Serratus RIP

[fishstick]

A glove in an insulated mitt isn't a bad idea. It behaves much like an overbag in a sleeping bag system, where the outer insulated piece draws moisture out of the inner. I've tried it, but didn't have the perfect, matched system. You need an oversized mitt that's somewhat useless when used on its own. Personally I'm not sure I would use wool for the innner however.

 

 

 

One of my favorite climbing gloves (now worn out) was a fully sealed glove shell, with a very light fuzzy backer laminated to the inside. They were fit to be worn without a liner (really small). They were waterproof (as waterproof as a climbing glove can be), offered superb gripping power (due to the lack of bulk), and warmed up VERY fast due to the lack of internal material that could freeze during belays. OR made them, but they've long since vanished.

 

A real problem with membraned liners is that they take FOREVER to dry, even in a motel with the heater on high while the users are re-hydrating down the street. In a perfect world you need at least two pairs of liners (motel based) and non-membraned systems for multiday (tent based).

 

Somewhere up there folks were lamenting the demise of Serratus though...

 

GB

[PaulB]

which generation of mixed masters do you own (membrane on shell or membrane on liner?

I have both. I found the "membrane on liner" version to be more dextrous, but after 4 years of climbing and skiing they failed, as Dru described, with the thumbs coming apart.

[stinkyclimber]

Somewhere up there folks were lamenting the demise of Serratus though...

GB

You are right, Gord. But speaking for me, personally, the information you have shared has reassured me hugely. Thanks for that, and thanks for doing a great job at helping MEC stay focused on its "core" users.

[Don_Serl]

....helping MEC stay focused on its "core" users.

 

that'd be SOOOOO funny if it wasn't tragic. have you SEEN the new catalog? flip it open to page 93, and think carefully about where MEC is 'at'.

 

there are things you carry if you're a serious shop, and there are things you do NOT! and the HATCHET falls into the latter camp. it's not just that a hatchket is a fzcking useless tool (compared to an axe, which at least does the job it's designed for); it's that this device has NO place in a store that claims to be serving self-propelled wilderness oriented outdoor recreationists.

 

doesn't anybody in authority in that organization GET IT? you define yourself more by choosing what NOT to carry than by what to include. if you sell stuff that brainless car-campers want, you'll end up with a membership composed of brainless car-campers.

 

to tell the truth, that's the most likely agenda for MEC. for quite a few years, much of senior management has looked to the Forzani/Coast Mountain model as the biggest "competitor" to the co-op. true, Coast Mtn sells lots of outdoor "stuff", but it's just that - stuff! the "choosing" at Coast, such as it is, revolves around what'll sell, and what'll generate the most margin, and which supplier provides the biggest support budget, with nearly complete ignorance of what's appropriate for the job, and what works best.

 

once upon a time, buyers and managers at MEC applied function-first standards. MEC had a reputation for carrying stuff that WORKED, and for avoiding stuff that was borderline applicable for "the mission". the staff and/or buyers were harsh in their criticism of poorly functioning products, and those that DID manage somehow to slip thru the gauntlet "died a death" in the stores because the staff were down on them.

 

now, it seems to be "sell, sell, sell". the co-op pays attention to the sales of outdoor equipment and clothing at Canadian Tire, fer chrissakes. as they should, because the MEC organization is addicted to growth - and i mean that seriously - there will holy hell to pay when the sales plateau out - 60-some-odd people lost their jobs 2 years ago because the board and senior management didn't have the courage and understanding to MAKE MEC something. they couldn't see beyond just plain growth. they weren't brave enough to tell the membership that doing great things costs money, and that being great requires making choices, not just caving in to the pressure of "the mob". you don't cut your way to greatness!

 

my prediction 2 years ago was that MEC would go on to be huge, financially viable... and increasingly irrelevant. the equipment will be fine for a very long time, but you can expect the functional outdoor clothing to start to deteriorate - the current clothing design staff simply aren't active in "real world" backcountry activities, so they understandably don't know how to solve the problems, no matter how good their other design-related skills are. already, you can see some of the issues - Ferrata Pants that are "styled" rather than designed is a "favorite" of mine.

