- Provide athletes with the best possible equipment to optimize their performance. - Market penetration, gain access to all markets in which they can compete. - Develop and expand into new markets and express interest in new consumer markets. - Lead the market in all regions they compete.
- Have the best innovation and design.
- Have stores run by under one name by retail partners. - Brand stores with sports organizations or other brands. - Create shareholder value.
Yes, the restructuring of Adidas had changed their corporate strategy. Prior to the acquiring and developing their three major brands Adidas was focusing on getting acquisitions. In theory the acquisitions would allow them to surpass Nike as the leader of the global sporting goods industry. They basically were just looking to buy out the competition and allow them to continue business under their name. However, their plan was short lived after they had realized the attractiveness and earnings of their company had declined and continued to decline until they restructured their business. Adidas’ basically cut or sold all the divisions that did not fit their main strategy which was shoes and sports apparel.
2. Does adidas’ business line-up exhibit good strategic fit? What value-chain match-ups exists? Prior to its divestiture, what kind of strategic fits existed between adidas’ core business and its Salomon business unit?
Yes, Adidas’ business line-up exhibits good strategic fit now. After being restructured it is apparent that they are focusing on the right methods for business success. Under the previous business strategy the fit was poor because the businesses were too different and with combined production they couldn’t make any gains. A key factor why it wasn’t a good fit was that management and...