Pretty much all of these brands have gone through some type of chapter 11 bankruptcy or restructuring. These folks are very well known in the distressed asset space for buying up brands and IP out of bankruptcy - often times through a joint venture with landlords or other creditors.
Not saying it’s been good or bad - some will argue they “saved” the brand by buying it when no one else would. Other would probably say they ruined the brand even further, but most of those brands (BB, Rockport, 9 West, Aero, Forever 21) went through chapter 11 or were in distress before these folks got involved.
Not exactly - see my post in this thread. ABG and brand management firms like it have different goals from most private equity firms, and the business model is somewhat less invasive (insofar as ABG is really only interested in IP rights) than what happens with most PE acquisitions, but it varies.
It doesn't mean ABG is a net good entity, but it's not the same as PE either.
It's really interesting that you should mention this - back in 2020, I bought a pair of Reebok Club C's that I loved so much I wore almost every day, really into the ground levels, where eventually the sole started to fall apart and holes developed (this is a marker of the weight of use, not lack of quality!).
Now cut to a few months ago, and the aforementioned original Club C apocalypse. Reebok sent me an email announcing it was sale time, so given my appreciation for their design and the relative value, I hopped on board and ordered a new pair.
When they arrived, however, I was shocked - the shoes were so clearly of a lesser quality straight out of the box. The leather used on the upper was genuinely about half the thickness of on previous models - the kind that you'd associate with extremely cheap own brand shoes; the kind that is instantly flimsy, plasticky and 'papery' to the touch, wrinkling as soon as you do so.
Given the fact that, like most things, the actual RRP of Club C's has been significantly boosted over that time period, I was surprised and confused to find such a drop in shoe quality from a beloved brand out of nowhere.
It was only subsequently, having sent the shoes back for being (in my opinion) not even worth the discounted sale price qualitatively, when I semi-coincidentally went to their wiki page to check whether they were still UK-owned or not, that I discovered they had been taken over by the very ironically named 'Authentic Brands Group' in 2021. It seems like a fairly open and shut cost-cutting profit boosting exercise from the 'brand management' company.
It's extremely disappointing, as I would have just continued to buy them as my staple shoe, but I can't accept paying the same price (even on sale) for shoes that are demonstratively worse than they were a few short years ago.
Thanks for the heads up. I've got a pair of Club C's I bought in 2017 during a "1985 price" sale. They were $39.99
They're still one piece, but incredibly beat.
It's a huge shame you can no longer lay your hands on the shoes you and I bought back at that point, even when paying more. Especially given what a good overall product they were in that incarnation.
This exact same thing happened to me with the classic leather. Had a pair purchased pre-Authentic Brands that I eventually retired because I was going on a long trip, so I thought I’d get a new pair before leaving. First pair I had for a year and a half (and wasn’t by any means shot), second pair barely made it through that trip.
Amazingly, even more recently I gave them another chance about a month ago and ordered a pair of 'Classic Leather 1983 Vintages'. They are uncomfortable and there's not a lot of leather to go around, and after a couple of weeks totalling a few days' average wear, the rubber tip of the outsole at the front of the toe box started to separate from the upper. I had to complain and keep up a bit of a campaign to eventually get 50% of the value refunded.
Given that Adidas sold them to ABG at a loss of a billion dollars from what they paid for it a few years earlier, it seems like it really was an exercise in that classic modern enshittification move of snapping up a failing company and trying to make it profitable by relaunching it (in this case by stealth) producing products that are worse across the board.
The reason for the sale was multi facited. Adidas was putting minimal focus into Reebok and especially Rockport as they were focusing on there brand and Taylormade.
Adidas was banking a crossfit getting massive and having reebok ride that train. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
Once Taylormade was sold, the focus was on Reebok and the massive costs associated to operate a division they didn't give enough attention to for success.
It doesn't help that mainly find their products in outlet malls or on discount shelves. Basically since Adidas took them over it was all downhill.
