Tag: IPO

Post-IPO, John Idol on What’s Next for Michael Kors

The decision to transition the business behind Michael Kors’ fashion empire into a public company was a tough one for its CEO, John Idol.

“I didn’t want to go public,” Idol said during a speech at Wharton yesterday organized as part of Penn Fashion Week. “I’ve run four public companies, and the hardest thing to do when you run a public company is to not change the way you’re running the business because you have investors and, more importantly, Wall Street looking over your shoulder.”

But Idol and the firm’s leadership team ultimately decided to make the leap. The company debuted on the New York Stock Exchange in December, pricing its shares above estimates at $20 each, raising $944 million. The shares have more than doubled in value since, and last week the firm announced that it would sell more than $1 billion in stock in a secondary offering.

Michael Kors made the move with in order to build long-term value into the brand. “The hardest thing to say when you go public is that you’re going to do the right thing for the business over the next three to five years,” said Idol, who was previously an executive at Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan and Kaspar A.S.L. “Some investors don’t want to hear that. They want to hear what you’re going to do over the next quarter and the next month. But I guarantee that if you run a public company like that, you’re going to fail.”

When Idol and partners Lawrence Stroll and Silas Chou acquired the business in 2003, they, along with Kors, who acts as chief creative officer, had the goal of building it from a brand with a “cult following” to one that graced the closets of a global and multigenerational clientele. “[Michael Kors] was a $20 million business in 2004,” Idol said. “It was losing money and probably would have gone out of business had we not bought it.” The company now has a market cap of $8.6 billion. For the fourth quarter of 2011, it reported $373.6 million in revenue, a 68% increase over same time a year earlier, and net sales of $199.4 million, an 82.8% jump from 2010.

Michael Kors achieved his initial success designing apparel, but the company’s relatively rapid growth came from an unexpected source: accessories. “We looked for the white space in the market,” Idol said in an interview before his speech. “The pure luxury accessories market was a crowded field with Prada, Louis Vuitton and others, but in the accessible luxury market there was Coach and not a lot of other competitors.” Idol added that today, around 70% of Michael Kors’ business comes from selling shoes, bags, eyewear and watches.

The company bills itself as a purveyor of jet-set luxury, and Idol says the team always keeps in mind its target customer. “Michael has a simple saying. When I say, ‘Michael, who is our target customer?’ he says, ‘She’s 35 years old,’” Idol noted. “I ask him, ‘How do you know?’ and he says, ‘Any woman who is 50 wants to be 35 and any woman who is 25 wants the wardrobe of a 35-year-old.’”

Today, the company includes the signature Michael Kors line that walks the runways each season, competing with brands such as Gucci and Dolce & Gabbana, and the more affordable Michael line. In Michael Kors stores, $2,000 handbags share the display cases with purses priced at $200 or $300. Addressing the Penn audience of mostly 20-somethings, Idol noted that, “You guys will go into H&M or Zara and buy a top and buy a jean, but you’re also going to call your mom or dig deep into your savings and try to get a Gucci bag. You’re going to mix high and low, and you don’t feel embarrassed that you bought a Forever 21 top.”

Unlike many retailers that have reached a saturation point in the U.S. market, with around 180 or 190 stores nationwide (out of 230 globally), Michael Kors still has room to grow, Idol said. “When we get to 500 stores in the U.S., that will be an opportunity to have some dialogue. Coach is there today — they’re doing $2.7 billion or $2.8 billion in the U.S., and they’re probably not completely saturated in the U.S. because the handbag business, the accessory business, continues to grow. When you look at the market and see they’re doing $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion and we’re doing $1 billion in the U.S., then I think we’re at about the halfway point. It shows you can maintain a brand’s integrity and still grow to that size.”

The company is also eyeing more expansion into global markets, but Idol stressed the need for a measured strategy. “China today for us is the most expensive market to hire people in. Why? Because everybody wants to go to China, and for the mid- and upper-tier executives, it’s a field day. Secondly, real estate is insane. Why? Because everybody’s going there. Prices are through the roof, and the logistics are not easy. It’s not like the U.S. and Europe where the logistics have been set for years and years and years. This is the wild, wild West.”

