| Author |
Topic |
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 12:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
quote:
As for profits, cooperatives are supposed to break even. If MEC has large profits, then the prices are too high. Sometimes incentive pay is partly based on making profits, and that should not be the case at MEC.
But what about if MEC loses money? If sales are 9% below projections, then that's huge. Being a nonprofit means no cushion against losses. Somebody fucked up. Sales down means less product design, shorter hours, stores closing and layoffs, and less donations to environmental causes, and all that. Maybe they really NEED people with business acumen on the board to turn this slide around, you know?
First of all, we don't know if the 9% is a real figure, for the whole operation. Second, even if it's for real, we don't know if it's temporary, or even seasonal for that matter. Third, where you originally cited the 9%, you said you were told it was a variance from projections. We don't know how the projections compare to the same quarters last year, and the historic sales for those quarters. Let alone compared to similar businesses. Maybe it's just that MEC thought they would get even more business from yogis and runners than they got.
So I don't think we know enough to say there's a problem. (There must not be a problem. MEC claims to try to involve and inform the members, so if there was a problem, wouldn't we be told?)
Let's assume there really is a problem.
Then we have to evaluate whether MEC's board can more accurately be regarded as a "business" board or a "lay" board. We have to evaluate the business quality of the management (although the members, via the elected board, are ultimately responsible for that). There have been more than a few businesses with "business" boards that have gotten into a lot of trouble. I'm not so sure about the record of businesses with "lay" boards, and I have even less of a grasp on a comparison of the success of the two.
When I first got onto MEC's board, it had a very "business" board, and MEC certainly was doing well. When I last served on the board, it had a very "lay" board and was doing just fine. As I've said before, the board should be more for guidance and vision; the managers are supposed to have the business skills. Therefore I don't think there's strong evidence that MEC's board needs to be "business" oriented.
MEC's top priority is to serve the members. Implicit in that, is service to "current" members, not potential members. If MEC can best serve current members by downsizing, then it should do just that. There's no law against that, and all sorts of companies that have exceeded their grasp and diluted their brand have had to do this to survive. If MEC really is staving off trouble by broadening the product line and opening smaller stores, then any sign that the strategy isn't working should signal that it better try something else, and quickly. As members, we could be asked to help bail out the place.
Getting back to the issue of the special resolution, if we assume MEC is struggling, does it make sense to allow the current board, who presumably must bear responsibility for the assumed problems, to choose who can get onto the board? Well, that's exactly what we have. Oh, and the directors just gave themselves a 40% pay raise. And if MEC is doing just fine, then where's the need to shape the board more toward a business orientation? |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3830 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 09:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by icevixen
Also, we are getting into active lifestyle categories in response to member requests. Most members don't get out into the backcountry everyday, but instead run, bike, do yoga, etc between trips. Offering members gear for those active and self-propelled activities just makes business sense, and it is what members are asking for.
...
Some members are thrilled, and some members see it as a move away from the original intent of the coop. From what I've seen, MEC is not decreasing the amount of backcountry product available to members. It's adding new product in new categories.
It moved from mountain-focused to wilderness focused, which made sense. I'm not completely opposed to the self-propelled outdoors focus that came next. But now it seems to be generic activestuff. Yoga isn't even an outdoor activity, and car camping stoves are in opposition to the principles from just a few years ago.
It's not surprising that the members are clamoring for cotton t-shirts and yoga pants after MEC developed those new member cores by opening up stores in urban centres with a lot of yoga enthusiasts and few wilderness users.
As for what it edges out, I keep hearing MEC's line that the new stuff doesn't mean they're not carrying technical gear, but that's not what I'm seeing. The selection has been steadily lessening. Previously, they'd always had three standard hardshells with some variances in focus. I notice this year they're down to two hardshells, and the two are basically identical. Meanwhile, there are now three city-styled raincoats (heavy, zillions of pockets, long).
There used to be a lot of options for general hiking-type clothing, but I notice the cotton pants now outnumber the synthetics.
and worse, 'fashion' is now creeping into the technical gear with detrimental results. I don't need my good gear to be ugly to seem authentic, and I'm in favour of making good clothing look good as well (Note to designers of women's stuff - looking good does not mean pink and purple).
