The Case of Adidas' Acquisition of Reebok
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Betriebswirtschaftliches Institut Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Internationales Management Prof. Dr. Dirk Holtbrügge Success of International M&As: The case of adidas’ acquisition of Reebok David Rygl Tobias Dennerlein Tamara Joyette Working Paper 4/2006 Dipl.-Kfm. David Rygl, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of International Management, Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nuremberg, Tel.: +49 (0)911 5302-452, Fax: +49 (0)911 5302-241, e-mail: [email protected], http://www.im-fau.de Tobias Dennerlein, cand. rer. pol., University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Tamara Joyette, Bachelor of Economics, Concordia University, Montreal. Success of International M&As: The case of adidas’ acquisition of Reebok 1 1 Topic, Objectives and Structure of the case In the last few decades, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have gained in strategic im- portance as a means of external company growth. Global M&A activity increased as a result of ongoing globalization and the creation of the European Single Market. Given the high economical impact of the increasing number and volume of transactions, it is alarming that more than 50 % of all analysed transactions failed or did not lead to their expected results (Picot 2000, p. 345). Most empirical studies show that shareholders of the acquiring company did not achieve above-average returns and, in some cases, value was even destroyed through these mergers (Lubatkin/Srinivasan/Merchant 1997, p. 77). The failure of most acquisitions may be the result of a number of factors. There is evi- dence that human (e.g. cultural) factors are seldom recognized as part of the problem, as top managers are mainly concerned with the financial and strategic aspects of a merger. In most cases, little attention is paid to the soft aspects of the transition, such as human resource issues (e.g. intercultural trainings) and the development of a new company culture. JEMISON/SITKIN (1986, p. 107) discern three main problems within the process of an acquisition in itself, which ultimately effect the result of the acquisition: the frag- mented views of involved specialists and analysts, the increasing time pressure to close a deal and the inability of buyer and seller to resolve areas of ambiguity. Therefore, the question why some acquisitions fail and others succeed seems to gain more importance with time. The aim of this case study is to describe how adidas, one of the biggest companies in the sporting goods industry, managed the process of acquiring Reebok and how it deals with the ongoing post-merger-integration. The case study is based on five semi- structured interviews with senior representatives of the adidas Group. Four of the re- spondents work in different functional areas of the adidas Group, such as Global PR, Social and Environmental Affairs, Treasury and Sales, and one of the respondents is a top-level manager of Reebok. Apart from these official interviews with top level repre- sentatives, it was also possible to get insight into their everyday business practices, as some informal conversations with ordinary office staff have been conducted. Further- more, company websites, internal material and existing literature were analysed. This case study is structured as follows: In paragraph 2, a brief description of the sport- ing goods industry as well as the company profiles of adidas and Reebok will be pre- Success of International M&As: The case of adidas’ acquisition of Reebok 2 sented. In paragraph 3, the findings of the interviews will be presented. Furthermore, a discussion of the findings will show some possible interpretations and implications for the success of the Reebok acquisition. Finally, in paragraph 4, a summary of the main findings and suggestions for future studies are provided. 2 Background: The sporting goods industry, the history of Reebok and the development of the adidas Group 2.1 The sporting goods industry The sporting goods industry is strongly affected by globalization and increasing compe- tition for the following main reasons: First, a continuous trend of concentration in the sporting goods industry can be observed (Handelsblatt 2005a), as several smaller M&A activities in the past two years have been undertaken (Hofer 2006b). Second, there is intense pressure on companies participating in this sector due to campaigns initiated by non-profit and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) or the Fair Labor Association (FLA) (Höfinghoff 2006; FTD 2006c). Third, the clothing industry is faced with problems associated with piracy, as imitations are found at fairs and on the market every year (Reppesgaard 2006). The sporting goods industry is dominated by three major players: Number one in the market – in terms of turnover – is Nike with an annual turnover of around € 11 bn (Han- delsblatt 