很多品牌都是历史的过客，就如同过往的烟云和短暂开放的鲜花。这里列出的即将消失的十大品牌，有些是时代的必然。像搞新闻的Salon.com，风光了短暂的一阵之后，就很快被后来者和快速变化的为数不多的几个“变色龙”给淘汰掉了。拥有一个流量还算不错的网站，期望就此好好过日子的时代，好像已经一去不复返了。
有些是自己对质量把关不力的自食其果，像日本的铃木汽车。这家公司在中国好像做的红红火火，可是，在美国这个强调质量的国度，却因为质量的低劣，而一再的被美国消费者遗弃。即使是在目前，它不顾血本大力促销的情况下，消费者买账的兴趣好像也不是很浓。看来，在美国市场，它继续生存下去的机会已经非常渺茫了。不过，由于有大量的乐意被人愚弄的中国顾客存在，它在广大的中国市场还是有很大的机会。这还是得益于中国人自己的不争气和喜欢窝里斗的国民性。如果中国人也学学韩国人，学学现代汽车的做法，那么，有些日本车可能早就不再有继续生存的机会了。
还有的，像Pacific Sunwear和Talbots这样的零售店，由于没有自己的特色，也在风光一阵之后，在一次金融危机的打击之下，就开始奄奄一息。这后者，在我们附近的很多大型购物中心还能看到它的门店，我估计，很多门店很快就会消失掉。2008年时，该公司的年度销售额一度高达23亿美元，上季度，它卖掉了2.75亿美元的货，获利却只有区区的100万美元，也搞不明白它到底在赚的是什么样的吆喝。其中多数的“钱款”，估计一是被促销低价给吃掉了，另外的部分则是被那些管理层的肥佬们“私吞”了。
提到将要消失的品牌，没有人能够回避掉RIM（黑草莓的主人）这家曾经华尔街的宠儿的。当初，公司从2008年时60亿美元的销售额和对应的13亿美元利润，到2011年时做到200亿美元的销售额和34亿美元的利润，也算是创造了一次时代性的辉煌了。跟着公司优美业绩走的就是公司的股价，一度高达144美元的价码，变成今天在10美元附近游走的幽灵。公司的败落，就是当初对危机感的缺乏，就是管理层的贪婪，和人类短视的自我毁灭的结果。今天的它，所面对的竞争对手实在是太多，已经远不仅仅只是苹果和谷歌了，还有来自中国和韩国的公司。看来，它是没有继续生存的机会，也没有继续存在下去的必要了。
还有一个大家熟悉的名字是“雅芳（AVON）”，这也是一家曾经做的轰轰烈烈的公司。但是，由于管理层的无能，最近几年是做的一年不如一年。最近，在有人出价不错的情况下，可能还是因为无法让管理层得益，拒绝的结果，就是股东遭受更大的伤害。
“美国航空”公司的故事就没有必要提了。很多航空公司早就该破产。一个没有效率的行业，就是因为就业需要，而有政治家们“勇敢”的不顾纳税人金钱损失输血养着的公司，怎么可能会生存长久呢。
这些即将消亡的公司的故事，能够给我们很多难得的人生启迪。大家好好思索和分析吧。企业经营和人生经营，最根本之处实际上没有差别。

24/7 Wall St. Ten Brands That Will Disappear In 2013
June 21, 2012 by 247wallst

Each year, 24/7 Wall St. identifies 10 important American brands that we predict will to disappear within a year. This year’s list reflects the brutally competitive nature of certain industries and the reason why companies cannot afford to fall behind in efficiency, innovation or financing.
American Airlines will disappear in 2013 because of its inefficiency. It was the premier carrier in the United States for almost 30 years — even surviving through periods when most other carriers went bankrupt. However, it lost its critical advantage of scale when Northwest merged with Delta and Continental merged with United. Within two years, American became a medium-sized carrier.
Research In Motion may be the best example of an innovative company that lost its edge. As a result, it will disappear in 2013. Five years ago, RIM was the only smartphone company of any size, and it had almost the entire corporate market. But it made a fatal mistake in failing to adapt its technology for consumer use. In June 2007, Apple launched the iPhone, and the rest is history.
Pacific Sunwear (NASDAQ: PSUN) no longer has the capital to compete. The retailer will be gone by the end of 2013. In the company’s most recent 10-Q, it said one of its biggest risks was running low on capital and not meeting financial obligations.
