Mr. Krug, before your step to the Sabu you worked in industry. What was she attracted to the new task at the time?
Stephan Krug: In the past, I was sitting on the other side: From my position in industry at the time, I have repeatedly asked me questions such as: What are the added value of such an organization? What does a supplier pay for your money for? And what does the grouping group do with it? I found it exciting to put the test on how such a association can be guided from a purely entrepreneurial point of view. That irritated me and so we said at the time: we try it for three years. A test for both sides. Ten from three years. Apparently it worked for both sides.
Why did you take the step from industry to trade at the time?
I spurred it to create transparency, for which the money that the industry pays is used for. In addition, I also wanted to convey added value: So what does an industrial partner have from working with a group of joints? It was very striking to make the dealers future -proof, so that they are at the side of the industry as a reliable trading partner for a long time. We are service providers and use all strength to strengthen our dealers for the future.
Where did you see the largest construction sites for the Sabu at the time?
There was no transparency, structure and strategy. And ten years ago, the big topic of e-commerce also came up. We stood on the threshold of a drastic development, which should bring considerable structural changes. The SABU did not have good digitization and e-commerce strategies at the time. A large construction site at the start was the question of what role Sabu should play here – as a group of association, but also as a service provider. We were very quick with keywords such as Customer Journey and Touchpoints. And in addition to these topics, we had to deal with the structural change, which also took place in the distribution channels – and still dealt with us today.
In 2015, it seemed to be largely okay in the shoe trade. At least at first glance. Large branchists such as Görtz, Klauser and Dielmann were fixed sizes. Did you see the following serious changes in the market?
Not to this great extent. Most who looked outside the box at the time was already clear that, driven by online trade, sales structures and sales were also shifted. There were crude theses in which an online share of up to 50 % was mentioned. Back then I said that I think that is too high. In other markets you saw a saturation between 30 and 40 %. Today we see that online trading has also consolidated – keyword Zalando and About You.
Meanwhile, a massive dealer extinction has been used. At that time it was clear to me that the market would change significantly – but I did not expect this solidity. Görtz and sometimes also quieter were institutions at the time. Nobody expected that this would no longer exist in the known form. In addition, many small and medium -sized companies have disappeared from the market.
In a statement, they stated in 2016 that purchasing should not be tempted to be too early. Rather, trade should use trade fairs and make buying decisions closer to the need. Was something achieved here?
A few weeks ago I spoke to the boss of a supplier who has already worked in the industry for 25 or 30 years. I asked him whether something changed significantly with regard to the way of working in the market, i.e. order and clocking. My attitude to this is clear: No, nothing really changed. We are still (too) heavily preliminary. In our statistics, the proportion of pre- and followers is 85:15. So I have to find soberly: far too little has changed. We still cling to traditional approaches. What we also have to take a closer look at is the question of which goods should be in the shops at what time. Because the framework conditions have changed significantly in the past ten years. We have longer summer and shorter winter – if there is winter at all. There is Black Friday and Black Week. All of this leads to changes in demand.
In the quintessence, however, I have to say: We still work almost as well as 30 years ago.
In 2016 you requested a fairer risk distribution between industry and trade. The poor subsequent ability of industry is a basic evil. Was there movement here?
There are first approaches to improvement. The subsequent delivery ability and individual couple delivery of Tamaris are to be mentioned as an example, as is Rieker and Remonte’s subsequent delivery program. Gabor has always had a large after -delivery program. Lloyd has tightened a little. So it is worked by some brands in the direction – but that is still too little.
The current situation in the market makes the location precarious: at best trade generates zero growth, but the costs increase. I also came up with this in my fire letter from July: Of course, this leads to the question “What now? What follows?”. We have to come to a proportion of pre- and follow-orders around 70:30 or 65:35. And we have a big discussion about the margin. A flat -rate solution is difficult or not sensible. If we look at the situation and target what is appropriate, then we should achieve at least one margin of 2.5 plus quantity discounts with subsequent basics. There should be at least 2.8 plus quantity discounts to everything else that cannot be supplied and does not bring a warehouse handling – this also applies to the sports brands.
There we have a big problem with the serves: instead of 100, it must be at least 150. Everything underneath becomes difficult – in a market that no longer grows. It is a hen-egg problem: we talk a lot about it, but only a few react to it. Many are waiting for the others. And so a year passes again.
