Group 1 - Investment bank TD COWEN raised the target price for Adidas from €190 to €201 [1]

Core Viewpoint - Adidas has shown a recovery trend in performance despite global economic challenges, with a 12% revenue growth in Q3, leading to an upward revision of its annual performance forecast [1][2]. Group 1: Financial Performance - Adidas reported a Q3 revenue of €6.63 billion, up from €6.44 billion in the same period last year, marking a 12% increase after excluding currency effects [1]. - The company’s gross margin improved by 0.5 percentage points to 51.8%, and operating profit surged to €736 million, up from €598 million year-on-year, with the operating margin increasing from 9.3% to 11.1% [1]. - For the full year, Adidas now expects operating profit to reach approximately €2 billion, up from previous estimates of €1.7 billion to €1.8 billion [1]. Group 2: Market Strategy and Adaptation - In response to increased costs from U.S. tariff hikes, Adidas has implemented price increases across its product lines, with the Samba sneaker's price rising from $90 to $100 [2]. - The company has refocused on its core brand values and product innovation, revitalizing classic shoe models and expanding retro product lines [2]. - Adidas showcased its brand innovation at Shanghai Fashion Week, emphasizing three dimensions: speed in sports, rhythm of the East, and self-expression in street culture [2]. Group 3: Manufacturing and Supply Chain - Adidas has shifted to a model where 95% of its products sold in China are locally manufactured, reflecting a strategic focus on local production and design [4]. - The company has faced scrutiny over its use of OEM partners, such as Snow Flying, for producing down jackets, which has sparked consumer discussions about brand value versus manufacturing practices [4][5]. - The use of OEM models allows Adidas to concentrate on brand building and marketing while leveraging specialized manufacturers for production [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Adidas down jackets being produced by OEMs such as Xuezhongfei and Bosideng has sparked significant consumer debate regarding brand pricing versus product quality [2][3][5] Group 1: Adidas and OEM Relationships - Adidas confirmed its collaboration with Xuezhongfei for manufacturing but did not address the pricing concerns directly [2][3] - Consumers have noted significant differences in product specifications between Adidas and its OEM counterparts, leading to questions about the value of paying a premium for the brand [3][5] - The Adidas jackets sold at higher prices often have lower specifications compared to similar products from Xuezhongfei, raising concerns about brand value versus product quality [3][5] Group 2: Consumer Reactions - Consumer responses are divided; some prefer to buy directly from OEMs like Xuezhongfei for better value, while others accept the brand's premium for perceived quality and design [5][7] - The lack of transparency regarding the OEM relationships and product specifications has led to confusion and dissatisfaction among some consumers [5][10] Group 3: Market Context and Brand Strategy - The practice of outsourcing production to local manufacturers is common among international brands like Adidas and Nike, which do not operate their own factories in China [7][10] - Adidas has reported that over 60% of its products sold in China are locally manufactured, highlighting the importance of the Chinese market, which accounts for approximately 15% of its global revenue [8][10] - The brand's strategy includes significant investment in brand image, technology, and marketing, which contributes to its pricing structure [7][10] Group 4: Bosideng's Role in the Market - Bosideng, a leading domestic down jacket manufacturer, derives about 13% of its revenue from OEM production, indicating the significance of this business model in its overall strategy [9][10] - The company has seen substantial growth in its OEM business, with a reported revenue increase of 26.4% year-on-year for its OEM segment [9][10] - Bosideng's success is attributed to its strong manufacturing capabilities and reputation, which also benefits its OEM partnerships [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Adidas down jackets being produced by domestic OEMs like Xuezhongfei has sparked significant consumer debate regarding brand pricing versus product quality [2][4][8] Group 1: Adidas and OEM Relationships - Adidas confirmed its collaboration with Xuezhongfei for manufacturing but did not address the pricing concerns directly [2] - Consumers have noted significant differences in product specifications between Adidas and Xuezhongfei's products, despite similar pricing [4] - The majority of Adidas products sold in China are manufactured locally, with over 60% produced by domestic teams and 95% made in China [8][9] Group 2: Consumer Reactions - Consumer responses are divided; some prefer to buy directly from Xuezhongfei for better value, while others accept the brand's premium for perceived quality and design [4][8] - The lack of transparency regarding the OEM relationships and product specifications has led to confusion and dissatisfaction among consumers [12] Group 3: Industry Context - The practice of outsourcing production to local manufacturers is common among international brands like Adidas and Nike, which do not operate their own factories in China [5][6] - The controversy reflects broader issues of global supply chain dynamics and consumer awareness regarding product sourcing and pricing [12] Group 4: Financial Performance - Adidas reported a revenue of €7.98 billion in the Greater China region, with a year-on-year growth of 11% [9] - The OEM business is a significant revenue source for companies like Bosideng, contributing approximately 13% to its total income, with a notable increase in revenue from this segment [12]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the quality and integrity of Adidas in choosing to collaborate with a reputable Chinese manufacturer, Snow Flying, for its products, highlighting that this choice reflects a commitment to quality over cost-cutting measures often seen in the industry [3][4][7]. Group 1: Manufacturing Quality - Adidas' decision to use Snow Flying, a well-established Chinese apparel manufacturer, is portrayed as a sign of quality, contrasting with cheaper alternatives from Southeast Asian factories [3][4]. - The article argues that the perception that OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) products are inferior is a misconception, as many high-quality brands utilize OEM manufacturing without compromising on quality [5][6]. Group 2: Chinese Manufacturing Capabilities - The article asserts that Chinese manufacturers, particularly in the apparel sector, have developed significant expertise and technology over the past 30 years, making them leaders in the field [7]. - It highlights that the best materials and manufacturing techniques are often sourced from China, with specific examples such as the high-quality denim produced in Changzhou [7]. Group 3: Cost and Quality Relationship - The relationship between the cost paid by brands to manufacturers and the quality of the final product is emphasized, indicating that higher investment leads to better quality outcomes [6][7]. - The article suggests that many brands avoid using Chinese manufacturing not due to a lack of quality, but because they cannot afford the higher costs associated with reputable manufacturers [7].