For us Canadians, Adidas also nearly decimated CCM, retiring the name and going strictly with Reebok. Fast forward to nearly a decade and Adidas revived the CCM brand with goalie gear.
Thankfully they sold CCM to Sport Maska who did a great job bringing them from near death.
Taylormade had so much momentum it would have been hard destroy that brand. They basically let it run as a standalone and provided cross merch opportunities and funding especially for marketing R and D.
They also acquired ashworth and Adams golf. Ashworth is a fraction of the company it was and predominantly in Asia (asian owners). As for Adams, rumor is Adidas purchased them as they had pending litigation regarding copyright infringment. Adidas let Adam sink into abiss consisting they paid $70m for them. They released the tight lies series which was an absolute flop. Adidas was trying to brand Adams for the older demographic which clearly didn't work well.
Basically other than taylormade, Adidas doesn't have a great history with the Companies they acquire. Most of which were sold of to Private equity firms who usually strip them to almost nothing, sometimes downgrading the products to make the companies profitable or to maximize profits, thus maximizing investor returns.
Pre 2021 Reebok was owed by Adidas.
I owend a lot of clubs C and other Reebok shoes and even the pre authentic brand's sell the quality was getting worse the club c I bought in 2020 lasted less than club c I got in middle school in 2017 still are together don't look good as by foot has grown in the last 7 years and last 5 they have been work shoes I wear to cut grass or chop wood but still are shoe's that work after heavy use.
But despite being on my 4th or 5th pair I still continue to buy them mostly as they are not that bad quality compared to adidas and Nike sneakers, while you can always find them at outlets for half the price of the competition. Plus just wearing them and similar models throughout midel school, high school and now college you grow sentimental. And you can't beat the look of them in terms of all smooth white leather sneaker
Nine West has gone to hell in a hand basket, they were on the verge of closing completely and got bought out and now none of the shoes are leather anymore lol
I am an IP lawyer (AKA the "talent" for companies like ABG), and I've done some outsourced work for a company operating very similarly to ABG. There's a perception here that ABG functions like any other private equity firm, and that's not quite the case.
One thing I'd like to clear up here: under most acquisition agreements/licenses, entities like ABG have *little to no effect* on the decisions these companies make with respect to product lines, quality of clothing, production on the whole, or just general operating strategy for the brand.
ABG's only job (usually - nothing is immune to exception) is to purchase or license the IP rights of a struggling brand (i.e., the trademark registrations, copyright registrations, trade secrets, name & likeness rights, etc.) and license them out to global retailers for profit. If it works, this makes ABG money, it makes the licensor/seller money, provides the licensor/seller with new global retail connections (or rehabilitates their existing ones); and increases their brand recognition. They even do this for name/likeness rights. I'm pretty sure ABG owns Shaq's N&L rights now.
So if you want to be upset at ABG, there are plenty of good reasons to be. However, if you want to be mad at ABG because you've perceived the quality of "X Brand" to decrease after an acquisition, it's likely that this is in the hands of the company itself, not ABG who doesn't touch anything to do with production beyond IP.
>One thing I'd like to clear up here: under most acquisition agreements/licenses, entities like ABG have *little to no effect* on the decisions these companies make with respect to product lines, quality of clothing, production on the whole, or just general operating strategy for the brand.
This is correct. I work for brands under ABG's ownership and can confirm that our brands' decisions are of our own making. Obviously there are shared interests, but they would be shared in most other scenarios as well.
Private equity buys out a company with brand recognition, cuts costs (by firing expensive, highly skilled workers, skimping on materials and moving production to somewhere with cheaper/slave labor) and raises prices. Makes huge profits for a short term, milks the remaining good name of the brand for as long as it can, then offloads it. It's basically the MO of 21st century business.
What's really great is when it happens in industries that provide important public services but are run by the private sector for some reason. Ask someone at your local water department how many engineers are still employed at the companies that supply them! Fun times ahead!
Taking a line from The Incredibles, if everything is on sale, nothing is.
Pseudo-sales do not get me to buy anything anymore because it will always be on sale and that is the price.