But the two recent pairs of underwear MEC makes (the standard and the merino) have foregone nice wide comfortable-under-a-hipbelt elastic for a tiny lacy elastic that would destroy your hip with even a daypack. They even have extra lacy detailing that serves no function. It seems an excellent demonstration that their choice to try to sell hard and appeal to pretty is coming at the expense of useful. |
|
|
 | Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 11:13 AM
|
Useful and sells are two different things. A decade ago they made an awesome belay parka. Every winter climber should have bought one. But they made around 300 and sold 70 at full price. the rest just wouldn't move. Most went at clearance eventually for ~50% of original price.
Either they make a bunch of items that aren't what people are buying and try and use advertising and marketing to sell them, or they make what people want to buy. What sells isn't necessarily what is useful or functional.
Demographics are destiny. Canada's demographics are getting steadily older and older people are less adventurous on average. Total visits to BC Parks are steadily declining. The only parks with increasing attendance are the very front country ones like Porteau.
This demographic shift also affects outdoor activities. There are fewer mountaineers and more boulderers now. Fewer backcountry skiiers, more snowshoers, more snowmobilers.
What does this say about MEC's long term market share, product mix and total sales?
Steve apparently thinks that MEC customers will buy what they SHOULD be buying if that's their only option. If MEC gets rid of yoga wear, suddenly everyone will have to buy three layer Goretex bibs. I don't agree. It's a strange and simplistic conception of how the market works. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 11:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
Useful and sells are two different things. A decade ago they made an awesome belay parka. Every winter climber should have bought one. But they made around 300 and sold 70 at full price. the rest just wouldn't move. Most went at clearance eventually for ~50% of original price.
Either they make a bunch of items that aren't what people are buying and try and use advertising and marketing to sell them, or they make what people want to buy. What sells isn't necessarily what is useful or functional.
What you say makes sense if MEC's primary reason for existence is to increase sales. But I think that has never been proven to be a successful business strategy. MEC could have stuck to what it was created to do, and the members at any given time would have been served, for those purposes, at least as well as they are now.
If that means the CEO runs only a $100 million business and the board oversees a $100 million business, and both are compensated accordingly, then that should be fine. But instead, the management's strongest vested interest is to make the company bigger. Service to members is relegated to second priority, at best. The board has the priorities. Especially directors whose main source of income is the board compensation.
So there is relentless pressure to expand the business. The members, through disinterest and lack of critical view of MEC, have gone along with this. They allowed themselves to be convinced that expansion, in and of itself, would mean they were better served by MEC.
Contraction won't kill MEC. About 15 years ago, some 50 or so managers, plus other staff, were terminated. That was when Don Serl left MEC, for instance. I wasn't there, so I don't know much about it. Few members were even aware of this, since the board kept very quiet about it. (Probably so no one would ask how this surplus of managers came about, and the cumulative cost of so many excess employees.) I don't recall service to members being impacted one way or another by that change.
quote:
Steve apparently thinks that MEC customers will buy what they SHOULD be buying if that's their only option. If MEC gets rid of yoga wear, suddenly everyone will have to buy three layer Goretex bibs. I don't agree. It's a strange and simplistic conception of how the market works.
Do YOU think that if MEC needs to sell toasters to increase sales, then MEC should sell toasters?
Maintaining high brand integrity probably has proven to be a better market strategy than pursuing sales at the expense of the brand.
Does anyone else think I said that if yoga wear customers can't buy yoga wear at MEC, then they will instead buy Goretex bibs from MEC?
|
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 12:17 PM
|
MEC has always had their stores in urban areas as I assume they need a big population to support all the stock they carry. There aren't any stores in non-urban centres and I think it's probably a mistake to think that non-urban centres have any where near the population needed to support big stores and big inventories. We have a couple of outdoor stores in Nelson but with a small population they can't carry big inventories, and, truthfully, most of the stuff they sell is barbeque clothing and yoga clothing. One store sells climbing gear, one sells ski tour gear. The population is too small to support both stores selling both climbing gear and ski gear.
Dru's hit the nail on the head and MEC is simply selling what members want and use. As anyone who regularly participates in the MEC listens surveys knows the average backcountry enthusiast is out in the backcountry for 4 hours or less at a time. Even on this discussion board that probably has more "hard-core" backcountry people gathered together, most active posters on this board are out for short periods of time to areas that are really not all that remote.
It is irksome when you want to buy a light ski for doing longer tours and the MEC ski guru tells you that they don't stock light skis because 99% of people are going for one slackcountry run and have been brainwashed into buying a big fat ski. It's the same as the belay jacket - dudes that ice-climbed likely recognized right away that they were a great jacket, but those dudes make up such a small part of the overall population. But, who doesn't want to look good at yoga class or the next barbeque. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 2:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
Dru's hit the nail on the head and MEC is simply selling what members want and use.
