensues, which benefits the customers but hurts the competing businesses that share a common strategy. In reviewing rival sellers, many competitors exist within the sports apparel and footwear industry, but most of them are unable to compete with the industry giants, Nike and Adidas. They are well seated in the industry and their sales reveal this ultimate strength, however, Under Armour is putting pressure on these mammoths. In 2015, global sales of sports clothing and footwear equated to $250 billion, of which Nike grabbed $30.6 billion, Adidas held in its grasp $18.8 billion and Under Armour had a much smaller piece of the pie, at $3.9 billion globally. In reviewing these numbers, it looks like Under Armour is really subpar to the industry giants, but this is not exactly the case. Under Armour in the past couple of

Companies like Under Armour, Nike and Adidas/Reebok have high threats of substitute´s products. These companies share the sport apparel industry and are vulnerable to competitive pressure from the actions of buyers whenever they view that their products can be substituted for others. The availability of substitutes invites the costumer to compare performance, features, and ease of use as well as price. Under Armour’s major competitors are Nike and Adidas/Reebok because they have a similar or competing product offerings. The top sport apparel brands offer similar products and that is why each one of them needs to keep a high standard and produce good quality products in order for customers to keep buying their product.

6). This strategy is a major component of Nike’s business strategic level plan. In applying this strategy, Nike has attained a great deal of consumer insight, which it uses to offer uniquely designed premium products to the athletes. Still on product differentiation, Nike focuses more on research and development at a greater level. These unique features to Nike, have transformed the competition levels in this competitive industry, leading to a trend of a paradigm shift in the market. Most consumers opt for Nike branded sports products and apparels, at the expense of the other brand names.

Footwear and apparel have eight categories: running, basketball, soccer, women’s training, men’s training, action sports, sportswear and golf. Equipment refers to bags, socks, sport balls, eyewear, digital devices, etc. The global brands that Nike owns are Jordan Brand, Hurley Brand and Converse Brand, they are very well established. This broad range of products and product types is one of the reasons that Nike has maintained its high position in the market, in that it appeals and has appealed to a larger and more varied selection of customers. Adidas currently has three brands under the Adidas group: Adidas, Reebok and Taylormade; the different brands address the different types of consumers. Both Adidas and Reebok brands have a strong market share. However, Taylormade has a low market share, and therefore is not benefiting Adidas to the full of its potential, especially when compared to Nike’s Converse brand which by itself owns 2% of the brand share of dollars (Figure 1). Under Armour also has a broad range of product differentiation which is broken into four major segments: apparel, footwear, accessories and connected fitness. Despite their broad differentiation, Under Armour does not currently own any brands. Overall, Nike has a broader and more established range and brands that help Nike stay ahead of its

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).

The competence of the Under Armour, Nike, and The Adidas Group are energetic and can be maintained continuously. All of three companies focus on the development, marketing and distribution of branded performance apparel, footwear, and accessories for men, women and youth. In one hand, they both have a large powerful brand image and benign reputation, in the other hand,

This market analysis will be on Nike, Inc. using the Porter’s Five Forces designed by Porter, (2008): 1) Competitive Rivalry within the Industry, 2) Bargaining Power of Suppliers, 3) Bargaining Power of Customers, 4) Threat of New Entrants, and 5) Threat of Substitute Products. Nike was founded in 1964 by Bill Bowerman a track coach at the University of Oregon who developed lightweight, durable running shoes along with Phil Knight one of his runners and a student of business at the University. Almost from the onset of this company factories overseas were utilized to produce the products starting in Japan and later spreading to many other countries with inexpensive labor forces. Nike after years of growth went from a $1 million in sales

In 1964 in Oregon, Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman join together to make a new enterprise; each contributed about $500 to the partnership. The company started bringing low priced and high tech athletic shoes from Japan to replace the German domination of athletic shoes in the industry. In 1971, a graphic design student created the Swoosh trademark for a $35 fee. In the same year Jeff Johnson, Blue Ribbon Sports ' first employee, made his most durable contribution to the company in coming up with a new name, Nike, after the Greek goddess of victory. NIKE is the world 's #1 shoemaker and controls over 20% of the US athletic shoe market.

Do you think the athletic goods industry has limited potential? Or is it still a growth industry? Your opinions, and rationale, please.

1. What is adidas’ position in the athletic shoe market? How does the brand seem to be doing in this market? Position: the position of adidas has transferred from “leading supplier of soccer footwear worldwide” to “leading sport brand”. Adidas was founded in Germany in 1920. In 1995, it became a public company as well as the leading supplier of soccer footwear due to its great performance of footwear sales. In 1998, adidas began to move into the U.S. market. Adidas doubled its U.S. market share within only one year, so it hoped to continue to make big move in following years. In its way to U.S. market, adidas confront with the

On a like-for-like basis, Reebok segment sales declined by 5% in 2007. At TaylorMade-Adidas Golf, currency-neutral revenues increased 1%, negatively impacted by the divestiture of the Greg Norman Collection wholesale business. On a like-for-like basis, TaylorMade-Adidas Golf sales increased 9%. Sales in the HQ/Consolidation segment decreased by 60% on a currency-neutral basis, mainly due to the expiration of the Salomon footwear sourcing cooperation agreement. Currency translation effects negatively impacted sales in all segments in euro terms. Adidas sales increased 7% to € 7.113 billion in 2007 from € 6.626 billion in 2006. Sales at Reebok decreased 6% to € 2.333 billion versus € 2.473 billion in the prior year. TaylorMade-Adidas Golf sales declined 6% to € 804 million in 2007 from € 856 million in 2006. HQ/Consolidation sales decreased 62% to € 48 million from € 129 million in the prior year. (Adidas-group factsheet 2007).The merger and acquisition has gone beyond expectation. Although there were reports of declining sales of Reebok in the North America in the early years of its acquisition but this was due to the currency-neutral sales in the Reebok which is now associated to the turnover. But in later years, beginning 2010 despite the economic turmoil in US and Europe the Adidas Group together with other subsidiary products continues to boost its sales.Such increases are

Adidas is a major German sports apparel manufacturer, which was founded in 1948. It is the largest sportswear manufacturer in Europe and the second biggest sportswear manufacturer in the world, after Nike. The company's clothing and shoe designs typically feature three parallel bars. The company revenue for 2009 was listed at €10.38 billion. The market segmentation; targeting and position play an important role in this company. This essay will use the three factors to analyze this company.

Adidas is the second largest sportswear and apparels manufacturer (Dogiamis & Vijayashanker, 2009). By far, Adidas holds a market share of 22% (Dogiamis & Vijayashanker, 2009). Adidas had also registered the infamous ‘3 stripes’ as its trademark (Berntson, Jarnemo & Philipson, 2006). The founders of Adidas, Adolf and Rudolf Dassler had the vision of providing athletes with the best suited pair of shoes for their respective sports (Dogiamis & Vijayashanker, 2009). In efforts of achieving that, Adidas is had used the strategy of collaborating with important athletes to gain their insights on the products offered (Berntson, Jarnemo & Philipson, 2006). This contributes to the fact that Adidas had earned