"It's about selling gear. Selling gear in higher volumes than ever imagined."
That MAY be where it ends up, but the smart marketer will not predetermine what the solution is. They will define a broader, larger version of success and then let the strategy be what it needs to be.
If you say it's about selling gear in high volumes, you are doomed to needing to be succesful in doing that, and are de-facto opting for a low-margin, price-sensitive market. And you might be successful, but you may end up doing a lot more work than you need to. Or a lot different work than you need to.
If instead you say it's about "maximizing profit" by selling gear, or that it's about making $1MM a year selling gear, etc you are much better off. Once you say it's about volume alone, you're dead. Why, because you've removed the ability to vary volume assumptions based on marketplace conditions. As a marketer you now have fewer tools. Saying it's about volume means saying this is a commodity market. For the e-tailer that makes price the thing, it's really nothing more than a "murder-suicide" strategy.
Suppose you set the "make $1MM a year selling gear" as your goal, and you can somehow figure out how to get the Sultan of Brunei to pay you $1MM for an OW course and one full kit of the perfect gear. Is that any less successfull than selling a million regs at a $1 profit/per unit? Point of fact you may likely be much MORE succesful if you look at net profit. (OK - it's a metaphor; please don't start telling me about costs associated with flying to Brunei and out-of-pocket costs associated with vestal virgins!)
Rolex and Timex have both decided to make money selling watches. Timex probably sells one hundred times the volume of Rolex, but Rolex makes more money both gross and net.
One followed the strategy of "selling watches at a higher volume than ever imagined" while the other one is following a strategy of "maximize profits by selling watches." Which one is more successful?
Timex prices have declined or stayed flat for last two decades.
Rolex raises their price 10-15% a year, every year, no matter what.
Rolex sells just about every watch they can make, every year. Year in, year out.
Rolex vigorously controls MSRP, MAP, dealer advertising, minimum sales volume commitments, doesn't allow web sales, denies warranty service if you look at them cross-eyed, doesn't allow more than nominal discounting and does just about anything else that you could ever say is "wrong" with how many scuba manufacturers currently operate.
Not saying that means scuba should do the same. Just saying that it can be done, and it can be done profitably.
Saying "embrace the web" is not the sign of a visionary when what the person saying it means "this is a new and different and unique and never before seen tool that will allow us to do unimaginable things - let's use it to do the same old thing."
That MAY be where it ends up, but the smart marketer will not predetermine what the solution is. They will define a broader, larger version of success and then let the strategy be what it needs to be.
If you say it's about selling gear in high volumes, you are doomed to needing to be succesful in doing that, and are de-facto opting for a low-margin, price-sensitive market. And you might be successful, but you may end up doing a lot more work than you need to. Or a lot different work than you need to.
If instead you say it's about "maximizing profit" by selling gear, or that it's about making $1MM a year selling gear, etc you are much better off. Once you say it's about volume alone, you're dead. Why, because you've removed the ability to vary volume assumptions based on marketplace conditions. As a marketer you now have fewer tools. Saying it's about volume means saying this is a commodity market. For the e-tailer that makes price the thing, it's really nothing more than a "murder-suicide" strategy.
Suppose you set the "make $1MM a year selling gear" as your goal, and you can somehow figure out how to get the Sultan of Brunei to pay you $1MM for an OW course and one full kit of the perfect gear. Is that any less successfull than selling a million regs at a $1 profit/per unit? Point of fact you may likely be much MORE succesful if you look at net profit. (OK - it's a metaphor; please don't start telling me about costs associated with flying to Brunei and out-of-pocket costs associated with vestal virgins!)
Rolex and Timex have both decided to make money selling watches. Timex probably sells one hundred times the volume of Rolex, but Rolex makes more money both gross and net.
One followed the strategy of "selling watches at a higher volume than ever imagined" while the other one is following a strategy of "maximize profits by selling watches." Which one is more successful?
Timex prices have declined or stayed flat for last two decades.
Rolex raises their price 10-15% a year, every year, no matter what.
Rolex sells just about every watch they can make, every year. Year in, year out.
Rolex vigorously controls MSRP, MAP, dealer advertising, minimum sales volume commitments, doesn't allow web sales, denies warranty service if you look at them cross-eyed, doesn't allow more than nominal discounting and does just about anything else that you could ever say is "wrong" with how many scuba manufacturers currently operate.
Not saying that means scuba should do the same. Just saying that it can be done, and it can be done profitably.
Saying "embrace the web" is not the sign of a visionary when what the person saying it means "this is a new and different and unique and never before seen tool that will allow us to do unimaginable things - let's use it to do the same old thing."