I buy and use all sorts of goods. Housing, gas, cars, non-backcountry clothing, computers, papers, food, Girl Guide cookies, etc. etc.
These things can be arranged along a spectrum that only in a very limited way corresponds to or includes what MEC sells. The question is whether, or to what degree, MEC should broaden its involvement in that range of economic activity. I agree the members speak with their dollars. BUT, whether expanding the product range is good for the members, for MEC, or for society in the long run, is not so simple to answer.
Lululemon probably could sell toasters, but obviously they feel they're better off not doing so. MEC COULD, but shouldn't, sell just anything. Everyone will have a different opinion as to how tight its focus should be. I've always argued that it should do an excellent job of serving current members (as measured by dollar sales per member, market share and member satisfaction surveys) before expanding. I think it's done a good or very good job in most areas, but seldom an excellent job. The Internet gives everyone access to the excellent products.
quote:
As anyone who regularly participates in the MEC listens surveys knows the average backcountry enthusiast is out in the backcountry for 4 hours or less at a time. Even on this discussion board that probably has more "hard-core" backcountry people gathered together, most active posters on this board are out for short periods of time to areas that are really not all that remote.
I just don't see how the amount of time backcountry recreationists are in the backcountry is relevant. I suppose "proving" relatively small amounts of time might be used to justify broadening the product line, but it's really not logical. Skydiving shops would be selling toasters if this was a valid approach. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 2:29 PM
|
Maybe it's time to get this back on track a bit.
On MEC's Facebook site, I asked how the 2012 special resolution, allowing the board to choose who can run for election, reconciled with an existing MEC rule that prohibited the board from expressions of preference for candidates/nominees. I didn't distinguish between candidates and nominees.
MEC's spokesperson responded that MEC's lawyers advised that the rule prohibiting expressions of preference related to candidates; and candidates are nominees who have been approved by the board to run for election. So there could be 10 nominees put forward to the board for screening, and if 5 are allowed to run, those 5 are deemed "candidates". No further expression of preference would be allowed.
It seems like kind of a fine distinction. I objected that MEC's rules don't make such a neat distinction between nominees and candidates, nor do generally accepted meanings of the words.
MEC says it needs to decide who is allowed to run for election because it needs people with certain business skills on the board. I asked how the board will indicate to the members which candidates bring which needed skills, without violating the rule that prohibits expressions of preference for candidates. I don't have an answer yet.
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who knows how this could be done, because I can think of only two ways.
One would be to reduce the number of nominees to the number of vacant positions, which would mean there is no need for a vote, and so there would be no need to convey which candidates have which needed skills. However, MEC's spokesperson insists the board has no intention of precluding elections this way.
The other way would be to allow only one candidate more than the number of vacancies, and so achieve pretty much the same outcome but still hold a vote. They could allow one apparently unsuitable candidate, which would direct the votes to their desired candidates. |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 08:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
One would be to reduce the number of nominees to the number of vacant positions,
REI does that, and their election is essentially a Yes/No on each of the proposed candidates. It's pretty much interpreted as a vote of confidence on the current board.
But ultimately, I think the issue here is that MEC and the majority of its members no longer share your values. And you don't like that. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 1:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tu
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
One would be to reduce the number of nominees to the number of vacant positions,
REI does that, and their election is essentially a Yes/No on each of the proposed candidates. It's pretty much interpreted as a vote of confidence on the current board.
But ultimately, I think the issue here is that MEC and the majority of its members no longer share your values. And you don't like that.
No, and I don't like the fact that Canadians gave Stephen Harper's party a majority government either. Doesn't mean I have lost any right to resist these circumstances. And I find no shame in objecting to the coercive presentation of a resolution that allows sham elections.
I'm not going to be isolated as a lone crank either. Have a look at some of the other people who don't like the way things are going:
http://www.democraticcoop.ca/ |
Edited by - sgRant on 06/18/2012 1:23 PM |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3523 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 1:38 PM
|
The issue isn't whether MEC carries yoga gear or car camping equipment. The issue here is that the current directors get to pick who they run with/against in the next election.
Whether they do it consciously or not, this will keep MEC from evolving or changing direction. We talk about MEC sticking to it's initial mission, or roots, or whatever, but it has changed for the better in so many ways, and many of those changes came from new blood and ideas to the board. 1% For The Planet is perhaps the most visible and current example. |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 2:36 PM
|
The real issue is that a staggeringly vast majority of members don't vote and don't care.