 

say goodbye to your old co-op, boys and girls. it has succumbed to the cancer of uncontrollable growth and the mantra of "low prices". all in a pleasant, inclusive, caring, socially and environmentally conscious way, of course - but hopelessly perverted, all the same.

 

the REAL tragedy is that lots of good people (two of whom are posting on this topic on the thread) will continue to drive themselves WAYYYY beyond the call of duty in an attempt to alter this outcome. without the board and senior management knowing the difference between "big" and "meaningful", they haven't a hope - i should know; i put in 25 years there, the last half-dozen years of which as the prime motivator in exactly this futile quest.

 

a hatchet...

who'd have thought...

[JayB]

RIP MEC. Sounds like the REI story on fast-forward.

 

It amazes me that the folks at the top would alienate and drive away the personnel that constituted their prime asset. Replacing the likes of Don Serl with a bunch of topropers, dayhikers, and car-campers...

Edited March 22, 2005 by JayB

[JayB]

CBS put it pretty well in another thread:

 

"REI relies on it's climbers cachet to get non-climbers in the door to bask in the aura of adventure. City folk who don't enjoy outdoor activities still like to project that image to their urban friends. The store needs to maintain some degree of support for climbers or they risk losing the only thing that distinguishes it from other retailers. It's like a balancing act. You definitely make more money from the non climbing goods, but you have to keep that image to get people in the store."

[Klimbrrr]

Hey MEC guy. Can you tell me why a self propelled wilderness adventurer needs a $23.00 set of birch/s.s./brass collapsible chopsticks? And a 200 g coffee grinder and a hand cranked blender (no weight given - I wonder why)?

[stinkyclimber]

I agree with all you wrote, Don. Pretty much the conversation I was having with the CEO, whatshisname, and the letter I wrote to the Chair. I do appreciate Gord's and other's continued efforts at keeping a focus on non-hatchet-worthy activities, but I do agree that Gord and others can work their asses off to maintain some congruency with MEC's mission, but if senior management, the Board and the formless mass of members think and do otherwise, there is little hope.

 

But it is not a forgone outcome. I'd say again to everyone:

- communicate your concerns to the Board and the CEO;

- VOTE in Board elections (less than 5% of members do), and vote for people who look like they actually participate in self-propelled wildnerness activities

- consider running for the Board yourself;

- thank and encourage staff like Gord.

(i.e. whining on this bbs about chopsticks won't do it...although I laughed when I first saw that shit in the catalogue too)

 

PS - thanks to you, Don, for fighting the good fight all those years from the inside. Have you ever thought of running for the Board?...you know, forget about toiling under The Man, and actually become The Man! I'd vote for you, as would all owners of your Wadd and Coast Ice guides...which is probably more than all who voted in the Board elections last year!

[tomtom]

Don. Have you ever thought of running for the Board?

Not a bad idea.

[gourd]

Some clarification on the Teenie Genie..... (& Genie)

 

Actually, the Teenie Geenie was created about four years ago when Tracy (the former pack sample-maker at MEC) scaled down the Serratus Genie as a gift for a little kid. It was so damn cute that we stuck a bunch of Scotchlite on it and started selling 'em as a kids day-pack under the MEC brand (the Teenie-Genie name just stuck). The pack was simple and stuffed away just like the big 'un. Fast forward a few years.... a contract designer made a new kids pack for MEC and the "Teenie-Genie" name got recycled for that (the current) pack. No logical or otherwise connection to the "Genie" namesake(pack appears out of it's own lid...get it???). Anyway, that's where it's at... There will be a new real "Genie" as an MEC pack - maybe called "Apline 30" or some such. Should show up at MEC in the fall - there are still lots of Serratus Genies to be had, just not listed in the catalogue as an atempt at good taste...

