CASE: ROllERBlADE, INC.
DOING BUSINESS IN A MATURE MARKET
For Rollerblade, Inc., to remain the market leader in the competitive in-line skating industry, the company
must continually innovate its product offerings in response to changing consumer desires. In an industry
trying to rebound from an enduring maturation phase, Rollerblade continues to lead in-line skating into the
next millennium.
Over the last 20 years Rollerblade has made technical, aesthetic, and practical improvements in its
products as well as introducing extensive new product lines that have developed into dependable
moneymakers. In attempting to maintain consumer interest in an industry which is experiencing declining
sales, Rollerblade looks to expand the scope of in-line skating by creating new ways and reasons to
skate. As the company looks ahead and considers the long-range in-line skating market conditions, it
faces a challenging question: In what directions should Rollerblade go, and what strategies should it
pursue to maintain its market share and revitalize its growth?
The Company
As a 19-year-old goaltender for a minor league hockey team, Scott Olson divined a simple idea that soon
led him to multimillionaire status. The simple idea was ice skates that could work without ice.
In 1979 Olson came across a pair of roller skates in which the wheels were arranged in a single row
rather than two by two. This "in-line" skate originated in the Netherlands in the 1700s and was said to be
the first roller skate.' Although slow and clumsy, the skate provided the feel of skating on ice. As a hockey
player, Olson knew the outstanding potential of a skate targeted toward hockey players that could
simulate the feel of ice skating but allow a hockey player to perform off the ice and during the off-season.
After locating the manufacturer of the in-line skate and buying up back stock (the manufacturer had
quit making the skate by then), Olson proceeded to refine the skates (through good skate boots and
better wheels for a faster, smoother tide) and began building them in his basement. In 1983 Olson's
company, Rollerblade, Inc., based in Minnesota, became the only manufacturer of in-line skates. Olson
soon sold most of his holdings in Rollerblade, Inc., to Robert O. Naegele, Jr., and in 1985 Olson left
Rollerblade after a business dispute.
The success of the company continued through the late 1980s and into the I 990s, with Rollerblade,
Inc., maintaining its number one position in a growing market expe riencing increased competitive activity.
In 1991 Rollerblade, Inc., embarked on a partnership with Nordica Sportsystem (Italy). Nordica, a division
of Edizione Holding (controlled by the Benetton family) and the world's number one ski boot maker, purchased 50 percent of Rollerblade, Inc., for an undisclosed sum. 3 Edizione Holding's product lines, under
the Benetton Sportsytem umbrella, also included Prince tennis rackets, Asolo mountain boots, and Kastle
Skates. In November 1997 Rollerblade, Inc.'s, Minnesota headquarters closed, and the company was
relocated to Bordentown, New Jersey. There all facets of the manufacturing, sales, marketing, and
distribution of Benetton's Sports brands were consolidated in one place.
In-Line Skating
In the 1990s in-line skating permeated the recreation, fitness, and athletics industry at a startling pace.
According to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA), U.S. in-line participation had grown
858 percent in the last 10 years. An estimated 32 million Americans were in-line skaters, a striking
contrast to the reported 3.6 million participants in 1994. At 22 percent, up 7 percent from 1995, household
penetration of in-line skating was on the rise. A recent SGMA study noted in-line skating as the fastestgrowing sport of 1999. While the number of new participants continued to increase and the sport
maintained its evolution, the industry faces a decline in sales resulting from the onset of maturation.
The in-line craze of the early 1990s led to the presence of almost 30 manufacturers in the industry by
1995. Large sporting goods companies entered the market. Nike and Fila capitalized on their footwear
popularity and entered the market in 1996. Ski boot manufacturers Rossignol, Salomon, and K2 joined as
well, building their in-line businesses on their quality ski equipment images. The abundance of product
offered to customers by these competitors as well as numerous other independent manufacturers contributed to the industry's continuous sales decline in the late 1990s.
Maturation for in-line skating began as it approached its 20-year presence in the sporting goods
industry. After soaring sales and consistent years of double-digit growth rates, numerous companies
entered the market, hoping to take advantage of the popularity of in-line skating. The competitive
saturation produced inevitable overinventoried, overstored tanking across the industry. The continual
lowering of skate prices, resulting from competitive pricing and the presence of so many skate
manufacturers in the market, resulted in a steady decline in dollar sales in the late 1990s. Sales in 1999
were $305 million, down 35 percent from the previous year. In 1998, sales were $322.4 million, while
1997 posted $374 million and 1996 reported $418 million in sales. Future sales performance was
expected to follow this trend. While in-line skating remained popular, preseason orders project sales in
2000 to continue to decrease 15 to 25 percent.
Major competitor brands exited the in-line market in the second half of the decade.