So the board did a crude job of preventing in the future any kook with a non-relevant political-axe-to-grind and just a few thousand followers from using MEC as a platform to spew their vile. Don't know if anyone really believes that needed-business-skills reason.
It's unfortunate that those who're against that hack job of a special prop couldn't overturn it by rallying just a few thousand votes. Really. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 7:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tu
The real issue is that a staggeringly vast majority of members don't vote and don't care.
Or more accurately, that staggering proportion of members don't think there's enough of a problem to their personal lives to put aside more attractive uses of their time to sort out the issues and cast an informed vote. This, however, shouldn't devalue the votes of those who do vote. In fact, the flip side is that the votes that are cast need to be treated as being valuable. Not made irrelevant by trickery.
quote:
So the board did a crude job of preventing in the future any kook with a non-relevant political-axe-to-grind and just a few thousand followers from using MEC as a platform to spew their vile. Don't know if anyone really believes that needed-business-skills reason.
But this would mean the board committed a further impropriety by publishing support for the resolution that varied from their actual concern or intention.
There are other checks and balances. A large majority of the board can kick off the board any director. Board decisions are by majority vote. Directors are bound by rules of conduct and vested interests at several levels of governance. No one is going to push some kooky agenda and get very far.
quote:
It's unfortunate that those who're against that hack job of a special prop couldn't overturn it by rallying just a few thousand votes. Really.
Well, it would take only two members to activate a member grievance against it, and it could be thrown out. Two out of three million members? What kind of people are we, anyway? |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 2:11 PM
|
I used to love MEC. At least they had real gear meant to last a bit longer than one weekend in the woods every summer (unlike Canadian Tire), and a good assortment of stuff that no one else offered, like ice axes and climbing equipment. They also had knowledgeable staff who weren't in it just to make sales for their commissions, and they operated as a co-op on the old hippy model.
In the past few years, I've seen the good people get decimated at the Edmonton store, to be replaced by inexperienced wannabes (can you say 'Coast Mountain Sports'?). Apparently it was too inconvenient to give staff some of their weekends off to go out and use the gear, so they replaced them with kids who were more willing to work retail hours.
I've also seen a number of good, solid product lines replaced by more consumer-oriented ones (Merrell, New Balance and Columbia). Look under waterproof/breathable jackets right now and the only brands you'll see are MEC and Patagonia.
But the biggest shift is from mountain/hiking/skiing/white water to yoga/biking/running. Open the webpage and the first thing that pops up is a shot of cute young girls doing yoga stretches. And the board members now seem to just be business people looking to find products that sell. I still go there because friends and family give me MEC gift cards, and some of the gear is okay, but the people I see in there seem to be more interested in how they look than in doing outdoor activities. I always feel like I'm walking into Yuppieville.
MEC's pretty much lost me - I have most of the gear I need, and the stuff I have to replace I can get more cheaply by going directly to the manufacturers. |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 6:45 PM
|
I had a chance to compare an MEC 1971 bicycle to my Devinci hybrid. Although the 1971 is a more expensive bike than the Devinci model I have, and seemed to have better components, I didn't think it was as good value as the Devinci. Both have aluminum frames, but the Devinci has double-butted tubes with sophisticated cross-sections, while the 1971 has simpler, straight gauge tubes. And, unlike the 1971, the Devinci is made in Canada.
Who's going to buy bikes from MEC if you can get better, and Canadian-made, bikes elsewhere? |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 6:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
But the biggest shift is from mountain/hiking/skiing/white water to yoga/biking/running.
It's entirely possible MEC has got into these activities to harvest $5 membership fees to use as capital, while needing little support or inventory to host those activities. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2012 : 08:42 AM
|
I sent someone to MEC yesterday to get some gear for a weekend camping/hiking trip in Jasper.
She is a Chinese student and her English is poor. She doesn't have much money, but she really wants to see the mountains and is going full-tilt on hiking this summer. I suggested she rent a tent and other camping gear to hold her costs down, and pick up an inexpensive pair of hiking boots or trail shoes.
Instead of giving her what she needed, MEC tried to sell her a Hubba Hubba and an Optimus Nova, and suggested that she should be looking at boots priced at around $200.00 or more. She called me in a panic.
I referred her to the latest Atmosphere flyer for a pair of $69.00 Timberland Ledge or a $79.00 pair of North Face Hedgehogs.
Since when did MEC change from helping out their customers to trying to fleece them for every penny?