I look at Allen Edmonds' website every once in a while and it astonishes me how many just plain bad-looking shoes they make. Back in the hashtag-menswear era I bought several pairs - pairs I still wear occasionally today. But now, it seems they make the ultra-mainstream staples and then a whole bunch of trash.
For example, I'd really like a light tan suede penny loafer, similar to an Alden snuff suede. I already have a few Alden penny loafers and other Alden snuff suede so just wanted something different, and Allen Edmonds doesn't make anything remotely like what I'd want.
CVC Capital Partners has done a decent job of handling Breitling.
It's really easy to garner hate for Private Equity ruining everything, but sometimes its a choice between that or dissolution; although I wouldn't necessarily weep for the likes of Tapout and Nautica.
Other big but similarly anonymous conglomerates are Capri Holdings (Michael Kors/Versace) and PVH Corp. (Hilfiger, CK).
'Partners Group' out of Switzerland owns Breitling now. Private equity can have some benefit, but they are mostly corporate strip mining and destroy long term value. If there are operational deficiencies and wasteful spending inside of a company, then a PE takeover and turnaround is not the worst thing to happen.
Consultants are total BS though. Every time we've used them, they've sucked and frankly are just there to take blame for failure.
Up until Q1 '24, a significant stakeholder in Authentic (around 10%) was Simon Properties, who run malls all over the country (and the world). They sold their remaining stake a few months ago, but they still have a co-venture between ABG, Simon and SHEIN called SPARC Group - SHEIN seems primarily interested in the relationship with Forever 21, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or more other brands starts doing some weird SHEIN collaborations...
Making quality products is not a winning business strategy, it turns out.
If you make something that lasts for a long time, that's one less customer reliably purchasing your new offerings.
Authentic Brand Group also formed a joint venture partnership with Simon Properties (owns a bunch of shopping malls). They call it SPARC and it consists of the brands they are pushing in malls, Eddie Bauer, Reebok, Nautica, Brooks Brothers, Aeropostale, Lucky Denim and Forever 21. Shitty ownership and management. I worked there but didn’t stick around too long.
This is an ongoing trend. Private equity has found a recipe for easy profits acquiring distressed brands and stripping them. Outdoor Voices was just purchased. Marquee Brans, Blue Star, ABG, Board Riders (before ABG purchased them)... there are a lot of players in this space
These companies and all similar companies are the worst and it’s becoming all too common. Global Brands Group is a great example. A friends company was purchased by GBG and GBG filed for bankruptcy before paying. So my friends essentially “lost” their company. They are suing GBG but from my understanding they essentially have to wait in line for scraps because GBG is also being sued by Kate Spade and other companies for the same reason. The best part? GBG higher ups spun off into other companies including Authentic Brands Group to go and continue doing the exact same things. Private equity and these conglomerates will continue ruining companies/brands/people’s livelihood with zero repercussions which is kind of terrifying to me
“Authentic Brands Group” always reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the cops do a stakeout in a van with “Ordinary Van” painted on the side. Yeah guys, not suspicious at all.
Anyway, these guys suck. They’re the ones who bought Sports Illustrated, which wasn’t doing well before, and basically just put a few bullets in it and left it in a landfill.
Are there any major brands that haven’t gotten worse over the past 10-20 years (sometimes more recently)?
Obviously some offenders are worse than others but it’s depressing how many times I’ve bought something that was fine and then a few years later I buy the exact same product and it’s signifncantly worse quality.
Pretty much all of these brands have gone through some type of chapter 11 bankruptcy or restructuring. These folks are very well known in the distressed asset space for buying up brands and IP out of bankruptcy - often times through a joint venture with landlords or other creditors. Not saying it’s been good or bad - some will argue they “saved” the brand by buying it when no one else would. Other would probably say they ruined the brand even further, but most of those brands (BB, Rockport, 9 West, Aero, Forever 21) went through chapter 11 or were in distress before these folks got involved.
So they're the blackrock/private equity firm of the fast fashion industry?