In 1999 Nike, Fila, and Rossignol, strong brands looking to capitalize on their brand equity and the in-line
craze, recognized their efforts as unprofitable and decided to end distribution of their respective skate
products. Both their presence and their absence were felt by other manufacturers and retailers. The
entrance and exit of manufacturers in the industry had created an excess inventory problem. This
"problem" evolved into inventory pileups, product dumping, and inventory rollovers. With the consumer's
hunt for the cheapest pair of skates and the absence of upgrade purchases, the industry faced a
discouraging decline.
The slow and steady recovery of the in-line skating market began in the new millennium as "inventory
pipe-lines are finally getting cleared out and the closeouts haunting the business begin to subside."4 New
products and skating opportunities were being developed, and with fewer major players in the market,
industry leaders were better able to maintain and grow their market share. The four major players in the
industry (Rollerblade, 36 percent; K2, 34 percent; Salomon, 5.8 percent; and Bladerunner, 2.6 percent)
continued to lead the market in the year 2000, presenting consumers with new and innovative products.
Product Line
Over the years, changing consumer patterns and industry trends led to a redefinition of the original
market segments. The company had introduced new products in those segments based on customer
usage. By listening to the consumers and devoting itself to extensive research and development,
Rollerblade sustained market dominance by developing skates that addressed buyers' needs and
desires. Since the industry slowdown in the mid-1990s, Rollerblade had worked hard to create new
markets, which in turn generated new product lines for the company.
In 1998 the in-line industry had plateaued. Skates were used for fitness, recreation, transport, and
playing hockey. While in-line users continued to skate, nothing "new" was introduced to motivate or excite
the market. Rollerblade capitalized on this monotony by creating a new category of skating. Innovation
had, since the origin of the sport, been the lifeblood of in-line. Concept and design innovation stimulated
media hype and consumer attention. With the launch of Rollerblade's Coyote skate in 1998, all-terrain,
off-road skating was born.
The introduction of all-terrain skating resulted in the evolution of new sports in the industry; aggressive
skaters, lured by the exciting terrain made accessible by product attributes, brought skating to an entirely
new level with grass skating, downhill slalom, bump competition, and rough-terrain racing. Rollerblade
marketed the Coyote as a downhill-specific,5 off-road, all-terrain skate and introduced Blade Cross at the
1998 Summer X Games. Competitors, apprehensive about consumer response, waited until aggressive
skating became mainstream before manufacturing offo-road skates. This trepidation allowed Rollerblade,
Inc., to dominate the aggressive market. According to Rollerblade, Inc.'s, vice president of sales and
marketing, Mike Klein, the development of the Coyote was essential because aggressive skating was the
direction in which inline skating was headed in the future.
Rollerblade, Inc., continued to innovate its products to satisfy consumer needs in the late 1990s. Its
original transportation skate, the Metroblade, had served the desired function but lacked any distinct
beneficial feature. In late 1998 Rollerblade introduced a specialty transport skate, the Nature. The product
functioned as a high-end skate with a removable frame so that the boot could be worn separately. The
skate, created with the student and local commuter in mind, featured a boot designed by Benetton Sportsystem partner Asoto. The success of the Nature skate among consumers led to the development of
three new models launched in January 2000: Derby, Derby-Grey, and Drop skates (boot designs differed
among the three).
Joining the product launches of 1998 was Rollerblade, Inc.'s, first footwear offering.
The Grind shoe, introduced to the consumer market simultaneously with the Coyote and the Nature
skate, was designed for grinding on curbs and rails, sliding, and jumping. This everyday shoe, featuring
Rollerblade's patented Twin Bar Roller System, capitalized on the company's brand equity to introduce a
new product line and skating concept to the consumer market. Yet again Rollerblade succeeded in
expanding its product offering to uncharted territory while maintaining quality image consistency.
By the start of the new millennium Rollerblade offered consumers many products in five major product
lines: fitness/performance, transportation, aggressive/specialty, recreation, in-line hockey, and kids.
Focus on the Future
While in-line skating had entered a stage of maturity and sales had decreased significantly, it was
possible for Rollerblade to recover and increase its business. To grow in the new millennium, Rollerblade
must focus on developing a marketing strategy that will drive future sales in a stagnant market. As
Rollerblade must continue to present the market with new and innovative products, it also has to respond
to consumer trends. As aggressive market sales slow, children's and high-performance fitness skates are
becoming the focus.
Children's in-line skating participation was steadily rising, causing Rollerblade to acknowledge that
market as an important growth segment and regard it as a legitimate investment. RB Kids introduced the
Xtenblade in 1996, and improvements and design modifications were made continually. The skate's
technology accommodated children's growing feet by creating an adjustable frame that extended four full
sizes with the turn of a screw. Included in the 2000 skate line for children was the SAX, a new softboot offering an ABT brake designed to accommodate users' short legs and limited braking leverage.
