Porter's Five for Lining

Analyzing the industry using Porter’s Five Forces, it can be seen that the Outdoor Apparel industry is very competitive. The threat of entry is very high, with several large conglomerates making acquisitions in the industry and established apparel companies such as Polo Ralph Lauren making expansions into sports apparel. With several brands such as North Face in the high end of the industry, as well as Columbia and several private labels dominating the middle and lower ends, a large number of substitutes are available. Buyers have large bargaining power, as end consumers could easily switch to another brand, while at the same time wholesalers are

The concept of market structures and competitive strategies are important when attempting to compete in any market. Understanding what market structure your product falls under can help companies develop better competitive strategies and identify potential for loss and gains. The athletic footwear industry in the United States is highly profitable and continuously growing. In this paper I will identify market structure of the athletic footwear industry, the major retailers, and competitive strategies that can be used to maximize profits.

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

Customers make purchasing decisions based on the information they have among products and the values of goods a company offers. For that reason, companies have to promote their products to increase products awareness. In order to achieve organizational goals, companies must understand the market’s needs to ensure the success of their businesses. Such information can be gained through research. The industry that will form the basis of this paper is Western Canadian Shoe Association. The three brands under study are Reebok, Adidas, and Nike.

In the following essay, I will write about Adidas Company and will describe the relationship among its various quality costs which are failure costs, internal failure costs, external failure costs, appraisal costs and prevention costs. In addition, I will analyze the efforts the company should focus on to further improve the quality of its products/services. Therefore, this essay is divided to 3 main points which I think the company should focus to improve its quality. The first point is the prevention cost which’s the most important quality cost that

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.

As the brand name of Nike continue to soar, other companies in the industry; learning from the success Nike has experienced, start focusing more on brand development to keep up with the increasing levels of competition. These companies resort to brand maintenance, which has become the main target in this industry due to product differentiation made by Nike. Nike, being market-advantaged, produces an extensive range of products, through which it gains a balanced level of profits. This has influenced rival companies to initiate a new range of products in their businesses too. Previously these companies had high risks of failing in business, if their single products did not appeal to the market. Due to the impact of Nike’s business strategy, the other companies are also enlarging their product range,

The forces of Nike’s customer-supplier relationship is based on joint efforts of improved quality, mutually beneficial partnerships, reduced costs, and increased market share for both parties. According to Nike building customer-supplier relationship is one of the most important goals because it is the analysis of the value chain which is defined as the collection of all activities involved in designing, marketing, manufacturing, delivering and supporting Nike’s products. Having strong relationship with both parties helps Nike to predict and notice any problem at might rise in the supply chain; as a result Nike will be able to develop better solutions to avoid it (Wankel, 2009). The first tier supplier of Nike is located mainly in Taiwan and South Korea, which work closely with R&D personnel in Oreon making the most expensive footwear. Strategies have shown that Nike implements include the vertical integration strategy. In general, the vertical integration strategy allows a firm to gain control over distributors, suppliers and competitors (Nike report, 2015). Nike has implemented forward integration by having its own retail locations throughout the United States, foreign countries & online stores. Every partner has a hugely significant

Therefore it makes it hard for companies like Nike, Adidas and Under Amour etc. to be able to have power over the customers. If a buyer is dissatisfied with any company in the industry; that buyer can easily switch to another company to acquire the products that they need.

For years, Nike has been sourcing from factories that seek to meet the company 's minimum standards for good labor performance. The policy of Nike is to evaluate potential contracted factories before they enter the supply chain. Throughout their business relationship with Nike to assess compliance with high standards of social and environmental performance, including country-related risk for issues including forced labor, human trafficking and slavery Nike (n.d).

Clearly, Nike has the responsibility to hold suppliers to those conditions that prevail only in the supplying

Nike has seldom manufactured products own premises, except their air bladders. The shoes are manufactured through outsourcing and alliances with other companies. A successful company like Nike formed its organization on the customer values that have the MOST impact on the consumers mind – Design/R&D, Marketing and Distribution. Even though manufacturing is a vital function to perform, Nike realized that there were other ways to go about this function and thereby save both cost and maintain its focus on the critical customer value areas.

After sluggish focus and growth in the 1980ies, Nike experienced strong growth in the 1990ies and cemented the position as global recognizable brand. The increased international focus created strains on the supply chain, which was consider inadequate to cater efficiently to the organization and the rapid changes consumer demands . As a consequence of the afore mentioned supply chain problem Nike faced inefficient inventory management, problems in flow of goods and poor demand

Nike places more importance on choosing the right local partners, not just the right ports. Nike doesn’t own any of its facilities, and local partners make important logistics decisions (Field, 2003a). To manage relationships, Nike has both a global and regional vendor management team – as output volume increases, Nike don’t expand the number of suppliers, but increase the volume of business they do with each supplier (Field, 2003a).

The economies of scale in the retail industry are huge. All of the companies in this industry have first mover advantage. Many of the competitors in this industry already have immense and diverse relationships with many of the suppliers they obtain and any new competitor will have a tough time trying to squeeze into the dealer network in order to establish themselves as any type of threat to another retailer.