 

Gourd

[gourd]

How-do,

 

The Sil/PU-nylon question has lingered for quite while. I could use some feedback from folks who have owned these tents and used them long-term in really shitty conditions. We rejected this fabric for MEC tents many years ago (it's not new by any means) as it has waterproofness way below our minimum standards. Also, being nylon, it droops a lot when wet (and shrinks enough when drying in the sun to actually pull tent pegs out of the ground) and needs adjustment buckles on the fly. There have been a number of Euro-tents done done in a different Sil-nylon (without PU on the back) that's pretty good and I use an even better version of that on our silicone tarps, but it doesn't pass fire-standards for use on tents in Canada/USA. The 50 denier version of the Sil/PU-Nylon actually weighs more than our current 75d poly. We have been field testing the Sil/PU-nylon for a couple of years and are considering using the 30d Sil-Nylon in the future as there is big demand for it despite the drawbacks, so I'd love to hear comments. It would be from the same suppliers as everyone else's fabric, so comments on any tent would be great. We have been working on a non-nylon version for a few years, but no luck so far on that project.

 

Gourd

 

PS I'll vote for Don.

[gourd]

Can't help you with the chopsticks or blender, but as for the coffee grinder, have youe ever tried to lug a Mazzer Mini and Honda generator up a friggin' mountain???

http://www.illyusa.com/AB1666000store/mazzer.cfm

 

Gourd

[Don_Serl]

There will be a new real "Genie" as an MEC pack - maybe called "Alpine 30" or some such. Should show up at MEC in the fall

 

 

tks for the update gord, and tks for continuing to produce "real" stuff. one only has to read your post about the siltarp issue to be confronted with yet another problem with the new "low-cost" MEC - lack of information. MEC has never been good at "merchandising", but at least in days of yore the catalogs contained a fair amount of background "educational" material, accompanied by relatively thorough, unbiased, balanced presentations of the products on offer.

 

every product out there has its positive attributes, and its limitations. no product is ever "perfect" (and the growing use in MEC's catalog of this meaningless attempt to say something good while conveying no information whatsoever is at LEAST as telling as the appearance of a hatchet in the mix!)

 

the key in a REAL member-driven organization would be to:

a) provide the members with the information and context with which to make a decision,

b) describe the various products within those contexts, then

c) stand back and let the member choose.

 

in the real world, a surprisingly large majority of customers are incapable of making their own decisions totally independently, so one needs to guide the choices, but the point is that if you've done your job right in selecting/designing/merchandising the goods, there is no need for the organization to be "active" in "pushing" one choice or another. if the member genuinely wants product A, they purchase it; if B suits their needs (and budget) better, they purchase the other; etc. MEC benefits in either case, the cutomers are happy with their choices, and the loyalty is intense.

 

however, the vast majority of outdoor users are pretty mass-market, undifferentiated, undiscerning, and undemanding. for them, "anything works". and because of the demographic (and sales) weight represented by this mass market, the nearly irresistible pull it to go down-market, with the goods, with the info, with the service, and with the respect for the customer's intelligence.

 

don't get me wrong - these people have needs, and it's vitally important to cater to them. BUT:

1) they are often "members-of-convenience", who only join to enable them to buy a few things, and who have no interest in nor commitemnt to the co-op and its principles,

2) they care only about colour, size, style, and price. technicality is ignored, or even viewed as confusing. as a result:

3) technicality and functionality (and the explanation thereof) gets degraded in the line in general, which "costs" those to whom it IS important.

 

in days of yore MEC in general provided better goods than required by most customers. they got exceedingly fine quality for very modest prices, while the "real" users got what they needed. the higher-than-they could-be prices undoubtedly restricted growth, but in compensation the organization gained members who knew what they wanted, and who CHOSE MEC.

 

the push now is to be cheaper, and there is no free lunch - stuff costs less because you choose less expensive materials (usually with somewhat poorer qualities); and/or you sacrifice some level of functional refinement to simplfy the design; and/or you "push" your factories a bit harder (which just makes it harder for little old Chinese ladies to make a decent wage); and/or you cut back on staff, on training, on signage, on the catalog, on the website - on all the things that allow you to transmit knowledge to your potential customers.

