All-Star Rebel Takes On Goliath

[catlady]

INC is a great magazine and focuses on start up and small businesses but, you have to kind of read between the lines with all business articles because they can pull one portion of a business and make it sound as though they have a monopoly. Frankly, I get a little peeved when I go to an event and can only buy Pepsi products but, it is a very common practice in contracts and those companies are paying extremely high dollar to be at high profile events. I applaud Nfinity and Rebel for setting up shop outside the doors but, don't be fooled, from a business standpoint they are maximizing their profits. They don't have to pay the high dollar per square footage that Varsity is within those Convention Center walls but, they get the business off of their coat tails. Any small store owner in a mall will tell you they are VERY dependent on their anchors and once those anchors are gone or no longer desirable, they are out of business. Varsity is actually very key in the success of these smaller start ups and while the little guy may play them off as the big bad wolf, think about the customer traffic they received that they never would have, otherwise.

 

[uhhlyssa01]

INC is a great magazine and focuses on start up and small businesses but, you have to kind of read between the lines with all business articles because they can pull one portion of a business and make it sound as though they have a monopoly. Frankly, I get a little peeved when I go to an event and can only buy Pepsi products but, it is a very common practice in contracts and those companies are paying extremely high dollar to be at high profile events. I applaud Nfinity and Rebel for setting up shop outside the doors but, don't be fooled, from a business standpoint they are maximizing their profits. They don't have to pay the high dollar per square footage that Varsity is within those Convention Center walls but, they get the business off of their coat tails. Any small store owner in a mall will tell you they are VERY dependent on their anchors and once those anchors are gone or no longer desirable, they are out of business. Varsity is actually very key in the success of these smaller start ups and while the little guy may play them off as the big bad wolf, think about the customer traffic they received that they never would have, otherwise.

Very well written, I agree 100%

I absolutely love Rebel, but they got the traffic they did this past week by piggy-backing off a Varsity event. If Varsity hadn't brought the 1200 teams to Dallas, they wouldn't have had a reason for the media bus.

 

[CookieMomster]

Varsity is actually very key in the success of these smaller start ups and while the little guy may play them off as the big bad wolf, think about the customer traffic they received that they never would have, otherwise.

After reading and hearing about the monopoly they have I find it hard to believe they're key to the success of the "little guy". I fail to understand how a company can run comp's, training camps, own gyms that compete at said comp's, and encourage gyms to only wear their apparel and shoes, and give gyms a kickback for participating in the program. Where does the little guy have a standing chance to compete?

I'm sure if Nfinity and Rebel were given the opportunity to pay the high fees for vendor space at the events they would have jumped at the chance; however - I wouldn't go as far as to say they were piggy-backing off Varsity. They just want an equal chance at exposure that they aren't being permitted. Being creative at working around those limitations is being business savvy.

You used Pepsi as an example. Yes, it's true and very common place to have exclusive supplier contracts but the difference is Pepsi doesn't own 95% of the venues or sporting events, own some of the teams that are competing at those sporting events, own the food suppliers providing the food, and the uniform suppliers that are outfitting the majority of the teams and offering a kickback to the teams for attending their events and wearing their apparel. Imagine the uproar if Pepsi went to so far as to offer kickbacks to schools and infiltrated the school sport programs. It's one thing to have a school board signup a beverage company to exclusively sell their product and get a score board on their field with Pepsi's name on it (corporate sponsorship) but the ethical issues arise when their fingers get involved in other areas of the programs.

That situation is the furthest thing from healthy competition and giving a choice to the consumer. There's no setting of fair market value: they're determining it because consumers don't really have any other options unless they seek out the little guys but that can be time consuming when it's easier to have everything already packaged up. There's no saying the Pepsi teams wouldn't win because of the unfair advantages given to them. There's no saying they profit at wiping out the competition and creating a conflict of interest for themselves.

At least every other beverage supplier has a chance to compete for the contract to be the exclusive supplier because the owner of the venue is a 3rd party. It creates fair competition.

Did you know car manufacturers aren't permitted to own car dealerships? Why? Because this fairly standard law was created to ensure healthy competition at the retail level. Why are mergers between large organizations so scrutinized and evaluated by financial security firms? Because anti-trust laws are in place to protect the consumer and ensure that things like price fixing, and healthy competition are encouraged.

Nobody is crying "woe is me" and expecting sympathy but I wouldn't dare ever go so far as to say start-ups owe anything to Varsity for their success. I think if given the chance, startups would be more successful if they were allowed to compete on an equal footing. Competition is great. It pushes industry to strive for the best instead of settle for mediocrity, or get too comfortable and overconfident.