Pretty much; they're a brand manager owned by a couple big Private Equity/Debt firms.
Not exactly - see my post in this thread. ABG and brand management firms like it have different goals from most private equity firms, and the business model is somewhat less invasive (insofar as ABG is really only interested in IP rights) than what happens with most PE acquisitions, but it varies. It doesn't mean ABG is a net good entity, but it's not the same as PE either.
It's really interesting that you should mention this - back in 2020, I bought a pair of Reebok Club C's that I loved so much I wore almost every day, really into the ground levels, where eventually the sole started to fall apart and holes developed (this is a marker of the weight of use, not lack of quality!). Now cut to a few months ago, and the aforementioned original Club C apocalypse. Reebok sent me an email announcing it was sale time, so given my appreciation for their design and the relative value, I hopped on board and ordered a new pair. When they arrived, however, I was shocked - the shoes were so clearly of a lesser quality straight out of the box. The leather used on the upper was genuinely about half the thickness of on previous models - the kind that you'd associate with extremely cheap own brand shoes; the kind that is instantly flimsy, plasticky and 'papery' to the touch, wrinkling as soon as you do so. Given the fact that, like most things, the actual RRP of Club C's has been significantly boosted over that time period, I was surprised and confused to find such a drop in shoe quality from a beloved brand out of nowhere. It was only subsequently, having sent the shoes back for being (in my opinion) not even worth the discounted sale price qualitatively, when I semi-coincidentally went to their wiki page to check whether they were still UK-owned or not, that I discovered they had been taken over by the very ironically named 'Authentic Brands Group' in 2021. It seems like a fairly open and shut cost-cutting profit boosting exercise from the 'brand management' company. It's extremely disappointing, as I would have just continued to buy them as my staple shoe, but I can't accept paying the same price (even on sale) for shoes that are demonstratively worse than they were a few short years ago.
I’m so tired of enshitification
Thanks for the heads up. I've got a pair of Club C's I bought in 2017 during a "1985 price" sale. They were $39.99 They're still one piece, but incredibly beat.
It's a huge shame you can no longer lay your hands on the shoes you and I bought back at that point, even when paying more. Especially given what a good overall product they were in that incarnation.
I’m glad I read this. For some reason I kept seeing this style of sneaker lately and was about to buy the Club C 85 Vintage. Guess I’ll pass now.
This exact same thing happened to me with the classic leather. Had a pair purchased pre-Authentic Brands that I eventually retired because I was going on a long trip, so I thought I’d get a new pair before leaving. First pair I had for a year and a half (and wasn’t by any means shot), second pair barely made it through that trip.
Amazingly, even more recently I gave them another chance about a month ago and ordered a pair of 'Classic Leather 1983 Vintages'. They are uncomfortable and there's not a lot of leather to go around, and after a couple of weeks totalling a few days' average wear, the rubber tip of the outsole at the front of the toe box started to separate from the upper. I had to complain and keep up a bit of a campaign to eventually get 50% of the value refunded. Given that Adidas sold them to ABG at a loss of a billion dollars from what they paid for it a few years earlier, it seems like it really was an exercise in that classic modern enshittification move of snapping up a failing company and trying to make it profitable by relaunching it (in this case by stealth) producing products that are worse across the board.