 

call me elitist, but i reckon the former system was the one that worked best for the long-term benefit of both the members and the organization. there is little loyalty when there is little understanding. as a result, MEC is caught in a terrible never-ending process of trying to attract new members, feverishly chasing their new dollars - but not committed to any of the processes that would KEEP those members, aside from "surface" and/or "ancillary" issues. Pleasant stores and ethical sourcing are important, but they are neither WHY people shop, nor WHAT they buy!

 

the current board and senior management at MEC believe that the goods provided by the organization need to be cheaper, and are acting upon those beliefs. meanwhile, they pay no heed to the efforts required (and costs involved) to MAKE things less expensive. yes, you can source offshore and reduce retail prices considerably, but that does not come for free - people have to travel to inspect factories and goods in construction, etc, etc, and the irony is that if you put out the effort to bring a product in at $80 which used to be $100, you suddenly have fewer dollars available to the organization to source/merchandise/sell these goods.

 

the solution is simple: you raise the MARGIN (i.e., the proportion of the retail price in excess of the cost of the goods) to cover those increased internal costs, while simultaneously lowering the retail price. the members get cheaper goods, the organization thrives.

 

do you think the board understands such a basic financial principle? NO WAY! they focus, with absurd single-mindedness, on reducing the margin. this has been the situation at the board level in the co-op forever, and i have no hope of it changing anytime soon. the people who run for and get elected to the board are those who "believe" in the co-op. those who have some business acumen probably see the problems clearly enough to not want to have anything to do with them.

 

now let me be a bit radical: businesses exist to add costs to things! of course, in the process of taking a pile of inexpensive nylon (which is of no use whatsoever to most people) and turning it into a pack or jacket, you want to be as efficient as possible and to add as little cost as you can, but "value added" is not just an empty phrase, it's the very "meat" of economic existence.

 

if the "rulers" of MEC will not require the members to pay to bring on staff high quality apparel designers, the functionality of the clothing will decrease. if they will not pay to provide excellent, thorough, balanced product information, buyers will choose in ignorance, and price, style, and colour will be the defining characteristics from which to choose - and it's a BUSY marketplace out there, very busy! if the powers that be consider only lower margin, and not value-to-market, the slide of MEC into the turf (and cluthes, i daresay) of Canadian Tire and Coast Mountain will continue apace. both those companies are VERY good at what they do - only a management team bereft of ideas for alternatives (and/or ignorant of the risks) would "go that way".

 

anybody out there ever read "Built to Last"? you might not agree with every one of the choices, but the theme is impelling, and i believe, correct. long-term successful companies CHOOSE what they are going to be, which products and services they will bring to market (and which they will bypass), who they are going top serve, and (vitally) who they are NOT going to serve, and then get with doing what they've chosen. they are VERY rigid in enforcing this choice, with staff, with services, with products, and with "the message".

 

MEC has never made a choice of this sort. it has drifted for over 30 years, mostly successfully, but always "at risk". there are advantages: flexibility, adapatability, and popularity are generally good things. but there are costs and risks too, most seriously the disappearance of the core reasons why people joined and shopped in the first place, i.e., fine, functional gear and accompanying respect-based information at reasonable (not lowest!) prices.

 

actually, i probably am incorrect when i say MEC has never made a choice. over the past 2 or 3 years, the choice has been to focus on lower prices. i believe that choice is wrong-headed, and that MEC and its members will suffer as a result. stay tuned...

 

as for running for the board, thanks, but no thanks. the products and the "business" of MEC are what matter to me; the "religion" of MEC is what has mattered most to virtually all board members over the past 20 years. don't these people realize there is a $200 million dollar business to run when they submit their applications? are they so blind (or egotistical, or unbalanced) to think that just ANYBODY can do that? well-meaning they are, to a fault, but that doesn't go far when the real world intrudes. i can't see myself enjoying that sort of company, much less remaining civil, and i've had quite enough frustration for this lifetime.

 

sorry about the long-windedness. i try to avoid getting into "the co-op", but something triggered me here...

 

final word: it ain't all bad. there are still a raft of very fine products, a bunch of good people, and some killer deals. that will erode, but a huge amount of "good" will remain. the shame, and source of my frustration, is that it could have been so much better an outcome.

 

cheers,

[tomtom]

Don, You should reconsider running for the board. There you would have a stronger influence on the products and the "business" of MEC.

