Under Armour

CASE 20: UNDER ARMOUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1)        Case Summary        1

2)        SWOT        2

A.        Strength Company: Internal        2

B.        Weaknesses Company: Internal        2

C.        Opportunities Company: External        2

D.        Threat Company: External        3

E.        IFE        4

F.        EFE        5

G.        CPM        6

3)        Problem Statement        7

4)        List of Problem        7

5)        Alternative Strategies        7

6)        Best Strategy        7

7)        Implementation        7

8)        Conclusion        7

1. Case Summary

During 1995, Kevin Plank was a walk on special team’s players for the university of Maryland football team. Plank tended to sweat a lot during the long practice session, frustrated by being weighed down by the accumulated sweat in his cotton T-shirt. Plank Began to search for alternative. And it all started with a T-Shirt, since creating his company from one shirt in 1996, Kevin Plank has expanded Under Armour into Footwear, women’s apparel, and even hunting and fishing wear. At left: the original compression T-shirt Plank to NFL equipment managers. Follow by HOT TO COLD. The original shirt kept players cool as they sweated; in 1997 UA came out with ColdGear, made to-do the opposite: insulate in the cold. HELLO, LADIES In 2005, UA launched women’ apparel. Items like Duplicity Bra were meant to conform well to the female body. SHOES. In 2007, UA entered footwear, a notoriously competitive market. It began with football cleats like the Click Clack, but now makes everything to high-tops. ON THE HUNT. Also in 2007, Under Armour putout a hunting and fishing line, including camo gear, hunting gloves, and leggings. This Ridge Reaper jacket is from the 2011line. SUPER BOWL. In 2008, UA had its first Super Bowl commercial featuring almost every athlete on the UA roster. Apart from that, the sales of under amour start to raise constantly starting from 2004 to 2008. However, in 2010 results, plank thought about what he wanted Under Armour to be. Should the company attempt to be leading athletic brand with products beyond apparel or should Under Armour cement its reputation as the leading U.S performance apparel maker and extend its dominance globally?

1. SWOT

1. Strength Company: Internal

1. Good Leadership: By Kevin Plank the CEO.

2. Core Competencies in Innovation: Variety of Products Offered.
3. High Quality Apparel: Especially the T-Shirt.
4. Increase in Sales Every Year: The First Two quarter 2009-2010 show positive result.
5. Brand Loyalty
6. Wide Range of Apparel
7. Athlete and Team Sponsorships and Endorsements
8. Very Intelligent and Efficient R&D Team
9. Brand Equity

1. Weaknesses Company: Internal

1. Small Total Sales and Net Income Compared to Nike and Adidas.

2. Heavily Dependent on Domestic Market.
3. High Prices.
4. Heavily Dependent on PA for Sales (80%)
5. Target Male Market more than female market
6. 27% of Sales come from 2 Distribution, Dick and The Sporting Authority.

1. Opportunities Company: External

1. Increase in Retails Sales
2. Growth of PA Industry (Domestically and Internationally)
3. Female Market
4. Consumer Focus on Quality, Not Price
5. Corporate Social Responsibility
6. Economic Recovery
7. Consumers Becoming more Health conscious
8. Sport participation is the key aspect of U.S culture.
9. Increase in sport participation in emerging markets

1. Threat Company: External

1. Too much dependence on few third-party suppliers

2. Lack of proprietary product rights.
3. Increase in cost of raw materials and resources, shipping costs.
4. Inflation Increase in China
5. Increase in chines labor costs.
6. Obesity Rates in US.

1. IFE MATRIX

The total weighed score bellow 2.50 indicate to internally weak; however the score significantly shown above of 2.50 which 2.80 is indicate a strong internal position. Apart from that the strategies implemented should be maximized further to meet the opportunities and also defend against the threat.

1. EFE MATRIX

According to table above, rating are indicates the effectiveness the current company strategies respond to the factor. Rating 1 indicates poor, 2 are below average, 3 are above average and 4 is company respond to the factors. Apart from that, weights for industry-specific while rating for company specific. The total weight score well below 2.5 point initially weak business. Score significantly above 2.5 indicated strong internal position meanwhile the total weighted score of 2.34 indicates the business has less average ability to respond to external factor.