Core Insights - The competitive landscape of athletic apparel is dominated by NIKE, Inc. and adidas AG, each with distinct strategies and market positioning [1][3] - NIKE leads the global sportswear market, driven by innovation and a strong brand ecosystem, while adidas focuses on performance, lifestyle, and sustainability [2][9] NIKE Overview - NIKE holds the largest share of the global athletic footwear and apparel market, supported by its "Sport Offense" operating model that enhances product innovation [4][8] - The brand's cultural relevance and athlete endorsements solidify its status as a performance and lifestyle brand, contributing to its market share and pricing power [5][8] - NIKE's digital transformation and channel strategy prioritize full-price sales and data-driven engagement, with a focus on collaborations to attract younger consumers [6][7] adidas Overview - adidas is Europe's sportswear leader and ranks second globally, leveraging a diversified portfolio and a dual-brand strategy to appeal to various consumer segments [9][10] - The "Own the Game" turnaround strategy emphasizes brand desirability, direct-to-consumer acceleration, and operational excellence, enhancing supply-chain efficiency [12][14] - adidas's digital platforms and marketing collaborations, including partnerships with celebrities, are driving relevance among younger demographics [13][14] Financial Performance and Valuation - The Zacks Consensus Estimate for NIKE's fiscal 2026 sales indicates a modest growth of 0.4%, with a significant EPS decline of 23.6% [15] - NIKE's forward price-to-sales (P/S) multiple is 2.13X, below its five-year median of 3.1X, while adidas's forward P/S multiple is 1.28X, also below its median of 1.56X [22][25] - adidas shows steady recovery with double-digit sales growth in key markets, supported by an improving gross margin and disciplined cost management [14][19] Investment Outlook - adidas is positioned as a more compelling investment choice due to its growth momentum, attractive valuation, and strategic repositioning [26][27] - Recent estimate revisions reflect increased investor optimism around adidas's earnings potential, making it an appealing entry point for long-term investors [27][28]