 

We don't need another REI.

[stinkyclimber]

as for running for the board, thanks, but no thanks. the products and the "business" of MEC are what matter to me; the "religion" of MEC is what has mattered most to virtually all board members over the past 20 years. don't these people realize there is a $200 million dollar business to run when they submit their applications? are they so blind (or egotistical, or unbalanced) to think that just ANYBODY can do that? well-meaning they are, to a fault, but that doesn't go far when the real world intrudes. i can't see myself enjoying that sort of company, much less remaining civil, and i've had quite enough frustration for this lifetime.

I dunno, Don....your "long-winded" post seems a very concise, extremely well informed and argued (not to mention empassioned!) rationale for getting you onto to the Board!

 

Look at Jean Charest - he didn't want to move out of federal PC party to take up the fight for the provincial Liberal party (you think the MEC Board is "unbalanced and egotistical"...imagine Quebec politics!), but the public virtually demanded it of him as the man to save Canada from within Quebec.

 

Maybe YOU are the man to save MEC?! Perhaps a national campaign is needed to conscript Don into running as a candidate!?

 

So far, you have votes from gourd, Tomtom and me. Who else?

[dbb]

Don, very insightful and informative. Thanks for posting. That is the beauty of this public forum.

 

One question, though this may be naive. How does one increase the MARGIN and decrease the retail price without investing the time and $$ to produce goods at a lower cost?

 

I guess one alternative to outsourcing I see is: local feedback that leads to better and more targeted products that people will actually buy. I guess this assumes that your company's true margin is the collention of items, where each's contribution is weighted dependant on how popular an item is (sales) and what that particular items margin is.

[stinkyclimber]

One question, though this may be naive. How does one increase the MARGIN and decrease the retail price without investing the time and $$ to produce goods at a lower cost?

I am sure Don will respond, but my reading of his post is that MEC should focus on producing high-quality goods INSTEAD OF lowest-price goods...and that means you increase the margin to pay for the R&D needed for high-quality. So, the gear will cost a little more, but it will be better value. Good value versus lowest price. But you can't have both cheap and good.

[Stemalot]

Good value versus lowest price. But you can't have both cheap and good.

 

Dead bird is the perfect example...

[Don_Serl]

One question, though this may be naive. How does one increase the MARGIN and decrease the retail price without investing the time and $$ to produce goods at a lower cost?

 

 

naitivity is no crime - remaining ignorant by not asking questions IS. most board members at MEC don't understand the issue either, but that hasn't stopped most of them from acting on their mistaken assumptions again and again over the past two decades.

 

the short answer to your question is "one doesn't". in other words, in order to change "the system" so as to allow one to lower the retail price, one MUST absorb higher costs, cost which otherwise are carried by some other organization, some other part of the product delivery supply chain.

 

i'll explain by describing (in rough figures) what i went thru as sleeping bag designer/buyer 20 years ago. we carried synthetic bags made by a canadian factory, but deliveries were consistently late, the quality was only moderately good, getting "fill" (in season) orders was pretty much impossible (cuz we were a huge proportion of their production), and the prices (while acceptable) were not cheap. we changed all that by getting into business with a supplier from Hong Kong.

 

we had been buying our Nighthawk bags at about $90 cost, and retailing them at $120 (33% markup over cost [$30 "up" from $90], or 25% margin - the proportion of the final retail price which exceeds cost [$30 as a proportion of $120]). in the new arrangement, we landed the bags (duty and ocean transportation paid) for about $60 and retailed them for $100. the markup increased to 67% [$40 markup vs $60 cost]; the margin increased to 40% [as a proportion of $100...]. the co-op increased its income per bag, and the members decreased their expenditure per bag. as well, the sewing quality of the bags increased dramatically, shipments were generally on time, and re-orders were easy cuz we were only a few percnet of the business in a very large factory. it might come as no surprise that thru taking these actions sales of synthetic sleeping bags at MEC increased 5 fold over 3 years! and to do so i had to directly contravene instructions from the board - i had to purposefully RAISE the margin.

