Core Viewpoint - Adidas has become the "old fourth" in the Chinese market, trailing behind Nike, Anta, and Li Ning, and is currently in a phase of clear expansion in China [1][2]. Group 1: Market Position and Challenges - Adidas's decline in market share is significantly attributed to the fallout from the Yeezy partnership with Kanye West, which accounted for 8% of total revenue and 40% of profits before the partnership ended in October 2022 [1]. - The company's market share in China dropped from 15% in 2021 to 8.7% in 2024, while Nike's share decreased from 18.1% to 16.2% during the same period [1][2]. - Domestic brands have risen, with Anta's market share increasing from 9.8% to 10.5% and Li Ning's from 9.3% to 9.4% [2]. Group 2: Strategic Changes - Adidas is adapting its strategy in China, with 95% of products sold in the market being "made in China" and a focus on original designs [2]. - The CEO of Adidas, Bjørn Gulden, has made multiple visits to China to strengthen relationships, contrasting with Nike's more subdued approach [2][3]. Group 3: Financial Performance - In Q2 2023, Adidas's revenue in Greater China grew by 11% year-on-year to €798 million (approximately ¥6.65 billion), while Nike's revenue in the same region fell by 10% to $1.512 billion (approximately ¥10.78 billion) [4]. - Despite the growth, the comparison of growth rates is complicated due to Nike's larger sales base [4]. Group 4: Future Prospects - The path for Adidas to reclaim its position in the market is challenging, with Nike also empowering its local team and domestic brands like Anta thriving [5]. - The overall market is volatile, with companies like Peak facing significant losses and implementing salary cuts of up to 50% [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the reliance of major global brands like Adidas on contract manufacturing, highlighting the cost advantages and strategic shifts in production locations, particularly in response to market dynamics and consumer awareness [6][9][13]. Group 1: Adidas' Manufacturing Strategy - Adidas has largely separated its brand from manufacturing, relying on third-party factories for production, with only a small percentage of high-end products made in-house [9][10]. - The company has shifted its production base from China to Southeast Asia, particularly Cambodia and Vietnam, due to cost considerations and supply chain optimization [16][19]. - Recent trends indicate a potential return to increased production in China, with 95% of products sold in China being locally manufactured as of October 2023 [19][20]. Group 2: Contract Manufacturing Dynamics - The contract manufacturing model allows Adidas to operate with lower fixed asset investments and risks, focusing on design, research, and marketing [20][21]. - The article notes that while this model provides flexibility in production, it also poses challenges in quality control, with past issues of product quality arising from overseas manufacturing [22][24]. - The relationship between brands and contract manufacturers is complex, balancing the need for production capacity with the risk of competition from manufacturers [24][25]. Group 3: Consumer Awareness and Market Response - There is a growing consumer awareness regarding the origins of products, leading to increased scrutiny of manufacturing practices and transparency in supply chains [25]. - The article suggests that brands should embrace this shift by enhancing supply chain transparency and focusing on the actual value of products rather than solely on brand prestige [25]. - The case of Snow Zhongfei, a contract manufacturer for Adidas, illustrates the impact of consumer knowledge on purchasing decisions, as consumers are now more aware of price differences between branded products and their manufacturers [25].

Core Viewpoint - Adidas has become the "old fourth" in the Chinese market, ranking behind Nike, Anta, and Li Ning in market share after years of struggle [1][5]. Group 1: Market Position and Challenges - Adidas's market share in China has significantly declined from 15% in 2021 to 8.7% in 2024, while Nike's market share decreased from 18.1% to 16.2% [5]. - The Yeezy controversy, stemming from Kanye West's remarks, led to Adidas terminating its partnership, which accounted for 8% of its total revenue and 40% of its profits as of October 2022 [3][5]. - Domestic brands have gained traction, with Anta's market share increasing from 9.8% in 2021 to 10.5%, and Li Ning's from 9.3% to 9.4% [7]. Group 2: Strategic Changes and Initiatives - Adidas is in an expansion phase in China, with 95% of its products sold in the market being "made in China" and a focus on local design [8]. - The company's CEO, Bjørn Gulden, has increased the influence of the Chinese team and has made multiple visits to China to strengthen relationships [9][11]. - In Q2 2023, Adidas's revenue in the Greater China region grew by 11% to €798 million (approximately ¥6.65 billion), contrasting with Nike's 10% revenue decline in the same region [14][15]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape - Nike is also empowering its Chinese team, with its Greater China CEO holding additional global responsibilities [18]. - Domestic competitors like Anta are thriving, while some brands like Peak are facing challenges, including significant salary cuts due to losses [19]. - The competitive environment remains tough, with Adidas's path to recovery being fraught with difficulties [20].

Core Insights - Consumers have raised concerns about the authenticity of Adidas products, specifically regarding a down jacket purchased through a live-streaming platform, which was allegedly produced by a third-party manufacturer, Xuezhongfei [2] - Adidas customer service stated that they do not have information on whether products are outsourced or the details of the manufacturing facilities, emphasizing that all products are shipped directly from warehouses [2] - The incident highlights a growing consumer skepticism towards brand value versus product quality, with many feeling that they are paying for a brand label rather than the actual product quality [3] Company Analysis - The incident reflects a broader trend in the apparel industry where outsourcing production to qualified manufacturers is common, allowing brands to focus on design and marketing while reducing manufacturing costs [2] - The pricing comparison between Adidas and Xuezhongfei shows that while both brands have similar price points, Xuezhongfei's products offer higher fill power in their down jackets, raising questions about the value proposition of Adidas products [2] - The ongoing debate about brand premium versus product quality suggests that Adidas may need to better align its brand image with consumer expectations to avoid future controversies [3]

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].

Key Takeaways NIKE and adidas battle for global sportswear dominance with distinct growth and branding strategies.adidas gains traction through digital acceleration, collaborations and cost-efficient expansion plans.Analyst revisions and valuation metrics favor adidas, signaling stronger momentum and investor optimism.In the fiercely competitive world of athletic apparel, two titans dominate the playing field — NIKE, Inc. (NKE) and adidas AG (ADDYY) . Both brands command immense global recognition, yet thei ...