Dick’s Sporting Goods In A Bind?

[okie john]

Dick's is getting hit pretty hard by all sides.

Soft goods are marked up about 3-400% in sporting goods, so most of your profit comes from volume sales of those. Shoes and clothes are cheaper elsewhere (Amazon, Zappos, etc.) it just doesn't make much sense to shop there.

Like Sports Authority, I expect Dick's to be dead in 5 years or less.

Yes and no.

Brick and mortar stores are more convenient than online if you have kids. That’s because kids have to try things on, especially shoes, to make sure that they fit. You pull up in the minivan, march them in, get them what they need, then march them out so you can get home in time to feed them dinner and fold their laundry. It’s slightly more expensive, but ultimately faster and more reliable because you fix the problem once and don’t have to worry about returns.

The real bottom line is that you can't afford to piss off customers. If Dick's had said, "We don’t make money on hook-and-bullet gear so we're dropping it," then they could have gotten out of the gun business without offending people.

But they went for a virtue-signaling PR win and now the damage is done.


Okie John

[okie john]

Not surprising, REI is damned expensive too. I do shop there about once maybe twice a year, usually for a specific piece of gear/clothing. I use the REI Outlet a lot more.

I used to, but those days are gone. It's a shame, since their flagship store was within walking distance of my house.


Okie John

[Bigghoss]

I went into a Dick's once. It's a cooler looking Big 5, which is also a shitty sporting goods store. The reason I don't shop there is because they suck. The fact they're anti gun is just icing on the shit cake they baked for themselves.

[Edster]

A league my kid played in when he was little did their equipment fitting at the local Dick's. As someone said, if you aren't sure what brand and size your kid will like, brick-and-mortar is worth it.

I pretty quickly found nearby alternatives with better selection and lower prices. When he developed a good enough handle on what he needed, online became the better choice.

I still stopped in to Dick's for occasional impulse buy. Once they decided the cause of the country's problems was law-abiding gunowners, that ended.

The only thing that disappoints me here is, if they fail, I am sure a lot of people will find some reason besides their posturing.

[BehindBlueI's]

I suspect that the vast majority of Dick's income is from two main categories. Clothing and golf stuff. For several years they have struck me as a clothing store with a sports marketing campaign attempting to drive traffic. Jeans aren't sporting goods, but they have Carhartts and their house brand. There's probably more overlap with women's clothing as the "sporty" look is popular outside of sports as well. Yoga pants aren't confined to yoga studios, etc.

Retail is tough. It's tougher when your marketing is scattered (come if you are outdoorsy but don't like guns?), your prices aren't particularly competitive, and your often tied to traditional malls with the increased overhead that goes with that. Their 2nd amendment bleating certainly hasn't helped them, but I suspect it's one of a host of issues. I wouldn't be an investor.

[Clusterfrack]

I don’t know if the politicization of retailers is a marketing decision, but I now avoid Dicks, REI, and Nike.

[Ichiban]

I don’t know if the politicization of retailers is a marketing decision, but I now avoid Dicks, REI, and Nike.

Don't forget Levis.
Although I suspect they aren't all that popular with this crowd anyway.
https://2ndvote.com/levis-just-donat...othes-instead/

[Clusterfrack]

Don't forget Levis.
Although I suspect they aren't all that popular with this crowd anyway.
https://2ndvote.com/levis-just-donat...othes-instead/

People wear Levi’s?

[RevolverRob]

I wouldn't be an investor.

For a more pragmatic reason than the risks you describe for me. I wouldn't invest in a company, whose job it is to make money, who actively destroys inventory and eliminates revenue streams. That strikes me as an additional layer of risk that is unnecessary.

And if Dick's was playing the game expecting vehement anti-gunners to invest with them more, that was a mistake. I've not yet met a vehement anti-gunner who wasn't simultaneously anti-capitalist and felt that Wall Street and investing was essentially the work of the devil (or Halliburton, or whatever). No, those folks send money to TD Waterhouse and have it invested for them and pay the fees, because it keeps them from knowing what they are invested in for the most part. And most mutual fund managers aren't buying up Dick's stock, that's for damn sure.

Seriously, every one of my friends and colleagues who is established enough to have a stock portfolio and is anti-gun just sends the money out and says, "Invest in green energy and whatever else." And then drive their Priuses to work and pretend they are doing good when they tweet about justice.

[txdpd]

I'm not sure I would put any stock in what the Daily Wire reports. I think there's a bit of jumping to conclusions going on there.

Dick's Sporting Goods is warning investors that its decision to remove certain "assault-style" weapons from its Field & Stream stores cost it dearly and may limit its future gains.

What might have happened at one location is then used to imply the demise of the of the entire chain.

Dick's had a less than stellar quarter, but they still had a quarter that turned a profit. Dick's isn't going away anytime soon. They'll die with the rest of sector if they don't find a way to get Generation Z away from screens and playing outdoors.