croixed Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I was at Natural Sports in Kitchener on the weekend for their cent a yard for suffix line. While talking to the Suffix rep., he reminded me of how they are now part of the Rapala group. I believe Rapala owns Storm and Courtland as well. With the larger companies buying the smaller ones up: example Shimano purchasing G-loomis, Power Pro, or the pure fishing family, it makes me wonder. Is this good for the fishing industry, or will it come to the point where there are only 2-3 major players who will spend more time marketing than product research and development. Maybe it won't make any difference. Just wondering what everyones thoughts on the subject are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 It doesn't really matter to me. ... as long as they keep making the fishing lures I'm addicted to!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pike slayer Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 theres always gonna be some big large name brands that really advertise their product and are on everything then there will be smaller names that will stick around and always building a great product, nothing to be worrying about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Companies get too big and fat and the market eventually collapses around it. Can you say GMC or Genmar. For you older folks can you say MF or Eatons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izaakwalton Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 bigugli: I think that has less to do with company size and more to do with company mismanagement. Small companies go out of business every day with nary a peep, since the media has less reason to cover the story. Also, there are many large companies that do really well because they can leverage their size and scale - Walmart, Toyota, and Google being counter-examples. Overall, I think it's better to have Rapala own other brands. It allows them to decrease admin costs, get cost savings through scale, and distribute products more widely to the consumer. I don't think the R&D worry is much of a concern. The fishing industry seems a lot like the beer industry to me: it's much more about marketing than R&D. For most lure manufacturers, the split is probably 80%/20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLofchik Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Market share, Bean counting & amalgamations very rarely produce a superior product, in any market segment. "It's all about the product stupid" really needs to be tattooed on the foreheads of every company CEO. Whether it's Daimler-FIAT-Magna-Chrysler, Microsoft, or GLoomis. When the once all conquering multi-species Rapala Jointed Minnow started to be manufactured out of injected moulded plastic instead of balsa, because that will save $0.47 per unit dontcha know, it's not a great sign for the future of a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Mergers and amalgamations aren't necessarily always a bad thing. Often it means access to operating capital previously unavailable to the smaller companies for r&d, distribution cost reductions, economies of scale in production, etc. There can be lots of benefits, and a merger of several fishing gear companies in the big picture is still gonna be pretty small potatoes in the multinational conglomerate picture - GM it ain't gonna be. So I don't think any fear of outgrowing our love too soon is likely. The downside possibilities include some of the perceived benefits. 1. A dilution of the personal contact that we all love (warranty access for example) 2. Sharing of designs across brands (every company's minnow will look like a fake Rapala) 3. Outsourcing of production parts and finished goods to foreign soil (even more than already happens) 4. Often the originator took a whole bunch of pride in his brand new toy and it showed in the product we received. With the loss of the personal touch to the bean-counters and production analysts we are bound to be dissatisfied with the results, if only because we're conditioned to expect less from more. In any case there's no point bemoaning it. It's gonna happen whether we like it or not. Successful small companies are going to be gobbled up by the bigger ones to buy the credibility and image for themselves. And some smaller companies will be begging for the big buyout as it may be the only time they'll truly realize a profit from their investment of time, energy and invention. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camillj Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 MF ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 MF ? The old Massey Ferguson that went bankrupt after the government cut off the 15 year supply of subsidies. The brand name was kept alive by those who bought up the assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowPoke Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 The fishing industry like none other that come to mind can withstand the monopoly. We could all get off brand name goods and buy from local producers. I'm just not ready to give up my Shimano reels. Think for a moment how many people we know just on OFC that produce tackle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now