 

so the key question is: why was it necessary to raise the margin? why not just continue to mark the bags up 25% and pass all the "benefit" along to the members. well, quite simply, one commits to considerable costs to change the sourcing "structure". and unless those cost are covered, you lose money and eventually go out of business.

 

1. products do not come into being out of empty space, and design cost money. as does researching and evaluating potential fabrics and other materials, field-testing possibilities, etc, etc. most companies to which design is important will spend several percent of their total revenues on R&D. MEC, which sells something in the general area of half its goods based upon MEC in-house designs and carrying the MEC label (i.e. roughly $100 million dollars), spends less than half a percent on R&D. shocking!!!

 

2. someone has to dig up the factories, visit them to insure that they are capable of building the required goods, that they are a good business fit, that their employees are well treated, etc etc; and someone has to visit from time to time to insure that production is running smoothly, and that goods are "on spec" - even the best factories can screw up if they are not given appropriate guidance. this also costs money, altho generally you can do a very good job for 1/2% of sales, which is about where MEC lies.

 

3. you pay for offshore goods by L/C (letter of credit), which means the money goes to the seller when delivery is made. in fact, you need a line of credit available to cover upcoming L/C's as soon as the goods are ordered and the L/C pened, long before they are built, much less shipped. because of shipping times from the orient, this means you pay for the goods a month or two (sometimes more) before they are received. contrast that with buying from a local distributor, whom you pay 30, 45, 60, or even more days AFTER the goods are in your hands. in one case, you pay bank charges; in the other, the supplier "carries" you while you sell the goods.

MEC used to run with accounts payable at or over 50% of total inventory cost (i.e., about half of the on-hand inventory was not yet paid for); more recently that figure is more like 20%. with $60-$80 million dollars worth of inventory on hand at all times, that implies carrying an extra $20-$30 million of debt for an additional 2 to 4 months. money is not free, and the net result is an additional cost of maybe 1%-2% of sales.

 

4. the retail price drops, but the effort required to sell the goods (in a properly informative manner) does not. so, whereas selling 1000 $120 sleeping bags generates $30,000 to cover the various "costs of doing business", reducing the cost to $60 (as in the previous scenario) and leaving the markup at 25% generates only $15,000. true, some costs are independent of volume, but many are pretty strongly "sales-linked", and extra money per item needs to be "captured" or you'll go out of business selling cheap! about half of MEC's cost of doing business is salaries (i.e., very roughly 15%, of 30% total), and about half of that total salary bill lies in the stores. if you double the number of ITEMS you sell (for WHATEVER price), you're gonna have to add at least 50% to your staffing costs, not matter HOW much more "efficient" you think you can be.

in fact, the lesson of history to be learned from MEC is that bigger not only does not equal more efficient, exactly the opposite is true. bigger organizations are more complex, and coping with complexity is amazingly difficult, and surprisingly expensive. size does bring benefits (mainly the ability to do things that you couldn't do when you were smaller), but it's a lie to say you can do them more cheaply. ignoring the early days, as MEC grew from $20m to $200m, the costs of "coping" with those complexities added perhaps as much as 5% to the fundamental, non-discretionary cost of doing business.

 

5. offshore business is much more complicated than domestic; again, more complexity equals more cost. moving from sourcing the vast majority of goods within canada to bringing in maybe a third of the stock from offshore porbably has increased the cost fo doing business another percent or two.

 

6. doing your own thing means you get exactly what you want, BUT you accept ALL of the risk (and mistakes DO get made). MEC used to pride itself on NEVER having sales. these days, millions of dollars worth of merchandise are discounted at the end of each season. much as you try to minimize this, it's inevitable, and 1% to 2% of total potential margin disappears each year this way.

 

7. you are also responsible for ALL of the costs of "promotion"/education/merchandising. buy from Patagonia and you get the image and the info that goes with their wonderful catalogs; replace that stuff with MEC equivalents, and the gear will die a death unless people know about it. MEC has always been terrible at this aspect of their business, spending under 1% to "tell the story". many superb products have disappeared as a result. this miserliness contributed to the downfall of Serratus (altho bigger "global" issues were more important yet). a vaguely reasonable minimum would be double the current spending, and to really "carve a niche" more yet would need to be dedicated, not just once, but year after year.

