Mercury Athletic Footwear: Valuing the Opportunity

the company was acquired by VF Corporation. Today, as a subsidiary, the outdoor and action sports

Obviously, there is a big number of driving forces in the athletic footwear industry. Each of these driving forces has different impacts—some of them can have a more considerable effect than others on figuring out how much cross-company differences influence market shares and a number of units sold. The first line of most influential factors includes comparative prices, S/Q ratings, and a number of models offered among the footwear competitors. These three most important competitive forces affect customer decisions of which athletic footwear brand to choose. Furthermore, the decisions of customers whether to purchase one brand or another are also influenced by such forces as advertising, celebrity endorsements, the number of independent retail

Foot Locker is one of the top competitors in the athletic shoe industry. Foot Locker Inc. accounts for a market leading 40% of industry revenue (IBISWorld, 2014). Foot Locker’s first retail location was opened on September 12, 1974 in City of Industry, California. Initially a subsidiary of the F.W Woolworth Company, Foot Locker Inc. has since becoming the successor corporation to its former parent company, and now operates approximately 3,450 retail locations under its different brands (Footlocker Inc., July, 2013). They compete with other athletic shoe stores like Adidas and Nike, as well department stores like Target and Wal-Mart. Since 1974, Foot Locker Inc. has launched different brands, namely, Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs, and Eastbay, to cater to consumer demographics, and adapt to changing consumer preferences.

The following memo aims to outline the results of the audit of Apollo Shoes, give recommendations to improve the company’s operations, and provide justification for our qualified opinion.

West Coast Fashions, Inc has decided to sell one of their segments, Mercury Athletic in the context of a broader reorganization. The head of the business development for Active Gear, Inc(AGI), John Liedtke, views this event as a good

Apollo Shoes Inc. is a medium-sized corporation. It has over 100 employees organized in five department including Marketing, Finance, Information Systems, Operations, and Legal Affairs. Apollo is a distributor of a technologically superior athletic product. Siren, Spotlight and Speakershoe are Apollo's premiere brands. Their products are shipped to large and small retailers across a six-state area.

The background of this paper we need to mention is that West Coast Fashions, Inc. (WCF), a large designer and marketer of branded apparel announced a strategic reorganization calling for a divestiture of certain assets, and one of the divisions it intended to shed was Mercury Athletic, its wholly owned footwear subsidiary. John Liedtke, the head of business development for Active Gear, Inc. (AGI), a privately held athletic and casual footwear company, contemplated an acquisition opportunity of Mercury that would significantly improve his business. So, he wanted to evaluate this opportunity.

Nike began as Phil Knight’s semester-long project to develop a small business, which included a marketing plan. This project was part of Phil Knight’s MBA course at Stanford University in the early 1960s. Phil Knight had been a runner at the University of Oregon in the late 1950s. His idea for his project was to develop high quality running shoes. He thought that high quality/low cost products could be produced in Japan and then shipped to the United States to be sold at a profit. His professor thought that Knight’s idea was interesting, but not much more than a project.

There are several reasons why AGI should consider Mercury Athletic as an appropriate target for acquisition. First, acquiring Mercury could improve both companies financially. Acquiring Mercury would double AGI’s revenue. Although Mercury’s financial performance has been disappointing, they experienced top line growth of 20% in 2006. Unfortunately, their profitability has been disappointing due to price concessions to big box retailers and an unsuccessful women’s line. Mercury’s (and ultimately AGI’s) profitability could be improved by the synergies of the two companies merging. Synergies within supply chain, operations, research and development, and advertising should all improve Mercury’s EBITDA.

Distribution – to make certain they are getting the latest most innovative products to customers quickly

Second, because of the current distribution network and infrastructure that Nike had in place for its high-end

Mythology to society is just ancient past, but essentially it’s not. It’s thriving and very alive. Take a trip to your local mall and check the footwear department of any sporting store and there you’ll find the goddess. The name Nike characterizes the goddess who exemplified victory on the battlefield. In retrospect, if persons were asked the name Nike, Greek mythology is least expected to arise. The name Nike is now renowned as the most iconic brands around the globe. Though, not many people know the story it all began selling shoes from the trunk of a car. The crazy idea that emanated from Phil Knight that grew to become the global phenomenon today. This study will give insight into the creation, growth, and evolution of Nike.

New Balance was founded by William J. Riley in 1906 in the city of Boston. Riley started by making arch supports for customers who had to spend all day on their feet. Over time the building of arch supports led to the creation of his first running shoe in 1925. As part of a local running club, Riley capitalized on an opportunity to improve running shoes of the time and his designs became widely popular. His new running shoes became so popular that by the 1940’s that production spread from running to many other sports. Then the expansion of the manufacturing significantly increased as he realized a need to running shoes with more selection for wider feet, and

* Nike has its individual stores and also available at major malls all over the globe.

Porter’s five forces refers to five forces which can affect a company in relation to external factors. These forces help review the strengths of a market position for a company. The forces are: threat of new entry, competitive rivalry, bargaining power of suppliers, power of buyers, and threat of substitution. These five forces vary in terms of threats from low to high as they relate to Nike (Rowland, 2016). First is the threat of new entry which is relatively low. There has been some but now much new competition recently. This is seen by Under Armour and Lululemon which demonstrates that threat of new entry is possible but not easy. Due to the difficulty of entry into a market overshadowed by the big names of Nike, Adidas, and Reebok the threat is relatively low for this force (Dalavagas, 2015) (Rowland, 2016). This joins the high threat of competitive rivalry. There are existing brands such as Adidas and Reebok which are among Nike’s biggest rivals (Friesner, n.d.). Next is the force associated with supplier power which is weak. There are many sources for the items used to produce Nike equipment and merchandise. This allows Nike to have the choice of suppliers. If one supplier does not work, Nike can go with a variety of other suppliers (Rowland, 2016). The fourth force is buyer power. The customer determines how well Nike will do as a business. The customer can choose which company to buy their shoes and clothing from and can switch companies throughout the process (Rowland, 2016). Last is the threat of substitution which is high. The high price of Nike shoes makes them inaccessible to many people. There are “knock” off versions of the name brand shoes which look very similar to the expensive Nike brand. A person could go to a different store and find a similar shoe at a less expensive price (Friesner, n.d.).