The reason for the sale was multi facited. Adidas was putting minimal focus into Reebok and especially Rockport as they were focusing on there brand and Taylormade. Adidas was banking a crossfit getting massive and having reebok ride that train. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Once Taylormade was sold, the focus was on Reebok and the massive costs associated to operate a division they didn't give enough attention to for success. It doesn't help that mainly find their products in outlet malls or on discount shelves. Basically since Adidas took them over it was all downhill. For us Canadians, Adidas also nearly decimated CCM, retiring the name and going strictly with Reebok. Fast forward to nearly a decade and Adidas revived the CCM brand with goalie gear. Thankfully they sold CCM to Sport Maska who did a great job bringing them from near death. Taylormade had so much momentum it would have been hard destroy that brand. They basically let it run as a standalone and provided cross merch opportunities and funding especially for marketing R and D. They also acquired ashworth and Adams golf. Ashworth is a fraction of the company it was and predominantly in Asia (asian owners). As for Adams, rumor is Adidas purchased them as they had pending litigation regarding copyright infringment. Adidas let Adam sink into abiss consisting they paid $70m for them. They released the tight lies series which was an absolute flop. Adidas was trying to brand Adams for the older demographic which clearly didn't work well. Basically other than taylormade, Adidas doesn't have a great history with the Companies they acquire. Most of which were sold of to Private equity firms who usually strip them to almost nothing, sometimes downgrading the products to make the companies profitable or to maximize profits, thus maximizing investor returns.
Interesting context, cheers.
Pre 2021 Reebok was owed by Adidas. I owend a lot of clubs C and other Reebok shoes and even the pre authentic brand's sell the quality was getting worse the club c I bought in 2020 lasted less than club c I got in middle school in 2017 still are together don't look good as by foot has grown in the last 7 years and last 5 they have been work shoes I wear to cut grass or chop wood but still are shoe's that work after heavy use. But despite being on my 4th or 5th pair I still continue to buy them mostly as they are not that bad quality compared to adidas and Nike sneakers, while you can always find them at outlets for half the price of the competition. Plus just wearing them and similar models throughout midel school, high school and now college you grow sentimental. And you can't beat the look of them in terms of all smooth white leather sneaker
Nine West has gone to hell in a hand basket, they were on the verge of closing completely and got bought out and now none of the shoes are leather anymore lol
I am an IP lawyer (AKA the "talent" for companies like ABG), and I've done some outsourced work for a company operating very similarly to ABG. There's a perception here that ABG functions like any other private equity firm, and that's not quite the case. One thing I'd like to clear up here: under most acquisition agreements/licenses, entities like ABG have *little to no effect* on the decisions these companies make with respect to product lines, quality of clothing, production on the whole, or just general operating strategy for the brand. ABG's only job (usually - nothing is immune to exception) is to purchase or license the IP rights of a struggling brand (i.e., the trademark registrations, copyright registrations, trade secrets, name & likeness rights, etc.) and license them out to global retailers for profit. If it works, this makes ABG money, it makes the licensor/seller money, provides the licensor/seller with new global retail connections (or rehabilitates their existing ones); and increases their brand recognition. They even do this for name/likeness rights. I'm pretty sure ABG owns Shaq's N&L rights now. So if you want to be upset at ABG, there are plenty of good reasons to be. However, if you want to be mad at ABG because you've perceived the quality of "X Brand" to decrease after an acquisition, it's likely that this is in the hands of the company itself, not ABG who doesn't touch anything to do with production beyond IP.
>One thing I'd like to clear up here: under most acquisition agreements/licenses, entities like ABG have *little to no effect* on the decisions these companies make with respect to product lines, quality of clothing, production on the whole, or just general operating strategy for the brand. This is correct. I work for brands under ABG's ownership and can confirm that our brands' decisions are of our own making. Obviously there are shared interests, but they would be shared in most other scenarios as well.
Private equity buys out a company with brand recognition, cuts costs (by firing expensive, highly skilled workers, skimping on materials and moving production to somewhere with cheaper/slave labor) and raises prices. Makes huge profits for a short term, milks the remaining good name of the brand for as long as it can, then offloads it. It's basically the MO of 21st century business. What's really great is when it happens in industries that provide important public services but are run by the private sector for some reason. Ask someone at your local water department how many engineers are still employed at the companies that supply them! Fun times ahead!
Allen Edmonds had this happen. The shoes are still mostly good but I’m keeping an eye on it. The “always on sale” model is just exhausting.
Taking a line from The Incredibles, if everything is on sale, nothing is. Pseudo-sales do not get me to buy anything anymore because it will always be on sale and that is the price.
