Case twenty-six dash four Baldwin Bicycle Company
Case twenty-six dash four Baldwin Bicycle Company
In May nineteen eighty-nine Suzanne Leister, marketing vice president of Baldwin Bicycle Company, was mulling over the discussion she had had the previous day with Karl Knott, a buyer from Hi-Valu Stores, Incorporated. Hi-Valu operated a chain of discount department stores in the Northwest. Hi-Valu's sales volume had grown to the extent that it was beginning to add "house-brand" (also called "private-label") merchandise to the product lines of several of its departments. Mr. Knott, Hi-Valu's buyer for sporting goods, had approached Ms. Leister about the possibility of Baldwin's producing bicycles for Hi-Valu. The bicycles would bear the name "Challenger," which Hi-Valu planned to use for all of its house-brand sporting goods.
Baldwin had been making bicycles for almost forty years. In nineteen eighty-nine the company's line included ten models, ranging from a small beginner's model with training wheels to a deluxe twelve-speed adult's model. Sales were currently at an annual rate of about ten million dollars. Most of Baldwin's sales were through independently owned toy stores and bicycle shops. Baldwin had never before distributed its products through department store chains of any type. Ms. Leister felt that Baldwin bicycles had the image of being above average in quality and price, but not a "top of the line" product.
Hi-Valu's proposal to Baldwin had features that made it quite different from Baldwin's normal way of doing business. First, it was very important to Hi-Valu to have ready access to a large inventory of bicycles, because Hi-Valu had had great difficulty in predicting bicycle sales, both by store and by month. Hi-Valu wanted to carry these inventories in its regional warehouses, but did not want title on a bicycle to pass from Baldwin to Hi-Valu until the bicycle was shipped from one of its regional warehouses to a specific Hi-Valu
Two. One-time added costs of preparing drawings and/or arranging sources for fenders, seats, handlebars, tires, and shipping boxes that differ from those used in our standard models; approximately five thousand dollars (based on estimated two person-months of effort at two thousand five hundred dollars per month).
Three. Unit price and annual volume: Hi-Valu estimates it will need twenty-five thousand bikes a year and proposes to pay us (based on the assumed mix of models) an average of ninety-two dollars and twenty-nine cents per bike for the first year. Contract to contain an inflation escalation clause such that price will increase in proportion to inflation-caused increases in costs shown in item one, above; thus, the ninety-two dollars and twenty-nine cents and eighty-three dollars and ninety cents figures are, in effect, "constant-dollar" amounts. Knott intimated that there was very little, if any, negotiating leeway in the ninety-two dollars and twenty-nine cents proposed initial price.
Four. Asset-related costs (annual variable costs, as percent of dollar value of assets):
Five. Assumptions for Challenger-related added inventories (average over the year): Materials: two months' supply.
Work in process: one thousand bikes, half completed (but all materials for them issued). Finished goods: five hundred bikes (awaiting next carload-lot shipment to a Hi-Valu warehouse).
Six. Impact on our regular sales: Some customers comparison shop for bikes, and many of them are likely to recognize a Challenger bike as a good value when compared with a similar bike (either ours or a competitor's) at a higher price in a nonchain toy or bicycle store. In nineteen eighty-eight, we sold ninety-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-one bikes. My best guess is that our sales over the next three years will be about one hundred thousand bikes a year if we forgo the Hi-Valu deal. If we accept it, I think we'll lose about three thousand units of our regular sales volume a year, since our retail distribution is quite strong in Hi-Valu's market regions. These estimates do not include the possibility that a few of our current dealers might drop our line if they find out we're making bikes for Hi-Valu.
store. At that point, Hi-Valu would regard the bicycle as having been purchased from Baldwin, and would pay for it within thirty days. However, Hi-Valu would agree to take title to any bicycle that had been in one of its warehouses for four months, again paying for it within thirty days. Mr. Knott estimated that on average a bike would remain in a Hi-Valu regional warehouse for two months.
Second, Hi-Valu wanted to sell its Challenger bicycles at lower prices than the name-brand bicycles it carried, and yet still earn approximately the same dollar gross margin on each bicycle sold-the rationale being that Challenger bike sales would take away from the sales of the name-brand bikes. Thus, Hi-Valu wanted to purchase bikes from Baldwin at lower prices than the wholesale prices of comparable bikes sold through Baldwin's usual channels.
Finally, Hi-Valu wanted the Challenger bike to be somewhat different in appearance from Baldwin's other bikes. While the frame and mechanical components could be the same as used on current Baldwin models, the fenders, seats, and handlebars would need to be somewhat different, and the tires would have to have the name "Challenger" molded into their sidewalls. Also, the bicycles would have to be packed in boxes printed with the Hi-Valu and Challenger names. Ms. Leister thought that possibly these requirements would increase Baldwin's purchasing, inventorying, and production costs over and above the added costs that would be incurred for a comparable increase in volume for Baldwin's regular products.
On the positive side, Ms. Leister was acutely aware that the "bicycle boom" had flattened out, and this plus a poor economy had caused Baldwin's sales volume to fall the past two years. As a result, Baldwin currently was operating its plant at about seventy-five percent of one-shift capacity. Thus, the added volume from Hi-Valu's purchases could possibly be very attractive. If agreement could be reached on prices, Hi-Valu would sign a contract guaranteeing to Baldwin that Hi-Valu would buy its house-brand bicycles only from Baldwin for a three-year period. The contract would then be automatically extended on year-to-year basis, unless one party gave the other at least six-months' notice that it did not wish to extend the contract.
Suzanne Leister realized she needed to do some preliminary financial analysis of this proposal before having any further discussions with Karl Knott. She had written on a pad the information she had gathered to use in her initial analysis; this information is summarized in Exhibit two.
Questions
Questions
One. What is the expected added profit from the Challenger line?
Two. What is the expected impact of cannibalization of existing sales?
Three. What costs will be incurred on a one-time basis only?
Four. What are the additional assets and related carrying costs?
Five. What is the overall impact on the company in terms of (a) profits, (b) return on sales, (c) return on assets, and (d) return on equity?
Six. What are the strategic risks and rewards?
Seven. What should the company do? Why?