I will be taking their logo off my list of sponsors. |
|
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
359 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2012 : 11:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
I sent someone to MEC yesterday to get some gear for a weekend camping/hiking trip in Jasper.
She is a Chinese student and her English is poor. She doesn't have much money, but she really wants to see the mountains and is going full-tilt on hiking this summer. I suggested she rent a tent and other camping gear to hold her costs down, and pick up an inexpensive pair of hiking boots or trail shoes.
Instead of giving her what she needed, MEC tried to sell her a Hubba Hubba and an Optimus Nova, and suggested that she should be looking at boots priced at around $200.00 or more. She called me in a panic.
I referred her to the latest Atmosphere flyer for a pair of $69.00 Timberland Ledge or a $79.00 pair of North Face Hedgehogs.
Since when did MEC change from helping out their customers to trying to fleece them for every penny?
I will be taking their logo off my list of sponsors.
I don't know that your story is definitive proof of fleecing. It could just be the staff that helped her thought those were here best options. It's not as if the Hubba Hubba isn't the most popular backpacker tent they carry. Also, if she said she was going into the mountains, they may have interpreted that to be needing mountaineer boots, which are over $200, and not just hiking boots.
But on that topic, my girlfriend went to atmosphere and asked for an affordable waterproof jacket. The staff member brought her to a $1000 jacket before any other. That's the behaviour of a salesman.
I guess my point is that I don't believe the attitude of MEC staff has changed. Though they may not always be as knowledgeable on average as before, they still are there to help, not sell. This thread is about a corporate level direction of finances etc., not about a change in staff training. In fact, I can think of multiple recent examples that counter your notion that staff are being salesmen and fleecing people. For one example, a staff member came up to my friend, unsolicited, and told her that the bike pump she was holding was more expensive and not as good as their other offering. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2012 : 11:06 AM
|
Hey, Cherry, I never said they were any worse than the other outdoor stores. I just meant they were becoming just as bad. Remember, this lady wanted to rent a tent - they tried to sell her one. She told them she wanted hiking boots, they tried to sell her the more expensive ones right off the bat rather than asking her how much she wanted to spend.
I'm reminded of the woman who showed up for the annual 'Backpacking Prep' last year. The guy at Atmosphere sold her an expensive Osprey backpack, $210 Salomon Quest 4D boots (a size too small), and recommended she carry large amounts of beef jerky as the ultimate backpacking food. By the end of the first day, she had sore toes (she had to clip her toenails to walk any further), she was swollen up like a blimp from all the salt and had to keep stopping to pee because of all the water she had to drink to wash the jerky down, and she was pissed at having spent so much money when she realized she didn't need to.
That has never been the case with MEC staff until now, so my reaction reflects my disappointment with what appears to be a change in their sales techniques and their staff qualifications.
|
Edited by - peter1955 on 07/11/2012 11:15 AM |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2012 : 4:59 PM
|
MEC has posted "BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTION: NOMINEE CRITERIA FOR 2013".
http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/BOD_2013_Nominee_Criteria_v1_m56577569831164450.pdf
Much of this document is a reprint of existing legal requirements for directors, and thus was in effect without the 2012 special resolution that allows the board to choose who can run for election.
The document lists a wide variety of attributes one would normally associate with candidates, leaving one to wonder exactly how the board is going to judge candidates, and why this couldn't be left to the members to decide.
Many "business" skills are listed, leaving one to wonder if MEC's management team is short on these qualifications.
And even if a person has "business" qualifications, the number of businesses, large and small, that fail, means having qualifications doesn't mean someone will make a good director. |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3523 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2012 : 9:02 PM
|
Let's see. I have four university degrees, one in business, one in finance, one in economics and one in education. I have run small firms (size 10-30 employees) and sat at the senior executive level of several multi-billion dollar firms. A large part of my experience is in controlled growth and understanding target markets and customer needs.
Business end covered?
I have grown from the ground up several grass roots NGO's including one of Canada's first housing land trusts, a housing coop, and a community economic development agency. I have chaired and sat on the boards of many organizations. I have a strong understanding of the role of boards vs. executives. I'm also a former employee of MEC, and have a keen understanding of the organization and the needs of the members and employees.
Coop and NFP covered?
I have been traveling in the back-country for 43 of my 47 years, including backpacking, rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, ski mountaineering, back-country skiing, XC skiing and trail running. I'm also a certified canoe instructor.
Self propelled sports experience covered?
BUT...
I don't play politic games and call it like I see it. Not sure if MEC can cope... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
MEC Discusses Its Anti-Democratic Rule on Facebook
