Mountain Project Logo

Why Don't Five Ten Shoes Ever Go on Sale?

Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 252
BryanV wrote: You can look at the data a lot of different ways, but in units and dollars (profit isn't in these reports and doesn't matter when looking at market share) Five Ten is not performing well. With that being said they have a lot of atheltes although I am not sure that really matters because all of these brands have athletes. Five Ten might be succeeding in whatever their business plan is (profit vs. market share???), but in market share alone, for units sold and total revenue, they are not. Basically what I am trying to communicate is if you put 10 climbing shoes on a wall 5-6 are Sportiva, 3-4 are Evolv/Scarpa and the remaining 1 is Five Ten, Mad Rock, Butora, or Boreal, etc. Make sense? The more interesting thing is that they are over performing in their adventure footwear (bike outdoor, etc.) and killing it in regard to market share so that is probably more relevant when talking about being profitability. Climbing shoes aren't profitable in general!
All of these brands have their athletes, but Sportiva and 5.10 grab the most famous/popular, Chris Sharma notwithstanding. Again, I'm questioning whether market share is the end-all/be-all (it might be, I'm not in marketing). Sponsorship is huge in climbing and helps with brand value; do you really think Sportiva would get away with charging what they charge for the Genius or TC Pro if their athletes didn't swear by them? Mad Rock, Red Chili, etc are viewed as "value" brands and inferior because they're cheap and few pros use them. Evolv seems to be working on building their reputation past the Shaman, and are aggressively poaching athletes. Maybe selling a lower volume of higher priced shoes is more profitable?
Bryan Vernetson · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 130
Ted Pinson wrote: All of these brands have their athletes, but Sportiva and 5.10 grab the most famous/popular, Chris Sharma notwithstanding. Again, I'm questioning whether market share is the end-all/be-all (it might be, I'm not in marketing). Sponsorship is huge in climbing and helps with brand value; do you really think Sportiva would get away with charging what they charge for the Genius or TC Pro if their athletes didn't swear by them? Mad Rock, Red Chili, etc are viewed as "value" brands and inferior because they're cheap and few pros use them. Evolv seems to be working on building their reputation past the Shaman, and are aggressively poaching athletes. Maybe selling a lower volume of higher priced shoes is more profitable?
Again, if you want to discuss profitability that is one thing, but when it comes to market share Five Ten has a distinct lack of it. Profitability, like I mentioned also shouldn't be tied to climbing shoes when that product specifically is not very profitable. Sportiva and Scarpa probably offset a good bit of their climbing shoe business with trail running and hiking/mountain boots. This allows them to grab more athletes of multiple disciplines and take a bigger share of the market and user base from Everest to Joshua Tree within the climbing discipline. Five Ten is probably doing the same thing with bike and outdoor shoes (offsetting climbing) and they have Adidas to pay the athletes for them which doesn't hurt. Make sense?

And I don't know if market share is the end-all/be-all, but marketing for Sportiva has worked pretty well when 65% of a retail wall is Sportiva for climbing, a good chunk is Sportiva for hiking/mountain, and trail running is dominant for Sportiva, within the technical brands.
Tapawingo Markey · · Reno? · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 75
SteveSchultz wrote:Nearly every single established brand in the outdoor industry has a policy intended to help protect independent, specialty retailers. This helps limit the typical "go online and find it cheaper" mentality and encourages consumers to go into a physical store and support a local business owner.
^This
Redyns · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 60

BryanV, how about stale data? Year-old info isn't worth a pair of used madrocks in any business.

Bryan Vernetson · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 130
matt snyder wrote:BryanV, how about stale data? Year-old info isn't worth a pair of used madrocks in any business.
The data I have looked at is pretty recent (since CWA back in late May).
SteveS · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2006 · Points: 2,420
Ted Pinson wrote: Again, I'm questioning whether market share is the end-all/be-all (it might be, I'm not in marketing).
Market share means next to nothing as the customer/climber. It means a decent amount if you work for the company itself, but even then it's not the be all, end all. It means even less if you move out of your region simply because each brand performs differently in different parts of the country. While Sportiva might be killing it where Bryan lives in the trail running market, they're doing absolutely nothing around here and probably own less than 1% of the market share. That has everything to do with regional interests and terrain, and very little to do with the brand itself.

In the end, low end shoes drive the market and in a category as small as climbing shoes, a cheap shoe that sells really well will tip market share in a dramatic way. And yes, lower end shoes are more profitable simply because they can come in at a higher margin. Climbing shoes in general have poor margins for footwear.
Bryan Vernetson · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 130

Totally understand regionality and I have been talking national numbers for market share. For trail run the main players are definitely traditional run brands (Brooks, Saucony, Hoka, etc.) and of course Salomon. But if you look at national retailers you will see a large amount of La Sportiva trail run. Do they lead the category? Absolutely not, but at REI, bc.com, and other national outdoor retailers you see a lot of Sportiva trail run.

Tapawingo Markey · · Reno? · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 75
BryanV wrote:Totally understand regionality and I have been talking national numbers for market share. For trail run the main players are definitely traditional run brands (Brooks, Saucony, Hoka, etc.) and of course Salomon. But if you look at national retailers you will see a large amount of La Sportiva trail run. Do they lead the category? Absolutely not, but at REI, bc.com, and other national outdoor retailers you see a lot of Sportiva trail run.
Trying to not get sucked into this, but Hoka's market share is in the single digits compared to that of Brooks, Asics, Adidas, Salomon, etc. They're definitely not a main player at this point in the game, they are however the fastest growing trail brand - but that's relative to their own earnings.
Nick Votto · · CO, CT, IT · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 320

They always close-out older models. I got my Anasazi lace-ups for $55 last year directly from Five Ten.

SteveS · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2006 · Points: 2,420
Tapawingo wrote: Trying to not get sucked into this
This...
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "Why Don't Five Ten Shoes Ever Go on Sale?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.