We made many accurate calls last year, but the speed with which some of them came true was surprising. MySpace was sold by News Corp. less than a week after our list was published.
Several other 2011 nominees are also no longer around. Saab filed for bankruptcy only five months after 24/7 published last year’s predictions. The car company has been sold yet again to an investment group called National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS), probably for little more than car parts.
In Nov. 2011, Ericsson dumped its half of the Sony Ericsson mobile phone business, apparently aware of something that Sony (NYSE: SNE) has yet to realize — the smartphone industry is owned by Apple and Google’s Android-run phones. Similarly, Yum Brands! dumped A&W as sales were miniscule compared to flagship brands KFC and Taco Bell.
A few of the companies we said would vanish are still operating — barely. American Apparel is now a penny stock. Nokia is another company 24/7 still predicts will go away soon. The former Finnish heavyweight just fired 10,000 employees, or 20% of its workforce.
We also made a few bad calls. Sears and Sony Pictures are still operating in essentially the same form they were a year ago. Kellogg’s Corn Pops and Soap Opera Digest are doing just fine.
This year we continue to take a methodical approach in deciding which brands to include on our list of brands that will disappear. The major criteria are:
1) a rapid fall-off in sales and steep losses;
2) disclosures by the parent of the brand that it might go out of business;
3) rapidly rising costs that are extremely unlikely to be recouped through higher prices;
4) companies that are sold;
5) companies that go into bankruptcy;
6) companies that have lost the great majority of their customers; or
7) operations with rapidly withering market share.
Each brands on the list suffers from one or more of these problems. Each of the 10 will be gone, based on our definitions, within 18 months.
This is 24/7 Wall St.’s 10 brands that will disappear in 2013.
10. Avon
It would be hard to find another large American company as bad off as Avon Products. Avon’s long time CEO, Andrea Jung, was ousted late last year after nearly wrecking the company. Avon’s new CEO, Sherilyn S. McCoy, formerly of Johnson & Johnson, joined the company in April. She has not run a public corporation, let alone one in big trouble. The Security and Exchange Commission’s examination of Avon’s communications with securities analysts already has cost CFO Charles Cramb his job. Avon is also under scrutiny for whether its Chinese operations meet compliance standards under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. One of Avon’s core problems is that the beauty market is highly competitive, yet management has not concentrated on its core business. As Morningstar analyst Erin Lash recently wrote, “Despite restructuring initiatives that have cost the firm nearly $800 million through fiscal 2011, it appears to us that Avon is constantly putting out fires rather than proactively moving forward.” There is much to fix. Avon announced disastrous earnings in the previous quarter, and it forecast that things will get worse. Avon, however, is fortunate that it may have a suitor. In May, perfume company Coty offered $24.75 a share for Avon, nearly 20% above Avon’s stock price at the time. Coty had the financial backing of, among others, Warren Buffett. Avon dragged its feet and Coty withdrew its offer. But Coty, another consumer products firm or a private equity house will be back. Since the Coty offer was withdrawn, Avon’s shares have dropped below $16. That price is down from $43 four years ago. The market has no confidence in Avon, but with its brand and revenue, it is an ideal takeover target.
9. MetroPCS
This tiny carrier has lost any chance it may have had to compete with larger competitors T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon and Sprint-Nextel. Investors have abandoned the company, depressing its shares from a 52-week high of $17.84 to $5.86 — very near its period low. Competition with the larger companies has begun to take a significant toll. The Associated Press recently reported that, “MetroPCS Communications Inc. says it gained a net 131,654 subscribers in the quarter, the worst result in years for the first quarter, which is normally the company’s strongest. It ended the quarter with 9.5 million customers.” The carrier’s first-quarter earnings were so weak that a number of securities analysts downgraded its shares. MetroPCS often is mentioned as a takeover target. In May, several Wall St. analysts said that the company was in buyout talks with T-Mobile, which is owned by giant European telecommunication company Deutsche Telekom. This immediately gave MetroPCS (NYSE: PCS) stock a push higher. Later in the same month, MetroPCS shares rose again as the CEO of Sprint-Nextel said he expects consolidation in the cellular carrier market. Sprint and T-Mobile both continue to struggle because of their modest subscriber bases compared to AT&T and Verizon. Each needs more customers. While MetroPCS is too small to survive on its own, its buyout would give either company the additional customer critical mass it needs.