All one has to do is look at Blackberry to see what happens when an industry giant settles and doesn't strive for competition and innovation. Eventually the giant comes crashing down and opens the door for others to come in and up the game and improve what was already created.

ETA: @catlady you used the great examples of stores and anchor stores. You're absolutely correct. Smaller and independent stores greatly depend on anchor stores for their success. However, we need to compare apples to apples. They all have an equal opportunity in the sense that they are sharing retail space proximity and providing customers the opportunity to shop at the various stores in 1 location. I'm notorious for going shopping at the mall and walking through the different stores to finding the best deal (whether that deal be on price or selection/options. I want the best value for my dollar and want to know that I don't have settle just because I have no other option). At least as the customer I have the chance to shop and have options.

That's not happening here. If we take your anchor store analogy one step further to have that work in this situation Varsity would have to allow the smaller companies to pay for vendor space at their events (even if they only gave prime vendor space to their subsidiaries and gave the smaller guys the less prime space it's still creates choice and competition) so there's equal access to the consumers and the consumers would have multiple options to exercise their purchasing power.

 

[MissCongeniality]

After reading and hearing about the monopoly they have I find it hard to believe they're key to the success of the "little guy". I fail to understand how a company can run comp's, training camps, own gyms that compete at said comp's, and encourage gyms to only wear their apparel and shoes, and give gyms a kickback for participating in the program. Where does the little guy have a standing chance to compete?

I'm sure if Nfinity and Rebel were given the opportunity to pay the high fees for vendor space at the events they would have jumped at the chance; however - I wouldn't go as far as to say they were piggy-backing off Varsity. They just want an equal chance at exposure that they aren't being permitted. Being creative at working around those limitations is being business savvy.

You used Pepsi as an example. Yes, it's true and very common place to have exclusive supplier contracts but the difference is Pepsi doesn't own 95% of the venues or sporting events, own some of the teams that are competing at those sporting events, own the food suppliers providing the food, and the uniform suppliers that are outfitting the majority of the teams and offering a kickback to the teams for attending their events and wearing their apparel.

That situation is the furthest thing from healthy competition and giving a choice to the consumer. There's no setting of fair market value: they're determining it because consumers don't really have any other options unless they seek out the little guys but that can be time consuming when it's easier to have everything already packaged up. There's no saying the Pepsi teams wouldn't win because of the unfair advantages given to them. There's no saying they profit at wiping out the competition and creating a conflict of interest for themselves.

At least every other beverage supplier has a chance to compete for the contract to be the exclusive supplier because the owner of the venue is a 3rd party. It creates fair competition.

Did you know car manufacturers aren't permitted to own car dealerships? Why? Because this fairly standard law was created to ensure healthy competition at the retail level. Why are mergers between large organizations so scrutinized and evaluated by financial security firms? Because anti-trust laws are in place to protect the consumer and ensure that things like price fixing, and healthy competition are encouraged.

Nobody is crying "woe is me" and expecting sympathy but I wouldn't dare ever go so far as to say start-ups owe anything to Varsity for their success. I think if given the chance, startups would be more successful if they were allowed to compete on an equal footing. Competition is great. It pushes industry to strive for the best instead of settle for mediocrity, or get too comfortable and overconfident.

All one has to do is look at Blackberry to see what happens when an industry giant settles and doesn't strive for competition and innovation. Eventually the giant comes crashing down and opens the door for others to come in and up the game and improve what was already created.

Perfectly said!

 

[cheernerd5678]

This tweet made me think of this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catlady]

After reading and hearing about the monopoly they have I find it hard to believe they're key to the success of the "little guy". I fail to understand how a company can run comp's, training camps, own gyms that compete at said comp's, and encourage gyms to only wear their apparel and shoes, and give gyms a kickback for participating in the program. Where does the little guy have a standing chance to compete?

I'm sure if Nfinity and Rebel were given the opportunity to pay the high fees for vendor space at the events they would have jumped at the chance; however - I wouldn't go as far as to say they were piggy-backing off Varsity. They just want an equal chance at exposure that they aren't being permitted. Being creative at working around those limitations is being business savvy.

You used Pepsi as an example. Yes, it's true and very common place to have exclusive supplier contracts but the difference is Pepsi doesn't own 95% of the venues or sporting events, own some of the teams that are competing at those sporting events, own the food suppliers providing the food, and the uniform suppliers that are outfitting the majority of the teams and offering a kickback to the teams for attending their events and wearing their apparel. Imagine the uproar if Pepsi went to so far as to offer kickbacks to schools and infiltrated the school sport programs. It's one thing to have a school board signup a beverage company to exclusively sell their product and get a score board on their field with Pepsi's name on it (corporate sponsorship) but the ethical issues arise when their fingers get involved in other areas of the programs.

