Specialized cutting prices, 25% off Stumpjumper

[peanutgallery]

I've seen this story before, and you're correct...other companies are taking their concept and working with it

Best thing a dealer can do is to have the intestinal fortitude to give them the boot

Originally Posted by carlucci1106

Wow, that's quite the thread over there. And I thought we were getting feisty.

The sentiment by one Spesh dealer really echoes my sentiments... and I didn't even own the shop, but I watched multiple owners take it in the chin for years:

https://www.mtbr.com/threads/special...replies-header




This was exactly what my shop experienced from a loyalty timeline, and about 5 years ago everything started to change. Spesh is not a single actor working alone like the Big Bad Wolf, but they are a model for which other every company takes cues from. And those cues are, it's okay to tell the IBD (Independent bike dealer, as Spesh referred to us), that we matter, and we've been a team all along, and slash and burn those same dealers when the opportune time comes. And that time is where the direct model actually seems viable.

I underlined "manufacturer" in the quote because this is a misnomer. Specialized is a design firm, a marketing firm, an importer, a distributor, and a retailer. They are literally everything except a manufacturer.

[jonnyBgood]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Now I'm not going to say I'm the perfect representative consumer, but I will note that the bikes they have on sale have very little overlap with the bikes that I might personally be interested in. Maybe I could see myself getting a stumpjumper, but I would be much more interested in Crux, Epic, Chisel, Aethos, Fuse, Tarmac, Allez, and I don't see any of those on sale.

Mainly Hybrids, kids bikes, Rockhoppers as well as some Sumpjumper and Levo Stumjumpers... Road and Gravel bikes are not on sale as Specialized hardly has any actually in stock.

[Cantdog]

Echoing all the Specialized sucks as a company, bikes are too expensive anyway and 25% off isn’t enough…but those poo-pooing the SJ and SJevo are crazy. Currently own a SJ evo and hands down the most fun I’ve ever had on a mountain bike. No idea why you’d get an epic unless you raced XC at a high level or haven’t ridden a mtb in 20 years and think 130-160mm of travel is ‘too much’. Y’all are a weird bunch!

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Kyle h

I will say, shoes seem like an incredibly hard market to fill for shops. My wife wears 38s and I wear 42.5, went to the closest 3 LBS and found a grand total of 0 shoes of any brand in our sizes. Competitive cyclist just can’t be beat for shoes. We ordered probably 15 pairs to try on and then returned most of them, for free, back to CC.

Shoes(and helmets) are a tough one. All models, All sizes and multiples of the most popular sizes, plus maybe more than one brand.....makes for BIG $ in inventory. And then it all goes poof when the 'new models' come out and the LBS is faced with deep discounts(and losing $ on each pair).

BIG MO places, like CC, can warehouse a ton of shoes. $30MILLION is sales for 2022..helps.

[likebikes]

looks like the sale is over.

[72gmc]

They make good bikes, good accessories too IME ... I just don't agree with the philosophy towards using people that seems to be Sinyard's prime directive based on years and years of evidence.

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by Kyle h

I will say, shoes seem like an incredibly hard market to fill for shops. My wife wears 38s and I wear 42.5, went to the closest 3 LBS and found a grand total of 0 shoes of any brand in our sizes. Competitive cyclist just can’t be beat for shoes. We ordered probably 15 pairs to try on and then returned most of them, for free, back to CC.

And get this, because you ordered and returned so many pairs, Competitive Cyclist likely lost money when they sold you shoes.

I get that you are operating within the framework and bounds you’ve been presented, but free returns isn’t sustainable because of the behaviour above that it encourages.

[RoosterCogset]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

And get this, because you ordered and returned so many pairs, Competitive Cyclist likely lost money when they sold you shoes.

I get that you are operating within the framework and bounds you’ve been presented, but free returns isn’t sustainable because of the behaviour above that it encourages.

But it's absolutely necessary. Fine tuning the size and trying 15 different pairs to put on 2 pairs of feet, just to find the perfect fit is now a necessity. We know why now though why Costco stopped taking no-questions-asked returns on their TVs on the day after the superbowl.

[mjb266]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

And get this, because you ordered and returned so many pairs, Competitive Cyclist likely lost money when they sold you shoes.

Just cause it would cost us $15/pair to ship, don’t assume CC pays the same. I was amazed at how little large vendors pay to the likes of UPS & FedEx. If they got a good margin on 2 or 3 pair of shoes they didn’t lose money.

[HenryA]

That’s one of the most prickish good bye guys letters ever.

[tkbike]

Originally Posted by mjb266

Just cause it would cost us $15/pair to ship, don’t assume CC pays the same. I was amazed at how little large vendors pay to the likes of UPS & FedEx. If they got a good margin on 2 or 3 pair of shoes they didn’t lose money.

Do you know exactly what CC pays for shipping?

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by mjb266

Just cause it would cost us $15/pair to ship, don’t assume CC pays the same. I was amazed at how little large vendors pay to the likes of UPS & FedEx. If they got a good margin on 2 or 3 pair of shoes they didn’t lose money.

Originally Posted by tkbike

Do you know exactly what CC pays for shipping?

I work in retail/e-commerce. A huge talking point is how to reduce returns. On average they cost USD15 once you take into account shipping (both ways), verification of shipment, re-warehousing, etc.