（原标题：阿迪达斯千元夹克被指像东北大花袄） 据羊城晚报报道，阿迪达斯近日与英国Liberty London联名，推出最新联名款女士绗缝夹克。该款为运 动生活系列女装，采用日本直邮模式，仅在天猫国际自营渠道发售（专享券后1228元），天猫官方旗舰 店无售。 这种将传统服装元素拆解、重组的玩法，是时尚圈的潮流延续，但对于普通消费者来说，"难评"的背后 是审美惯性的冲击，难免引发了不少网友的热议：有人看到899元的价格直呼"农贸市场89（元）不能更 多"，调侃"阿迪你盯上我奶奶退休金了"；也有网友表示"不理解但尊重"。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent revelation that a consumer's expensive Adidas down jacket was actually produced by a local OEM has sparked discussions about brand value and consumer awareness in the context of modern commercial practices [2][4]. Group 1: OEM Phenomenon - The phenomenon of OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) is not new, as consumers have long been aware of the existence of cheaper alternatives produced by OEMs for well-known brands [3][6]. - The practice of OEM is widespread across various industries, not just in clothing, and is considered a core model of modern commerce [3][4]. - Notable OEM manufacturers, such as Shenzhou International, have been recognized for producing garments for major global brands like Nike, Uniqlo, and Adidas since around 2005 [3]. Group 2: Brand Premium Logic - The advantages of the OEM model include economies of scale and specialization, allowing brands to focus on design and marketing while manufacturers handle production, thus reducing costs and increasing efficiency [4]. - Consumers often pay a premium for brands not necessarily for product quality but for trust and identity associated with the brand [4]. Group 3: Consumer Choices - Consumers have become more discerning, often opting for lower-priced alternatives from OEMs instead of paying high prices for branded products [6]. - The trend of "tag peeling," where consumers check the origin of products to avoid being misled, has become common, reflecting a shift towards more rational purchasing decisions [6]. - Ultimately, the decision to pay a brand premium depends on individual preferences, with some valuing brand prestige while others prioritize cost-effectiveness [6].

Group 1 - The importance of the Chinese market for global sports giants is increasing, as evidenced by the frequency of visits by top executives [1][2] - Adidas CEO Bjoern Gulden expressed confidence in the Chinese market, noting that 95% of products sold in China are "made in China" and that there is a growing trend towards original Chinese designs [1][2] - Nike's Greater China revenue declined by 10% to $1.512 billion (approximately 10.775 billion RMB) for the latest fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2025, while Adidas reported a revenue increase of 11% to €798 million (approximately 6.653 billion RMB) in the same period [2] Group 2 - Nike's Greater China market share is 13.3%, while Adidas holds 13.4%, indicating a competitive landscape where both brands are closely matched [2] - Despite the revenue decline, Nike remains the market leader with a share of 16.2%, followed by Anta at 10.5% and Li Ning at 9.4%, while Adidas has fallen to a 2024 market share of 8.7% [2] - The rise of domestic brands is posing a significant challenge to international players like Nike and Adidas [4][5]

Group 1 - The importance of the Chinese market for global sports brands is increasing, as evidenced by the frequent visits of CEOs from major companies like Adidas and Nike [1][2] - Adidas CEO Bjoern Gulden expressed confidence in the Chinese market, noting that 95% of products sold in China are "Made in China" and that the company is gradually achieving original designs in China [1][2] - Nike's revenue in Greater China has declined by 10% to $1.512 billion (approximately 107.75 billion RMB) for the latest fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2025, while Adidas reported an 11% increase in revenue to €798 million (approximately 66.53 billion RMB) [2] Group 2 - The competition between international brands in China is intensifying, with Adidas' market share in China at 8.7%, lower than Nike's 16.2%, Anta's 10.5%, and Li Ning's 9.4% [2] - The decline in Nike's sales is attributed to decreased foot traffic, a competitive promotional environment, and ongoing inventory clearance pressures [2] - Adidas has faced challenges in the Chinese market, including a decline in revenue for eight consecutive quarters prior to the recent growth, leading to a drop in its market position from second to fourth [2][3]