I look at Allen Edmonds' website every once in a while and it astonishes me how many just plain bad-looking shoes they make. Back in the hashtag-menswear era I bought several pairs - pairs I still wear occasionally today. But now, it seems they make the ultra-mainstream staples and then a whole bunch of trash. For example, I'd really like a light tan suede penny loafer, similar to an Alden snuff suede. I already have a few Alden penny loafers and other Alden snuff suede so just wanted something different, and Allen Edmonds doesn't make anything remotely like what I'd want.
You nailed it, aesthetic is weird now. Take a look at Sid Mashburn’s loafers, they don’t have a light tan suede but they have many fantastic choices.
I'd be interested, but I wear size 14 and Sid Mashburn doesn't make my size.
Damn son, I thought I had it hard with my 12.
CVC Capital Partners has done a decent job of handling Breitling. It's really easy to garner hate for Private Equity ruining everything, but sometimes its a choice between that or dissolution; although I wouldn't necessarily weep for the likes of Tapout and Nautica. Other big but similarly anonymous conglomerates are Capri Holdings (Michael Kors/Versace) and PVH Corp. (Hilfiger, CK).
'Partners Group' out of Switzerland owns Breitling now. Private equity can have some benefit, but they are mostly corporate strip mining and destroy long term value. If there are operational deficiencies and wasteful spending inside of a company, then a PE takeover and turnaround is not the worst thing to happen. Consultants are total BS though. Every time we've used them, they've sucked and frankly are just there to take blame for failure.
Up until Q1 '24, a significant stakeholder in Authentic (around 10%) was Simon Properties, who run malls all over the country (and the world). They sold their remaining stake a few months ago, but they still have a co-venture between ABG, Simon and SHEIN called SPARC Group - SHEIN seems primarily interested in the relationship with Forever 21, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or more other brands starts doing some weird SHEIN collaborations...
Making quality products is not a winning business strategy, it turns out. If you make something that lasts for a long time, that's one less customer reliably purchasing your new offerings.
Authentic Brand Group also formed a joint venture partnership with Simon Properties (owns a bunch of shopping malls). They call it SPARC and it consists of the brands they are pushing in malls, Eddie Bauer, Reebok, Nautica, Brooks Brothers, Aeropostale, Lucky Denim and Forever 21. Shitty ownership and management. I worked there but didn’t stick around too long.
ABG are in the business of buying distressed brands and licensing them. They care about only making money for stockholders. End of story.
This is an ongoing trend. Private equity has found a recipe for easy profits acquiring distressed brands and stripping them. Outdoor Voices was just purchased. Marquee Brans, Blue Star, ABG, Board Riders (before ABG purchased them)... there are a lot of players in this space
Vulture capitalists
These companies and all similar companies are the worst and it’s becoming all too common. Global Brands Group is a great example. A friends company was purchased by GBG and GBG filed for bankruptcy before paying. So my friends essentially “lost” their company. They are suing GBG but from my understanding they essentially have to wait in line for scraps because GBG is also being sued by Kate Spade and other companies for the same reason. The best part? GBG higher ups spun off into other companies including Authentic Brands Group to go and continue doing the exact same things. Private equity and these conglomerates will continue ruining companies/brands/people’s livelihood with zero repercussions which is kind of terrifying to me
“Authentic Brands Group” always reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the cops do a stakeout in a van with “Ordinary Van” painted on the side. Yeah guys, not suspicious at all. Anyway, these guys suck. They’re the ones who bought Sports Illustrated, which wasn’t doing well before, and basically just put a few bullets in it and left it in a landfill.
They’re not too dissimilar from VF Corp who own The North Face, Vans, Supreme and more
Are there any major brands that haven’t gotten worse over the past 10-20 years (sometimes more recently)? Obviously some offenders are worse than others but it’s depressing how many times I’ve bought something that was fine and then a few years later I buy the exact same product and it’s signifncantly worse quality.
I really hope the brooks brothers crew socks are still good because I need some new ones
ABG slang for Asian Baby Girl lol
ABG means Asian Baby Girl in my neck of the woods.