Another segment in which Rollerblade hoped to generate sales was high-performance fitness. A study
outlining the fitness benefits of in-line skating resulted in Rollerblade focusing its energies on a fitness
campaign. Much of the 2000 line would reflect design changes to Rollerblade's high-end fitness skates.
Unveiled in late 1999, the 2000 skate line aimed not only to provide the consumer with upgraded, highperformance fitness skates but also to re-enter the market segment at higher prices than it had had in the
recent past (due to the presence of competitors who were forcing prices down). The stylish new line
featured a variety of softboot skates with advances in braking, comfort, and performance.
The 2000 skate line reflected technical and innovative improvements on existing products. The
previously mentioned transportation skate models, accompanied by improvements to the aggressive
skates as well as the debut of two new grind shoes, would join Rollerblade's 2000 line.
Long-range in-line market conditions and opportunities had to be considered before Rollerblade could
implement its future marketing strategy. The company needed alternative marketing strategies to combat
the sales slump it was experiencing. Additionally, Rollerblade had to evaluate the market's CUITent state,
consumer desires, and industry trends before executing a strategy aimed at increasing sales. As
Rollerblade faced growth in a declining market, it was challenged with the task of recognizing future opportunities in a changing consumer market as well as focusing on marketing efforts that would capitalize
on those opportunities.
Rollerblade segmented its market in multiple ways. Therefore, considering marketing strategies, it was
imperative to recognize the age and benefit segments to which Rollerblade catered with its product
offerings. Rollerblade's marketing efforts were not based on gender segmentation due to the presence of
an almost equal male-female inline representation (male, approximately 57 percent; female,
approximately 43 percent). The previously mentioned product lines correspond with certain markets:
Fitness/performance: men and women ages 20 to 50, core group between 25 and 40, professional
and highly educated
Aggressive/specialty: 18- to 24-year-olds
Kids: under 18 years old
Recreation: 18 to 55 years old
In-line hockey: children, adolescents, and younger adults Transportation: local
commuters and students
To develop an effective marketing strategy, Rollerblade must identify which market(s), if not the general
in-line skating market (men and women age 18 to 55), it will focus on. The company must then direct its
promotional efforts toward the chosen market.
Rollerblade, Inc., must examine the following four potential growth areas:
1. Market Penetration
 Rollerblade could engage in grassroots marketing efforts which would involve marketing directly
to its customers through promotional activities and events. In providing interactive workshops,
seminars, festivals, shows, and other various events, Rollerblade would reintroduce its
consumers to its products.
2. Product Development
 Rollerblade had consistently delivered new and improved products to the market over the last
20 years. The development of innovative products had been the key to its success as well as
its market domination.
 The introduction of aggressive skating products to the consumer market in 1998 aimed to
boost sales in the existing in-line market. The new aggressive line, along with the introduction
of all-terrain skating as a sport, led the market to change to a more challenging skate. Perhaps
introducing another skate product category to the existing market would spur sales.
 Recent studies suggested that in-line skating was linked to being fit. The focus on inline skating
as a top cardiovascular, balance, and muscular endurance fitness activity could be beneficial to
Rollerblade's future. If the company capitalized on the increase in contemporary health/fitness
consciousness and took advantage of the rising interest in alternative methods of exercise,
Rollerblade could develop its existing fitness market into a top moneymakeI'. In developing new
and innovative products for this growing market, Rollerblade could simultaneously increase
profits and gain a larger customer base.
3. Market Development
 Rollerblade could continue to grow internationally. While it had expanded in Europe (Finland,
Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom), the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, Israel), Asia (Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Malyasia, Philippines,
Singapore), Central and South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Panama,
Venezuela), the Caribbean (Dominican Republic, St. Maarten, and Trinidad), and Australia and
New Zealand, Rollerblade could seek to permeate new, more obscure markets.
 Recent research had noted that in-line skating was tremendously helpful for children in
mastering motor skills. In-line skating was credited with aiding developmentally delayed children
in their mental and physical progress. Perhaps making some efforts toward the creation of an
educational/developmental children's market focusing on the psychological and physical benefits
of in-line skating would prove beneficial to company sales.
4. Diversification.
 Rollerblade took the first step in this direction with the development of the Grind shoe in 1998.
The product expanded Rollerblade's market penetration to encompass footwear.
 An option for growth could lie in the development of product lines outside the inline industry.
Perhaps, in keeping with its image as an alternative sporting goods manufacturer, Rollerblade
could extend its product lines to include other extreme sports, such as skateboarding and
snowboarding. Rollerblade could possibly capitalize on the recent scooter craze and introduce
its own line to the consumer market. Two-wheeled, lightweight portable scooters had become
popular among short-range commuters, students, adults, and children. Investment in this current
trend could prove profitable for the company.
Question: Given the four options, which one(s) would prove to be most lucrative in the
long term? What should Rollerblade, Inc., do to be successful in the selected growth
area(s)?