Easton selling divisions, Bauer Performance Sports rumored to buy baseball/softball

[chippa13 1844]

Easton first made aluminum sticks for Christian until they decided to put their own name on them.

[shooter27 116]

No doubt branding is important, but it's importance is felt most when it's selling a commodity product - think Lee vs. Wrangler vs. Levi jeans. Very little differentiation there so they spend a lot to build a brand because that's the competitive battleground. Or the other approach is to add features that look like differentiation, but don't really change the performance of the products in attempt to make a brand appear to the consumer to be different. I would argue that hockey equipment, sticks specifically, are not commodities, but products with significant differentiation - different kick points, weights, grips, curves, etc. that all affect performance. That kind of differentiation makes a successful re-branding a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in the importance and value of brands in the marketplace, but I also think it can get over-valued as it relates to how it affects the business.

Would the Brand X V9E sell fewer sticks than the Easton V9E? Absolutely, but the questions is how many fewer. If the buyer won't be able to continue to hold the license from Bauer, that's the question they need to answer. My opinion is that in this case, if you pay the right price, you could survive that initial hit and build a successful company. However, I wouldn't buy Wrangler jeans without the ability to maintain the Wrangler brand name.

[walkerdb7 18]

Easton first made aluminum sticks for Christian until they decided to put their own name on them.

Exactly... Easton built their brand and outlasted Christian in the marketplace

[walkerdb7 18]

No doubt branding is important, but it's importance is felt most when it's selling a commodity product - think Lee vs. Wrangler vs. Levi jeans. Very little differentiation there so they spend a lot to build a brand because that's the competitive battleground. Or the other approach is to add features that look like differentiation, but don't really change the performance of the products in attempt to make a brand appear to the consumer to be different. I would argue that hockey equipment, sticks specifically, are not commodities, but products with significant differentiation - different kick points, weights, grips, curves, etc. that all affect performance. That kind of differentiation makes a successful re-branding a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in the importance and value of brands in the marketplace, but I also think it can get over-valued as it relates to how it affects the business.

Would the Brand X V9E sell fewer sticks than the Easton V9E? Absolutely, but the questions is how many fewer. If the buyer won't be able to continue to hold the license from Bauer, that's the question they need to answer. My opinion is that in this case, if you pay the right price, you could survive that initial hit and build a successful company. However, I wouldn't buy Wrangler jeans without the ability to maintain the Wrangler brand name.

Somewhat Agreed, but people committed to this forum are a minority in the marketplace and not a majority. We need to step outside our heads and purchasing experiences. Think about the average kid or beer leaguer...

How many people try on lots of skates v just going for whatever Bauer is new? If the name Easton disappears... They'll lose people in the shuffle. There's a reason Nike didn't have the balls to just nixt Bauer and rebrand everything Bauer made

Picky consumers will look at all options, educated consumers will transitions seemlessly to Brand X Stealth New Model Y, and average consumers will start buying Bauer because they don't see Easton sticks on the rack and Bauer is next on their list of trusted brands.

If building a brand was so easy just based on technology, why didn't TPS XN10 dominate? Why did it take Bauer so long to catch up to Easton in OPS sales volume? Why can't anyone catch Bauer in the skate field?

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

Exactly... Easton built their brand and outlasted Christian in the marketplace

That's not how that went down.

[walkerdb7 18]

It's an over simplification for sure... There's management decisions, market conditions, etc missing from the explanation... Considering it's over simplified, how is it so wrong?

Christian went from being a top brand in the 80s and early 90s to nearly non existent in the market place

Easton used the AL shafts to launch a full line equipment brand that once sponsored Wayne Gretzky

I'm sure it'd probably be an interesting case study to see how the two brands what were once intertwined ended up on such opposite ends of the equation

[fearthebeard 2]

I think some are looking at this from a purely hockey perspective.

EBS probably sell more motorcycle helmets in the world than hockey skates. Just as rivals Warrior probably sell more Liverpool Football Club jerseys around the world than they do hockey gloves. Sports manufacturing is all about market spread these days and Easton's owners probably realised that They were not big enough in enough different sports to survive and so are strategically selling off the business in the most efficient way.

Easton Hockey has always been technically innovative which probably means the real money in the business is most likely in the technical patents and not the brand names. BPS are obviously looking to widen their sporting portfolio. That is why they are wanting into other North American sports markets and to do that they needed the Easton Baseball/Softball Brand.

This was a cash deal and worked out to about three years worth of BPS's profit they may simply not have had enough cash/loans to buy the hockey patents? They may not want them but I suspect if they could have bought them they would have.