That situation is the furthest thing from healthy competition and giving a choice to the consumer. There's no setting of fair market value: they're determining it because consumers don't really have any other options unless they seek out the little guys but that can be time consuming when it's easier to have everything already packaged up. There's no saying the Pepsi teams wouldn't win because of the unfair advantages given to them. There's no saying they profit at wiping out the competition and creating a conflict of interest for themselves.

At least every other beverage supplier has a chance to compete for the contract to be the exclusive supplier because the owner of the venue is a 3rd party. It creates fair competition.

Did you know car manufacturers aren't permitted to own car dealerships? Why? Because this fairly standard law was created to ensure healthy competition at the retail level. Why are mergers between large organizations so scrutinized and evaluated by financial security firms? Because anti-trust laws are in place to protect the consumer and ensure that things like price fixing, and healthy competition are encouraged.

Nobody is crying "woe is me" and expecting sympathy but I wouldn't dare ever go so far as to say start-ups owe anything to Varsity for their success. I think if given the chance, startups would be more successful if they were allowed to compete on an equal footing. Competition is great. It pushes industry to strive for the best instead of settle for mediocrity, or get too comfortable and overconfident.

All one has to do is look at Blackberry to see what happens when an industry giant settles and doesn't strive for competition and innovation. Eventually the giant comes crashing down and opens the door for others to come in and up the game and improve what was already created.

ETA: @catlady you used the great examples of stores and anchor stores. You're absolutely correct. Smaller and independent stores greatly depend on anchor stores for their success. However, we need to compare apples to apples. They all have an equal opportunity in the sense that they are sharing retail space proximity and providing customers the opportunity to shop at the various stores in 1 location. I'm notorious for going shopping at the mall and walking through the different stores to finding the best deal (whether that deal be on price or selection/options. I want the best value for my dollar and want to know that I don't have settle just because I have no other option). At least as the customer I have the chance to shop and have options.

That's not happening here. If we take your anchor store analogy one step further to have that work in this situation Varsity would have to allow the smaller companies to be vendors at their events (even if they only gave prime vendor space to their subsidiaries and gave the smaller guys the less prime space it's still creates choice and competition) so there's equal access to the consumers and the consumers would have multiple options to exercise their purchasing power.

You haven't Googled cheer "stuff" before have you? In business we would possibly call the cheer industry an oligopoly. "Google" cheer uniforms (Varsity, Rebel, GK, Team Cheer, Cheer Fantastic, Branded, Imports, the lists goes on and on) , IEP's (Many small ones but, definitely Varsity is the large guy), bows (Too many to count), shoes (Varsity, Nfinity, Nike, Chasse, Asics, Kaepa, the list goes on and on), backpacks (Too many to count), practice wear (Too many to count), Cheer camps (at almost every school and All Star gym), etc. Honestly, there are probably too many to even call the cheer industry an oligopoly.

What Varsity has done is created many events that people actually want to come to and while doing that, they pay for the entire convention center. Honestly, what business in their right mind is going to pay the rent and allow someone else to come in and sell the same product they do? Thus, my Pepsi and Coke analogy. People on the boards like to throw around monopoly and anti trust but, you have to actually have a company that fits those definitions for those words to stick.

Now, as for my analogy that you did not feel was fitting on small businesses benefiting from the mega large, here's another, "Disney World". How many businesses, even other amusement parks, have profited and benefited off of the coat tails of Disney World? Yes, Varsity is extremely beneficial to the smaller guys.

 

[astaley22]

This tweet made me think of this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait what can't be true haha. Doesn't CA all wear rebel now?

Eta: just realized they meant non restricted 5.

 

[randomactsofcheer]

Now, as for my analogy that you did not feel was fitting on small businesses benefiting from the mega large, here's another, "Disney World". How many businesses, even other amusement parks, have profited and benefited off of the coat tails of Disney World? Yes, Varsity is extremely beneficial to the smaller guys.

The cheer industry (as a whole) is not an oligopoly. A company can have a monopoly within an industry that has multiple producers or sellers of a product or providers of a service. Susie's mom who makes bows from home is not in an oligopoly with Varsity.

How many of the companies you mentioned have their hands in every aspect of this industry as Varsity does? Smaller businesses can and do benefit from Disney World (hotels, vendors, restaurants, etc) and Varsity (bow makers, gyms, etc). It can be argued that most cheer gyms profit from Varsity even if the only Varsity product they "use" are Varsity competitions. That doesn't make the "cheer market" a competitive one.

I think what people forget about antitrust laws is that they are there, first and foremost, to protect the consumer (not Rebel and other companies).