8. The Oakland Raiders
The Raiders will play in the NFL next year. They just will not play in Oakland. The team, founded in 1960, was one of the original members of the AFL and joined the NFL when the leagues merged in 1970. The Raiders won the Super Bowl in 1976, 1980 and 1983. The team’s track record has been poor over the past decade. The Raiders left Oakland once before, when the franchise worked out a better stadium deal in Los Angeles from 1983 to 1994. Oakland lured the team back with an agreement to add $220 million in improvements to the stadium where the team would play. One reason the team will leave Oakland again is the financial plans of the new owners. Al Davis had controlling ownership of the team from the 1960s until he died last year. His heirs and several smaller shareholders now control the team. Current team managing owner Mike Davis already has said he may move the Raiders back to LA to get a better stadium deal. The current Oakland stadium contract expires next year. Davis recently told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Yeah, Los Angeles is a possibility. Wherever’s a possibility. We need a stadium.” The Raiders also could move to Santa Clara, where they would share a stadium with the San Francisco 49ers, much as the New York Jets and Giants do.
7. Salon.com
Launched in 1995, Salon.com is one of the pioneering news and commentary sites on the web. In recent years, it has been eclipsed by larger and better financed sites such as The Atlantic and Washington Post-owned Slate. Of course, today there are thousands of websites that comment on the news each day. Some of these, like The Blaze, which is owned by Glenn Beck, are well funded. In a sign that Salon is very close to being shuttered, the company “lost” its CEO and CFO recently. Chief technology officer, Cynthia Jeffers, was put in charge. But Salon will need a great deal more than new management. At the end of the final quarter of 2011, Salon had $149,000 in the bank against short-term liabilities that included $12.7 million in loans. During the same quarter, Salon lost $997,000 on revenue of $1.03 million. Rumors are that John Warnock, the cofounder of Adobe Systems, and investment banker Bill Hambrecht fund the company. But as it falls apart at the seams, more money is unlikely to be forthcoming.
6. Suzuki
American Suzuki Motor sold 10,695 cars and light trucks in the first five months of this year. That was down 3.9% compared with the same period in 2011. The sales gave the manufacturer a U.S. market share of just 0.2%. One reason the company has trouble moving its vehicles is the poor reputation of its cars. In the 2012 JD Power survey of U.S. vehicle dependability, Suzuki’s scores in power-trains, body and materials, and features and accessories were below those of almost every other brand. One sign Suzuki is having trouble selling its vehicles is that it currently offers a very aggressive zero-percent financing package for 72 months on all of its 2012 cars, trucks and SUVs. Even with aggressive sales tactics, Suzuki cannot improve its position in the American market. Most of its cars sell for less than $20,000 and its trucks and SUVs for under $25,000. Almost every other manufacturer with a broad range of vehicles has flooded this end of the market with cheap, fuel-efficient models. Arguably the most successful car company in the U.S. based on growth — Hyundai — does particularly well in this segment.
5. Pacific Sunwear
Pacific Sunwear built its reputation offering “California-style” accessories, primarily sunglasses, shoes and swimwear. The company was started in a surf shop in Newport Beach in 1980. Recently, highly regarded corporate balance sheet and earnings research firm GMI Ratings put Pacific Sunwear of California on its list of companies at risk of going bankrupt. That should come as no surprise. Five years ago, the company’s stock traded for $23. Recently, it dropped to $1.50. In its most recent reported quarter, Pacific Sunwear lost $15 million on revenue of $174 million. The retailer’s cash and cash equivalents dropped to $22 million from $50 million at the end of the previous quarter. Pacific Sunwear management said the company would have a non-GAAP net loss in the current quarter as well. Pacific Sunwear also disclosed it had a new line of credit with Wells Fargo. Its comments about the loan in its latest 10-Q were telling: “if we were to experience same-store sales declines similar to those which occurred in fiscal 2010 and 2009, we may be required to access most, if not all, of the New Credit Facility and potentially require other sources of financing to fund our operations, which might not be available.” Why is the company in so much trouble? It is too small and is in a commoditized business. Nearly every major department store chain sells products similar to those Pacific Sunwear offers, and so do many niche retailers. Pacific Sunwear, meanwhile, has only 729 small stores. What will happen to the retailer? It could be bought by a larger company — its market cap is only $108 million — or it may go out of business with its inventory sold to other retailers.