As for EBS's hockey patents? Perhaps the likes of Adidas could pick them up which would allow their CCM division to offer a Mako technology based skate. As I understand it from the time Ovechkin left CCM stick performance was an issue, buying Easton's stick tech patents could be a cost effective solution. Or perhaps another sports brand such as Puma could come in for it all. Puma could possibly do well in Northern Europe with a hockey line up? Their parent is the French company Kerring who also own Gucci, maybe we could see Gucci hockey equipment It would certainly sell well in Russia!

Anyway I don't see BPS licencing the Easton brand to others for hockey purposes but then I don't see there being a need to as whomever buys Easton Hockey's tech patents will likely be looking to use their own brands which sadly will see Easton Hockey die.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

It's an over simplification for sure... There's management decisions, market conditions, etc missing from the explanation... Considering it's over simplified, how is it so wrong?

You left out theft.

I think some are looking at this from a purely hockey perspective.

EBS probably sell more motorcycle helmets in the world than hockey skates. Just as rivals Warrior probably sell more Liverpool Football Club jerseys around the world than they do hockey gloves. Sports manufacturing is all about market spread these days and Easton's owners probably realised that They were not big enough in enough different sports to survive and so are strategically selling off the business in the most efficient way.

Easton Hockey has always been technically innovative which probably means the real money in the business is most likely in the technical patents and not the brand names. BPS are obviously looking to widen their sporting portfolio. That is why they are wanting into other North American sports markets and to do that they needed the Easton Baseball/Softball Brand.

This was a cash deal and worked out to about three years worth of BPS's profit they may simply not have had enough cash/loans to buy the hockey patents? They may not want them but I suspect if they could have bought them they would have.

As for EBS's hockey patents? Perhaps the likes of Adidas could pick them up which would allow their CCM division to offer a Mako technology based skate. As I understand it from the time Ovechkin left CCM stick performance was an issue, buying Easton's stick tech patents could be a cost effective solution. Or perhaps another sports brand such as Puma could come in for it all. Puma could possibly do well in Northern Europe with a hockey line up? Their parent is the French company Kerring who also own Gucci, maybe we could see Gucci hockey equipment It would certainly sell well in Russia!

Anyway I don't see BPS licencing the Easton brand to others for hockey purposes but then I don't see there being a need to as whomever buys Easton Hockey's tech patents will likely be looking to use their own brands which sadly will see Easton Hockey die.

No, BPS was offered the hockey division, as was Warrior/NB. Both didn't want it.

If it were so valuable, why would both turn it down?

[ridindirty 11]

No doubt branding is important, but it's importance is felt most when it's selling a commodity product - think Lee vs. Wrangler vs. Levi jeans. Very little differentiation there so they spend a lot to build a brand because that's the competitive battleground. Or the other approach is to add features that look like differentiation, but don't really change the performance of the products in attempt to make a brand appear to the consumer to be different. I would argue that hockey equipment, sticks specifically, are not commodities, but products with significant differentiation - different kick points, weights, grips, curves, etc. that all affect performance. That kind of differentiation makes a successful re-branding a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in the importance and value of brands in the marketplace, but I also think it can get over-valued as it relates to how it affects the business.

Would the Brand X V9E sell fewer sticks than the Easton V9E? Absolutely, but the questions is how many fewer. If the buyer won't be able to continue to hold the license from Bauer, that's the question they need to answer. My opinion is that in this case, if you pay the right price, you could survive that initial hit and build a successful company. However, I wouldn't buy Wrangler jeans without the ability to maintain the Wrangler brand name.

If I can play devil's advocate, I don't see how you can differentiate so much between sticks and jeans. First off, from a commodity comparison: Every hockey player needs a stick, not every person wears jeans. But to my point... How is choosing being the cut of the jeans, quality of the denim, quality of the buttons, color, fade, etc any different than choosing between type of grip, flex point, graphics, etc? In fact, I'd argue the majority of hockey players (aka not people on this board) have less of an opportunity to try a stick on the ice before they buy and take into consideration factors other than name brand when directly comparing sticks than the opportunity that purchasers of jeans have to try on jeans for fit and take other factors into consideration before making a decision.

Maybe it's just that the comparison is not apt, as I understand your point. I just don't necessarily agree with it.

[walkerdb7 18]

You left out theft.

No, BPS was offered the hockey division, as was Warrior/NB. Both didn't want it.

If it were so valuable, why would both turn it down?

I understand Bauer passing them up, but I am surprised about Warrior. Even if they had to re brand everything Warrior and couldn't use the name "Synergy" or "Stealth" on anything, it'd give them skates and more popular buckets. It would also greatly increase their endorsement stable and visibility in the NHL.

JR - Do you know why they passed it up? Selling price is unrealistic or something?

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

If the product was so strong, they wouldn't be selling the division. They were not dealing from a position of strength here.

One can argue Warrior's endorsers are stronger than Easton's. They pulled names off their sticks...

[chippa13 1844]

Judging by the number of former Easton guys who are now in Warrior helmets, I'd say Warrior wouldn't have much interest.