Just looking at the competition branch of the industry... Now that Varsity has taken over Jam Brands, how many gyms still have the choice of attending an IEP event in their area? Even if there is one IEP event in their area, how many have the choice of attending MORE than one IEP event in their area? How many IEP events give out Worlds bids? How many gyms would now have to travel 3+ hours to attend an IEP event giving out Worlds bids? How many gyms (or families at gyms) can't afford to pay for the long distance travel necessary to attend an IEP event? Just because there are other options out there, doesn't necessarily mean the options are feasible enough to even be considered as "choices" by a consumer.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

This tweet made me think of this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now I'm curious.

Who is NOT wearing Varsity these days in Level 5?

 

[cheernerd5678]

Now I'm curious.

Who is NOT wearing Varsity these days in Level 5?

Cheetahs, Wildcats, Swooshcats (all rebel)
So yeah just Cheer Athletics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cheer0825]

Now I'm curious.

Who is NOT wearing Varsity these days in Level 5?

Top gun wears gk

 

[GreatWhite92]

Yes Varsity owns the Premier Athletics gyms. They have 10-11 gym in Ky, Tn, Fl, MI, & NC (that I know of). All of their products (uniforms, practice wear, warmups, bags, shoes) are from Varsity. The kids were told they were not allowed to wear Nfinity shoes because of their "poor quality". They do attend some non-Varsity (Jam Brands) comps which won't be an issue going forward since Varsity now owns Jammy too. I don't think the gyms got "preferential" treatment at comps or on products because they were owned by Varsity.

That is not true. Of course they are going to suggest the varsity shoe but I see plenty of nfinities walking around my gym. I personally wear Adidas. Never had a single person say anything to me. If they were getting special treatment, they also probably wouldn't have gotten 31st out of 31 teams this past weekend at NCA. Lots of non variety owned teams have mysteriously gotten bids after competitions were over. (You didn't say that but someone else did) Say all you want about how varsity shouldn't own gyms but please do not spread blatant lies.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catlady]

The cheer industry (as a whole) is not an oligopoly. A company can have a monopoly within an industry that has multiple producers or sellers of a product or providers of a service. Susie's mom who makes bows from home is not in an oligopoly with Varsity.

How many of the companies you mentioned have their hands in every aspect of this industry as Varsity does? Smaller businesses can and do benefit from Disney World (hotels, vendors, restaurants, etc) and Varsity (bow makers, gyms, etc). It can be argued that most cheer gyms profit from Varsity even if the only Varsity product they "use" are Varsity competitions. That doesn't make the "cheer market" a competitive one.

I think what people forget about antitrust laws is that they are there, first and foremost, to protect the consumer (not Rebel and other companies).

Just looking at the competition branch of the industry... Now that Varsity has taken over Jam Brands, how many gyms still have the choice of attending an IEP event in their area? Even if there is one IEP event in their area, how many have the choice of attending MORE than one IEP event in their area? How many IEP events give out Worlds bids? How many gyms would now have to travel 3+ hours to attend an IEP event giving out Worlds bids? How many gyms (or families at gyms) can't afford to pay for the long distance travel necessary to attend an IEP event? Just because there are other options out there, doesn't necessarily mean the options are feasible enough to even be considered as "choices" by a consumer.

Nike pros, Nike shoes, Nfinity backpacks, Nfinity shoes, the multitude of uniform makers out there are not Suzie's mom who makes bows from home. It doesn't matter that Varsity has their hands in all things cheer, that does not make it illegal nor a monopoly. What Varsity has done best are their events but, just because I have to travel a long distance to get there does not make it illegal either. I'm not sure I get your comment on "Just because there are other options out there, doesn't necessarily mean the options are feasible enough to even be considered as "choices" by a consumer.".....If you have options, you have choices. Period. You can't blame Varsity on convenience of location or the fact that they do something better and gym owners have decided to attend their events instead of Daisy Mae's event at the local High School.

Anti trust by definition prevents predatory business practices by ensuring fair competition exists in an open market economy. While many of you feel these are "hostile takeovers", they are not by definition. Mergers, where companies agree to form a partnership, are far from predatory and Varsity is not by definition a monopoly. It would take me hours to list all of the activewear, warm up, shoe, bow, backpacks, sports bras, uniform, megaphone, and yes even events out there.

 

[CoachTamara]

Cheetahs, Wildcats, Swooshcats (all rebel)
So yeah just Cheer Athletics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wildcats wore the white GK uniform as well, aka my favorite uniform in the history of cheer.
:cloud9::cloud9::cloud9:

 

[RandomCheerMom]

This tweet made me think of this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't a 'Fun Fact', it's evidence.