2005c). Through the acquisition of Reebok, adidas Group became number two in the sporting goods market with an annual turnover of around € 9 bn (Handelsblatt 2005c). Puma is now number three in the market, with a remarkable gap between it and adidas, as its annual turnover is € 1.7 bn (Handelsblatt 2005c). The gap between adidas and Nike was reduced through the acquisition of Reebok: The revenue of Q1 2006 of adidas was € 2.5 bn, while Nike reached € 2.8 bn (Handelsblatt 2006b). The net profit of the new adidas Group in 2004 was € 450 million (Handelsblatt 2005c). However, in Q4 2005, a loss of € 4 million was recorded as a result of high marketing expenses and the costs associated with the Reebok acquisition (FTD 2006a). The sporting goods market segment is characterised by a high level of competition be- tween these rivals, especially in Europe and Japan, where Nike wants to expand its ef- forts (FTD 2006b). Particularly, “in Japan, Nike's business has suffered due to lower- Success of International M&As: The case of adidas’ acquisition of Reebok 3 price competition from Adidas and Asics, better product offering from Asics and the strong move to low-profile products” (Foster 2006). Therefore, Nike wants to aggres- sively get into this category of products (Foster 2006). Puma also has plans to expand into new business segments, such as swimwear in 2007 (Handelsblatt 2006a). Puma announced that it will enter in six new business segments from now until 2010 and it has already presented its own jeans collection as well as products for the golf and motor sports segments (Handelsblatt 2006a). Another example illustrating the high level of competition is the fight between some of adidas’ rivals and adidas in the matter of posi- tioning its three stripes as design elements on the clothes of athletes: Nike, Reebok and Puma criticised before the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that adidas has been allowed to place its three stripes noticeably on the athletes’ clothes, while its competi- tors only have the prescribed 20 square centimetres to position their logos (Handelsblatt 2005b). Later, the IOC stated that company logos – including the three stripes – must be replaced if they are bigger than the provided 20 square centimetres (Handelsblatt 2005b). Also in the 2006 Wimbledon tournament, adidas had to replace its stripes due to a complaint filed by Nike and Puma (Milne 2006). In addition to the high level of competition, there is also a trend towards concentration in the sporting goods industry. In the past two years, there have been several acquisi- tions: The Finnish Amer Group bought Salomon from adidas, the U.S. group Quicksil- ver bought the French winter sports company Rossignol and the U.S. company K2 ac- quired the Bavarian ski and snowboard brand Völkl (Hofer 2006b). 2.2 Past and recent situation of Reebok The history of Reebok starts much earlier than the one of adidas. Already in the 1890s, Reebok's ancestor company was founded in the United Kingdom by Joseph William Foster (adidas 2006b, p. 1). He was driven – similar to the founder of adidas – by a vi- sion derived from a need for innovation: “athletes wanted to run faster” (adidas 2006b, p. 1). So, by 1895, he “was in business making shoes by hand for top runners [and he developed] some of the first known running shoes with spikes in them” (adidas 2006b, p. 1). Several decades afterwards, in 1958, “two of the founder's grandsons started a companion company that came to be known as Reebok, named for an African gazelle” (adidas 2006b, p. 1). The fact that Reebok was a family-owned company constitutes a first historical analogy to adidas, as to be seen below. Success of International M&As: The case of adidas’ acquisition of Reebok 4 Reebok entered the North American market first in 1979, when Paul Fireman “negoti- ated for the North American distribution license and introduced three running shoes in the U.S.” (adidas 2006b, p. 1). Only two years later, in 1981, Reebok’s sales exceeded $ 1.5 million (adidas 2006b, p. 1). By introducing the first athletic shoe designed espe- cially for women (called the Freestyle™) in 1982, Reebok was able to anticipate three major trends that had a high impact on the athletic footwear industry, namely “the aero- bic exercise movement, the influx of women into sports and exercise and the acceptance of well-designed athletic footwear by adults for street and casual wear” (adidas 2006b, p. 1). The effects lead to extensive growth. Thus, Reebok introduced new product cate- gories and became an industry leader (adidas 2006b, p. 1). In 1985, Reebok completed its initial public offering (IPO) and made its first strategic acquisition only one year later, when The Rockport Company was bought (adidas 2006b, p. 1). A few years later, in the late 1980s, Reebok continued its aggressive ex- pansion and focused on overseas markets with the result that Reebok products can now be found in more than 170 countries (adidas 2006b, p.