In addition, brand awareness can’t be built overnight. “In China or Japan, people don’t understand what Michael Kors is; it literally means nothing,” Idol said. “It’s a very challenging thing, a very expensive thing, to do and you have to be patient and have the vision of 10 years. We’re a wealthy company, we have the money to do it and we have to do it because to be global we must undertake that endeavor. But you can’t enter a country and think you’ll be successful just because you’re a big, bad American company.”

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Leadership and Change, Marketing, Strategic Management | Also tagged , , | Leave a comment

Groupon’s IPO Scores Big, But Doubts Persist

Groupon made its debut on the stock market today, and company shareholders collectively stand to earn billions in one of the most anticipated IPOs of the year.

Late Thursday, Groupon priced shares at $20, which was above the expected range and values the group buying site at around $13 billion. The stock soared up to 55% higher in Nasdaq trading this morning, climbing to a peak of $31 a share. It was around $28 by early afternoon.

But concerns persist over the long-term sustainability of the company’s business model, which has spawned dozens of competitors since Groupon launched in 2008. Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton professor of operations and information management, says Groupon faces not only the challenge of finding the right business mix, but also managing the waves of change that come with being a young company.

Groupon faced several hurdles in the run-up to its IPO. Barely a month ago, some early institutional investors raised concerns about possible write-downs as the IPO market then seemed tepid, according to the Wall Street Journal. Around that time, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) faulted Groupon’s method of calculating revenue because the firm wasn’t taking into consideration subscriber acquisition expenses such as marketing costs. The company has since made adjustments in response, the WSJ reported. But those developments hurt Groupon’s pre-IPO valuation, which fell from a peak of $30 billion to one institutional investor’s estimate of $8.7 billion.

Meanwhile, another company expected to launch a closely watched IPO this year — social gaming firm Zynga — is also facing roadblocks. Zynga’s games, which include FarmVille and Mafia Wars, are almost completely dependent on Facebook’s platform. SEC filings made over the summer in preparation for taking the company public showed that while Zynga was able to build a large user base with little upfront investment by partnering with Facebook, Zynga’s fate is largely in the hands of Facebook. In October, Zynga announced that it will begin delivering games directly to consumers through a service called Zynga Direct.

Zynga’s efforts to diversify its delivery methods beyond Facebook are “critical in the long-term,” Hosanagar notes. “The dependence was not good because Zynga’s fortunes depended so heavily on Facebook’s strategy. That was disconcerting to potential investors. Ultimately, Zynga needs to deliver on Zynga Direct and show that it has a large and growing revenue stream independent of Facebook. When it does that, Zynga will have a more convincing pitch for the market.”

The common theme, according to Hosanagar, is that “these are all young companies and it may take some more time before they are ready for retail investors.” In the case of Groupon, the accounting method that drew scrutiny from the SEC “was not uncommon and is not fundamentally flawed either,” he points out. “That said, the approach seemed to inflate [Groupon's] top line.”

But Groupon’s challenges are not over. In a recent Knowledge@Wharton story about the business model for group buying sites, Wharton marketing professor David Reibstein noted that when the economy enters a more robust recovery, offering steep discounts via Groupon becomes less attractive to partner businesses. “The reason some retailers might be willing to provide supply to Groupon is because they have excess inventory…. As the economy picks up and there is less excess inventory, the availability of supply will go down. The willingness of the merchant to offer deep discounts will go down.”

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Managing Technology | Also tagged , , | 2 Comments

Red Flags over Groupon?

On the heels of LinkedIn’s stunning debut on the stock market last month, Groupon — the popular group buying site — has thrown its hat into the tech-valuation ring by officially filing for an IPO on Thursday. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal “could value the e-commerce company at as much as $20 billion” as well as “test the strength of a tech-investing frenzy.”

Last year, Forbes called Groupon “the fastest growing company ever.” Indeed, according to the Journal, the company’s revenues grew from $30.47 million in 2009 to $713.4 million in 2010. Revenues for the first quarter of this year alone were $644.7 million. At the end of March, Groupon’s subscriber base reached 83.1 million — up from 152,203 in June 2009.

The Journal notes that there are some red flags for potential investors — particularly that “the company has been spending a fortune” to fuel its growth. (Recorded losses were $413.4 million last year.) Meanwhile, some heavyweight competitors — notably Google and Facebook — are entering the group buying space, which clouds the company’s future.