That's an industry average and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more for shoebox sized items, keeping in mind that they are shipping it to your door and then footing the bill for shipping back to their warehouse.

Also keep in mind a lot of retailers are working on a net margin of 10% (we are not talking gross here, we are talking after all costs) so it doesn't take much to erode that completely - my point being if you are going through 10-15 pairs of shoes and only purchased one, you've most certainly sent a retailer well into the negative.

Long story short it's unsustainable and that's not point for debate, I know it, and exactly why retailers no longer trying to 'reduce friction' on returns like including return satchels etc.

Like I said, huge discussion point and challenge in the retail industry.

Originally Posted by RoosterCogset

But it's absolutely necessary. Fine tuning the size and trying 15 different pairs to put on 2 pairs of feet, just to find the perfect fit is now a necessity. We know why now though why Costco stopped taking no-questions-asked returns on their TVs on the day after the superbowl.

Keeping in mind everything I have said - I understand where you are coming from, but the problem is that the business you are purchasing from cannot afford to provide that service at the price you currently pay.

Where that lands - you may find that in future retailers are placing a dollar cost on making a "change of mind" return... whether that is simply having to cover the return leg shipping (and they cover the cost of re-warehousing) or there is an actual cost, I don't know.

[likebikes]

Originally Posted by HenryA

That’s one of the most prickish good bye guys letters ever.

which post was this directed at?

[carlucci1106]

Originally Posted by likebikes

which post was this directed at?

^^Looks like it belongs in the Machines for Freedom thread, but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter, they are getting bashed in every thread, for good reason.

I agree that the letter expressing sympathy for MFF was codified. I doubt they have any intention to do a whole lot of sizing for people with more body shape in the future. They bought her up, employed her, and then realized her business model didn't work for them.

Reminds me of all the brands Trek ate up, and quickly spat out in the 90s.

Seems like at the end of the day, it (the acquisition) was a way of showing that the company has a soul, and a culture of inclusion- until the culture of inclusion doesn't yield profit. Can't find bike shorts to fit?-- should have bought more from us.

I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and here's how it ties into this thread... Sinyard and people like him (and Erik, the owner of the chain of mostly Specialized product stores here in MN), are outliers in the industry. This is an industry with a lot of people who are so accustomed to not making a ton of money like other sectors, that they'd rather just have fun and make friends than be on a "growth trajectory." Sinyard and the small minority are extremely different. They like riding a bike, but it's not the satisfaction that comes from that that drives decision-making.

It's money. It is dominance. It is being the center of attention. It is like every other Fortune 500 company out there, that is devoid of "feelings" when they make business decisions. The letter is canned on purpose. The bad PR is going to hurt a little in the short term, but the company is going to make it through whatever storm comes. Any other professional CEO looking in is going to say all these decisions are handled deftly and professionally.

In the bike industry, we've grown to feel like a small family. Specialized is not shy about wanting to be separate and above this business liability. They are a business that exists to make money, whereas I think the greater context is industry-folk who answer to a philosophical/higher calling type of rubric for how they operate. It is what it is. In order to understand it, you must remove yourself from the "bicycle industry" norms, and look outside to Big Tech, banking, Wall St, or Amazon.

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by carlucci1106

^^Looks like it belongs in the Machines for Freedom thread, but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter, they are getting bashed in every thread, for good reason.

I agree that the letter expressing sympathy for MFF was codified. I doubt they have any intention to do a whole lot of sizing for people with more body shape in the future. They bought her up, employed her, and then realized her business model didn't work for them.

Reminds me of all the brands Trek ate up, and quickly spat out in the 90s.

Seems like at the end of the day, it (the acquisition) was a way of showing that the company has a soul, and a culture of inclusion- until the culture of inclusion doesn't yield profit. Can't find bike shorts to fit?-- should have bought more from us.

I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and here's how it ties into this thread... Sinyard and people like him (and Erik, the owner of the chain of mostly Specialized product stores here in MN), are outliers in the industry. This is an industry with a lot of people who are so accustomed to not making a ton of money like other sectors, that they'd rather just have fun and make friends than be on a "growth trajectory." Sinyard and the small minority are extremely different. They like riding a bike, but it's not the satisfaction that comes from that that drives decision-making.

It's money. It is dominance. It is being the center of attention. It is like every other Fortune 500 company out there, that is devoid of "feelings" when they make business decisions. The letter is canned on purpose. The bad PR is going to hurt a little in the short term, but the company is going to make it through whatever storm comes. Any other professional CEO looking in is going to say all these decisions are handled deftly and professionally.

In the bike industry, we've grown to feel like a small family. Specialized is not shy about wanting to be separate and above this business liability. They are a business that exists to make money, whereas I think the greater context is industry-folk who answer to a philosophical/higher calling type of rubric for how they operate. It is what it is. In order to understand it, you must remove yourself from the "bicycle industry" norms, and look outside to Big Tech, banking, Wall St, or Amazon.

I hear what you’re saying, but if we talk bike brands… Pon, Spec, Trek, Canyon, Giant, Merida are all run like a business (as opposed to a lifestyle choice), with the latter two being publicly traded which brings increased levels of scrutiny and expectation for professionalisation/profit.

And then there’s Pinarello, Bianchi and Colnago that are all now owned by private equity.

There aren’t too many names left that aren’t being run like a business by professionals.