 

i could go on, but i won't. the bottom line is that to do a good job, to be a world leader in the outdoor industry, MEC (in my estimation) needs to spend about 5% more as a percent of sales than they currently do. there is as much chance of that happening in the next decade as there is of finding great ice in Lillooet this weekend.

 

even in the midst of this tirade, however, i refuse to be entirely bleak. there are still a vast number of highly talented, incredibly motivated people who work for MEC. most of the merchandise department (the people responsible for the products) "care" a GREAT deal - hatchet incidents notwithstanding. even the board members are devoted and entirely well meaning - they are simply up against challenges that are beyond their capacities to cope with. they don't come from backgrounds that prepare them for the decisions that need making, and despite their best efforts they choose badly. they are wonderful "people" but that's unfortunately not sufficient.

 

MEC will thrive in the hardware areas, cuz there are lots of "do-ers" in positions of influence in the merchandise department, because MEC is particularly strong at putting together really broad selections of "branded" goods at really attractive prices, and because much of the "story-telling" happens elsewhere. the sewn hardgoods areas (packs, tents, bags, etc) under MEC label ought to carry on pretty well too, cuz there still is considerable legitimate design energy available.

 

the functionality of the outdoor clothing, however, cannot do anything except deteriorate. it's one thing to put together attractive organic cottons or athletic tops (which MEC does a great job at); it requires quite different skills and experience to do a world-class job on techie clothing for the mountains, and those skills do not exist within today's MEC. (this is not to denigrate the obvious talent, skills, energy, and dedication of the current designers - they just simply aren't equipped for this part of their responsibilities.)

 

about a decade ago REI went down a similar path to that being followed by MEC, chasing the mass market and lower priced goods. at the end of that road, they found themselves selling "bottom end" goods, undifferentiated from any of a myriad of very big and very capable competitors. and they found that they had pretty much destroyed the "value" of the REI brand. much to the credit of the board and senior management, the problem was recognized, and the threat appreciated. huge amounts of money and personnel were thrown at the problem, but it took 5 or more years to turn things around. REI may still not be the leader of the outdoor industry, but they're making some pretty fine stuff these days - much, much better than the sad situation in the '90s.

 

MEC seems destined to follow the same path, but given the current political process at the co-op, there is little hope there will be the vision and leadership at the top necessary to solve the problems when the crunch comes. doing so will require massive commitment of resources (read: "spending"), and nothing in MEC's past or culture indicates any possibility of that ever happening.

 

but enough theory: this is just my hot air; the evidence (one way or another) is (and/or will be) in the stores. the results of organizational changes made 2 years ago will be starting to filter thru into the line now - ask yourself whether what you are seeing is better or worse than what you were used to in the past. and keep asking yourself that question over the next couple years - big changes are slow to come to fruition. if you remain satisfied, ignore me!

 

my problem, having been an insider, is that i understand what might have been. i can "see" a different, and better, co-op, so i can never quite view the current state of affairs with equanimity. i guess, like Shaw, "i dream of things that never were, and ask 'why not'?"

 

cheers,

[Don_Serl]

i've used quite a few electrons on this issue already, but i need to spend a few more...

 

to clarify, i listed a number of business activities that need to be undertaken in order for a business to thrive and/or for a line to remain innovative. i talked about the costs of those activities, and their potential effect on margin. there is another way of dealing with those costs, a more "real-world" way, which MEC already does to a large extent.

 

since most of the costs that are being discussed are requirements for bringing goods into being, those costs can (and ought to be) simply added in as part of the "cost of goods sold" figure for the business. MEC already does this for: Research and Development, Production ; and Writedowns. these categories cover respectively: digging out and assessing fabrics and others materials/technologies, and developing new products; finding, assessing, and overseeing factories; and reducing the cost on "distressed" items, in caeses where that reduction takes the retail to "below cost". because these costs are then captured "within" the products themselves, no adjustment in margin is necessary to cope with them. the MEC system is not ideal, with the main deficiency being that R&D and Prod'n costs are not attributed to the department (i.e., the section of the product line) in which they are generated, but since there's only 1% of sales at issue, this is an area which could be improved, not a fundamental flaw in management reporting.