[jsykes 35]

If the product was so strong, they wouldn't be selling the division. They were not dealing from a position of strength here.

One can argue Warrior's endorsers are stronger than Easton's. They pulled names off their sticks...

If the baseball business is so strong, why are they selling it? And if its not strong, why is BPS buying it.

I think all things about these sales are about more than just what is strong and what isnt. I think that Easton Bell Sports needed to liquidate several things because they were in trouble as a parent company, probably due to the uncertainty in the NFL in regards to lawsuits involving Riddell helmets.

There are a lot of reasons that BPS or Warrior declined Easton Hockey, it doesnt man that its not a strong brand. The only reason that BPS or Warrior would want them would be to kill them off or if there was a really strong patent or technology that they wanted, you're not going to take a strong brand and continue to develop it and make it compete against yourself.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just saying that there are likely a lot of details behind this entire thing that we're not privy to and there could be any number of reasons that what is happening is happening.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

Because Easton Baseball is a stronger name/line than Combat, or in NB's case, nothing.

You are right - EBS had to liquidate. But the companies buying had the ability to pick and choose what they wanted. And in hockey's case, there's nothing that either one of those companies really needed.

In Mission/Itech's case, Bauer needed roller from Mission and facial/jock/goal from Itech.

In Cascade, they needed lacrosse. But the helmet was doing well, and instead of mothballing it, they improved it and incorporated it into the lineup.

Bauer's set in hockey; they needed to build the rest of the company up.

[AIREAYE 248]

Not sure if I'm wording this right, but would Easton baseball 'replace' Combat in the baseball/softball side of the company? Or more of an addition?

[AIREAYE 248]

So they would run two brands in that sport?

[jsykes 35]

Because Easton Baseball is a stronger name/line than Combat, or in NB's case, nothing.

You are right - EBS had to liquidate. But the companies buying had the ability to pick and choose what they wanted. And in hockey's case, there's nothing that either one of those companies really needed.

In Mission/Itech's case, Bauer needed roller from Mission and facial/jock/goal from Itech.

In Cascade, they needed lacrosse. But the helmet was doing well, and instead of mothballing it, they improved it and incorporated it into the lineup.

Bauer's set in hockey; they needed to build the rest of the company up.

Right. I guess I thought a lot of what was being said here made it sound like Easton Hockey was in such bad shape and such a bad investment that neither Warrior or BPS wanted it.

I think the lack of interest from Warrior and Bauer is more about them not needing anything from Easton, as you stated, rather than Easton being in really bad shape.

[Chadd 916]

Right. I guess I thought a lot of what was being said here made it sound like Easton Hockey was in such bad shape and such a bad investment that neither Warrior or BPS wanted it.

I think the lack of interest from Warrior and Bauer is more about them not needing anything from Easton, as you stated, rather than Easton being in really bad shape.

Bauer has nothing to gain from adding Easton hockey and plenty to lose if it were to gain attention from regulators. With Warrior, it was likely not worth the cost. The biggest selling points for Easton are the brand and model names. Since those are usually shared among the sports, it's unlikely that those would be made available (long term) to anyone purchasing the hockey brand. I'm sure there is a price at which they would have taken everything, EBS was simply not willing to sell at that price.

[mojo122 529]

I think the lack of interest from Warrior and Bauer is more about them not needing anything from Easton, as you stated, rather than Easton being in really bad shape.

Warrior could use a skate offering if they want head to toe hockey product. Maybe they are looking at alternatives, or maybe they have decided they do not want to get into the skate side of things?

[walkerdb7 18]

http://www.thedeal.com/content/consumer-retail/robust-auction-not-expected-for-easton-hockey-unit.php

Jarden Brands kinda sorta relevant to hockey:

Lax: Gait and DeBeers

Snowboard/Ski: 51/50, Ride, Full Titlt, Marrow, Madshus, Marmot, Marker, Voikl, Line, and K2

Baseball/Softball: Rawlings, Miken and Worth

I have to guess that Bauer outbid them for Baseball? I would think Easton has a whole fits Jarden better than Easton hockey only

[hellaavangard 33]

Archery was broken off years ago and is run by Easton Technical Products.

Big Bang Distribution runs AHEAD and sells their drumsticks to retailers in US, Canada, and Mexico.

Easton Bell Sports is now Easton Hockey (name via license), Easton Cycling (name via license), Bell Helmets, Giro Helmets, Blackburn Design.

They make very excellent drum/cymbal/stick/hardware cases

[walkerdb7 18]

Who owns Easton hockey now?

[chippa13 1844]

Google search says a private equity firm, Chartwell.

[walkerdb7 18]

for the record, I tried google and all I found was sale pending. . . thanks for being better at google than I am!

[leftwinger37 43]

Who owns Easton hockey now?

http://youtu.be/x5Xp9hvTvPk

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Carry on....