4. Research In Motion
RIM once owned the smartphone market. Its BlackBerry products were used largely by businesses. It is hardly worth repeating the story of how RIM was late to the consumer market, where it has been pounded relentlessly by Apple and an army of Google Android phones from manufacturers as diverse as China’s HTC, South Korea’s Samsung and Motorola in the U.S. The pace at which the company fell apart once the process began was even more extraordinary than its rise. Revenue and net income jumped from $6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, in fiscal 2008 to $20 billion and $3.4 billion in fiscal 2011. In just the past year, however, the company has warned twice that it would miss its earnings forecast, replaced its long-time CEO, warned a third time about its first-quarter loss, and disclosed plans for layoffs of thousands of employees. The company’s board said it was reviewing “strategic options,” which would include a sale. The best measurement of the swiftness of RIM’s fall is the change of its share of the U.S. smartphone market. Research group NPD recently reported that RIM’s U.S. market share was 44% in 2009 but only 10% last year. Data from research group Comscore shows that share has fallen further this year. The net effect on RIM’s stock price has been devastating, taking it down from $144 four years ago to $11 recently. RIM cannot survive as a standalone operation in the face of these trends. The Wall Street Journal recently reported “outright buyers could include Asian handset makers like HTC Corp or online retailer Amazon.com Inc. which has jumped into the tablet business.”
3. Current TV
Al Gore’s Current TV was on life support even before it fired its only bankable star, Keith Olbermann, in March following a set of battles with the host over his perks. He was replaced by serial talk show host failure Eliot Spitzer. Compared to Olbermann’s March figures, Spitzer’s ratings in April were down nearly 70%, according to TV audience measurement firm Nielsen. At the time, The Hollywood Reporter wrote, “Replacement Eliot Spitzer pulled an anemic 47,000 total viewers in the first outing of Viewpoint, with just 10,000 among adults 25-54. The weeks since saw an early rebound, particularly in the demo, but in its four weeks on air Viewpoint has steadily declined in both respects.” Reuters recently reported that Current TV’s audience had fallen enough that cable giant Time Warner Cable may have the right to discontinue carrying the channel. The closest Current TV has to a star is talk show veteran Joy Behar, a former cast member of “The View,” who had her own show canceled by CNN’s HLN in November. Gore does not have the pockets to keep a network with no future going.
2. Talbots
Battered retailer The Talbots (NYSE: TLB) is supposed to be taken private by Sycamore Partners for just over $2.75 a share, or $190 million. The offer has been delayed for some reason. Sycamore already has lowered its offer once from $3.05 a share it extended to the company in December. Among all the badly damaged retailers hurt by the recession, compounded by its failure to appeal to consumers with distinctive products, Talbots has to be near the top of the list. While its shares traded for almost $26 five years ago, they now change hands for $2.50. It is a wonder that Sycamore wants to buy the retailer. Even if the deal closes, Sycamore may find there is no solution to making the company viable again. When it last announced earnings, Talbots management said it planned to close 110 stores. The company also said it would try to find a new CEO. Talbots made only $1 million last quarter on $275 million in revenue. At the same time it announced earnings, it admitted that it could be in default under its debt facilities if its financial condition deteriorated further. Talbots has been flanked by a number of department stores that carry women’s discount ware and a number of niche chains, including Ann Taylor, Chico’s FAS (NYSE: CHS) and Limited Brands (NYSE: LTD). The company’s earnings demonstrate clearly the extent to which customers have abandoned Talbots. Its revenue was $2.3 billion in fiscal 2008, a figure on which it lost money. Annual sales are barely half that now. With the exception of a tiny profit last year, the retailer has lost money every year in the past five.
1. American Airlines
American’s parent AMR filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Nov. 2011. The airline itself still operates largely as it did prior to the filing, but with some of the advantages the bankruptcy of a parent brings. Labor costs will be cut, along with debt service and lease obligations for airplanes. AMR says it plans to emerge from Chapter 11 as a viable airline. But that will not happen. US Airways (NYSE: LCC) already has made it clear that it wants to buy American’s assets. As soon as the rumors of a potential buyout started in April, some of American’s largest unions said they backed such a plan as a way to protect jobs. Earlier this month, US Airways CEO Doug Parker announced his desire to merge the two airlines. With US Airways probably willing to give AMR’s creditors a good deal to get American’s assets, the potential deal received tremendous support from bondholders and analysts. US Airways has much to gain from this transaction, as its position in the carrier market has been eroded by the mergers of Northwest and Delta and the later combination of United and Continental.
Douglas A. McIntyre