 

the rest of my points stand as stated: other costs associated with doing business "direct" in our new "borderless" world are poorly recognized, ignored, and/or underestimated, to the severe detriment of the long-term viability of MEC. and the deepest problem is an seemingly unbreakable pattern of Boards focussing on the margin, when the thing that matters in the retail world is the retail price. it's what you pay that you "see", not how that figure came into being.

 

cheers,

[Don_Serl]

It amazes me that the folks at the top would alienate and drive away the personnel that constituted their prime asset. Replacing the likes of Don Serl with a bunch of topropers, dayhikers, and car-campers...

 

tks for the concern, Jay, but to be clear:

 

1. i was not alienated and driven away - my position (Product Manager Apparel) along with about 60 others was eliminated. while i was, of course, personally disappointed to lose my job, i've moved on, and i'm doing fine. my larger concern, long-term, is that these actions were not well planned; not part of a clarification of MEC's direction, vision, mission, role, etc; not well thought thru as to effect; and that they are hampering MEC's ability to serve its members today and to cope with the demands of tomorrow.

 

2. nobody was replaced by "top-ropers, day-hikers, and car-campers". the positions were eliminated, and nobody "new" was brought in. in a few cases (store trainers, for instance) mistakes were recognized quickly and the positions regenerated. a few others have reappeared in one guise or another, due to the demands of the business. otherwise, MEC staff are just having to cope best they can.

 

cheers,

[Dru]

In the discussion of this topic on clubtread.com, a lang22 from Prince George had this to say about Coast Mtn Sports:

 

i've been a mec member for about 7 years and gotta say how crushed i am to read that it seems as though they're heading in a more dumbed-down, car-camping, fashion-conscious direction. this has always been a store i could depend on when i'm in the lower mainland to supply me with odds and ends that i can't find in prince george. all we have up here is a cms, which i work at as a shipper.

to the very few of you who actually still shop cms, things are only going to get worse...like that was possible. being in the back office all the time, i'm privy to a lot of manager talk. coast mountain sports is nearly getting out of the serious outdoor market altogether. if you see any cheap arcteryx on sale in the next little while, snap it up. the cms buyers did not buy any new arcteryx for 2005, except cotton t-shirts and ballcaps. in case you didn't already know, we don't carry patagonia anymore, and never will, what you see in stores is all that's left. trust me, marmot and prana aren't far behind.

starting in the fall, only 5 cms's will carry mountaineering boots...only 5, and not surprisingly, prince george isn't one of them. we won't carry scarpa, garmont, kayland, but you can look forward to some really 'hardcore' merrell's. apparently, mountaineering and climbing are such unprofitable segments of the store, it's just being phased out...despite the fact that people in pg, where there is little alternative, are left in the cold...and it gets cold here.

unfortunately, the outdoor recreation market is where the money is. think columbia, think the north face, think cheap car-camping tents. you like to think that the companies would still care about the people looking for something a little more techinical, but they don't. all they care about is the almighty dollar, and it truly saddens me that mec looks to be next on the chopping block.

 

Sounds like Coast Mtn is racing downhill much faster than MEC! Not surprising since ever since they got bought out by Forzani they have been riding the suck train to hell.

[whistlepunk]

I'm amazed any but the largest companies make it in this niche market. Look at Cascade Crags... I hear they're eliminating the gear shop because they can't compete. Let's hope PMS will survive.

[fenderfour]

Cascade crags was reducing their inventory to focus on climbing. They liquidated all of their paddling stuff, non-climbing clothing, packs, etc...

 

I know, Alpine is climbig too, but they don't see it that way.

[Stemalot]

Coast Mountain Sports sucks (I've worked there before) in many many many ways and it's not surprizing that they are going downhill. Most of the workers there barely know anything about car camping, let along mountaineering! I refuse to shop at CMS...but I go in there to torture the workers from time to time with questions.