|
Unless one has access to the company's historical financial statements, the reason for the "failure" is neither simple nor obvious.
Under capitalization/resourcing (overhead) can kill a growth plan as easily as the opposite if market response and demand is overwhelming and the ability to deliver isn't. It can be good management to resource allocate to traditionally accepted norms for growth, even if unforeseeable market conditions develop and business "failure" occurs. The "right" plan can require more than organic capitalization. Non-organic capitalization comes with its own set of risks and complexities. If operating a business was easy, all would succeed and everyone would be doing it.
It is telling that on a Serotta-borne forum, there is seemingly a lack of allure and intrigue captivating the forum for the company's current products. Doesn't seem to be the case for historical products, which are coveted. Company's with "cult-like" followings tap into something - a "magic" - that must be perpetuated or the candle burns out. Effective marketing and market communications is critical to maintaining the relationship with the existing customer base that turns them into the evangelists who in turn keep the flame alive.
Bad management is not necessarily making mistakes, but not learning from mistakes. Some things can be anticipated and some things not. No one in business has a perfect track record.
Speculating without real correlative market/financial data makes for lively discussion, but is folly when it comes to Serotta's actual plan for moving the business forward (or not).
|