The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Let's say an 8% discount on 26% of sales is an overall 2% of sales - the cost of Panagraf coming between TGR and its downstream customers. To offset that is the saved cost to TGR of managing those sales to Panagraf's customers. Maybe it ain't so bad at this stage of the business, but the $ cost of using Panagraf will grow exponentially with TGR's CAGR.
Pedrobull - Dawn will come when there's a realisation that the ex-Cath Kidston (that went well?) gang is not the right calibre to run this company successfully. The talent is at businesses like Next, Adidas, Wolverine, Authentic Brands, JD Sports.
LawrenceH - the use of the word 'promise' is not right. No company promises anything: they forecast, they predict, they hope, they try, they speculate. I hope this isn't nitpicking words, but I think it's important to understand that TGR hasn't promised that anything specific will happen in the future (which only exists in our imaginations) any more so than any other PLC.
Tomorrowtoday, the recipients of the shares received in place of interest payments may elect to keep the shares with capital growth in mind. I can't see a good reason to sell them at around 15-17p given the potential for growth here.
The customer-reported weaknesses centre around just two areas - product quality (durability) and Customer Service. After the "This is Money" website reported yesterday's results the comments section was full of comments on quality ("They ain't made like they were before" and "over-priced for poor quality boots" etc), and "Customer Service is rubbish".
So I went to the company's website to see how they're talking about these two critical areas. They're not. Nothing on CS improvement plans, and Quality is buried in Sustainability in the Investors area of the website.
Good management would be talking about quality standards on the Front Page: quality assurance, how changing factories is a challenge and how it's managed, tannery accreditation, sole injection accreditation, bonding test results, how sewing threads and upper trims are sourced and tested etc. It is not confidential information, and it's a significant concern, real or perceived, by real customers. Why ignore it in Corporate Communications? Why ignore it on the customer facing pages?
The Dr. Martens product is a simple one with only a few components that need to be bonded or stitched together. There's no excuse for getting this wrong (if they do) but even more so no excuse for not addressing a major concern head-on.
I understand that CS is harder to address at a corporate level since the sales are regional and local, but quality is global.
Sushi,
A few weeks ago you said there was a gap up to 35p I think it was, and I asked you for information to support your opinion, you never replied, and it went down to 16p over the next few weeks.
Please substantiate your comments so they may be useful to others, thanks.
JP
Fantastic product, robust heritage, strong brand recognition, clear channels to global markets ... and yet spectacularly unsuccessful.
Smacks of mismanagement to me. I'm not sure the board is smart enough. Blaming the weather, really? That's a Joules level comment.
Need serious players from the likes of adidas who know how to make it come together.
And soon too.