In a recent interview with Knowledge@Wharton, marketing professor David Reibstein said that the group buying site business model itself is flawed and will ultimately leave customers and suppliers disenchanted — and it could bring ruin to investors.

Given the pitfalls, is Groupon’s IPO merely one in a series of pile-on filings from tech companies hoping to match LinkedIn’s success? (Internet radio company Pandora and online real estate evaluator Zillow both filed earlier this year as well.) According to Wharton marketing professor David Hsu, “I do think that firms pay attention to market sentiment in order to try to capitalize on the appetite for new listings. Coming off a cold IPO market over the last few years, private firms may be eager to try to tap the public markets in response to recent signals such as the LinkedIn IPO.”

Still, Hsu says, Groupon’s IPO makes sense in terms of timing — for marketing and corporate development reasons. “My perception is that the company is eager to raise public funds in order to extend its lead against the plethora of competitors in the daily deal space. In addition to funding [Groupon's] rapid growth in sales and marketing efforts, I suspect that the company is trying to develop offerings which will provide additional value to consumers and merchants. For example, the Groupon Now product, which is a mobile platform for offering on-the-fly deals, would seem to be a capital-intensive development effort, but one which might be important in keeping ahead of competitors.” He adds that international markets would be a natural place for the company to extend its efforts as well.

Although no date has been set for the IPO, all eyes are sure to be on Groupon both during and after its debut on the market. Adding fuel to the speculation that we are witnessing a new tech bubble, LinkedIn’s shares have already dropped about 18% since their initial closing price.

Posted in Managing Technology | Also tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

All About LinkedIn

LinkedIn, the social networking site for professionals, made a stunning debut on the stock market on Thursday, when its shares more than doubled in price — from an initial public offering of $45 to a closing price of $94.25. It was the largest U.S. Internet IPO since Google debuted in 2004, when the company raised $1.67 billion.

According to the Wall Street Journal, LinkedIn’s valuation by the end of Thursday was $8.9 billion — a figure that some analysts believe is far too inflated for a company that made $243 million in revenues last year. Forbes columnist Eric Savitz points out that at one point during its opening day, LinkedIn’s shares were trading at 41 times the firm’s 2010 revenues. If Apple’s shares were trading at the same level, for example, it would be valued at $2.7 trillion, Savitz notes.

What’s behind LinkedIn’s skyrocketing value? According to Wharton management professor David Hsu, the run-up reflects “optimism about the scalability and value of the company’s business model,” but also the “scarce public access to investing in this category.” He adds that “this is great news” for Facebook, Twitter and others, “from the standpoint of understanding demand for these elite social media companies and associated valuations.”

Wharton finance professor Luke Taylor agrees. “For a long time, no one has really known how much these social media companies are really worth. The secondary markets have given us some noisy signals, but they’re just that. The market has finally told us how much LinkedIn is worth, which tells us something about how much similar companies like Facebook and Twitter are worth…. I’ll speculate that this news will make their IPOs happen sooner and happen bigger.”

In fact, Taylor notes, LinkedIn’s IPO must have surprised even its underwriters, who likely didn’t foresee the level of investor interest and therefore didn’t price the IPO as aggressively as they could have. By not pricing the stock at, say, $85 a share, instead of $45, “the underwriters ended up leaving roughly $300 million on the table during the IPO. Is that a lot of money for LinkedIn? Well, it’s more than LinkedIn’s revenue last year. However, if the company is currently worth $10 billion, then $300 million is just 3% of the company’s value.” One overriding benefit of the IPO, he adds “is that it brought LinkedIn lots of media hype, which may help them win more customers.”

Many analysts fear that LinkedIn’s current valuation is a sure sign that a second tech bubble is emerging, but Taylor doubts that is true. “It’s hard to know whether there is a bubble, even after the fact. I’m still not convinced there was a bubble in 2000.” According to Hsu, however, “a lot hinges on whether these [numbers] truly reflect the value that these companies have or will create. In the case of LinkedIn, for example, will labor and employment markets become more efficient in ways which would not otherwise take place in the absence of the company? And is the company well positioned to capture that value it has created? Time will tell.”

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments