A Cautionary Tale of Fly Fishing and Venture Capital
Revelyst is going to have to start proving just how much Simms still loves fishing and wants to remain a leader...
Lose the fishing focus and you lose your soul.
The writing was on the wall as soon as the fish art came off of it at the Simms Fishing Products headquarters in Bozeman, Montana.
The blood seeped into the waters of the fishing wader and apparel world, and the sharks–a couple of them just across town–began cruising.
Is it any surprise the interwebs were also soon flooded with nastygrams ranging in topics from perceived declines in Simms’ customer service, condemnations of the company’s direct-to-consumer sales campaigns and myriad dealers with longstanding Simms relationships dropping the brand?
What the venture capitalists (Strategic Value Partners) who acquired Revelyst from Vista Outdoor seemingly failed to realize when the company sent out a press release extolling how the Simms HQ had been converted to an “innovation center” was that the announcement would go over within the fly-fishing world like a lead balloon. When they lowered the Simms logo and set it in-line with a handful of good-but-not-great brands on the façade of the building, the fishing world thought that was like parking LeBron James on the bench with the junior varsity.
Sure, the other brands might earn more money. There’s also strength in a diverse portfolio. And the desire to reach out beyond that stodgy old fishing demographic to the “all-outdoors” world of dog walkers wearing flat brims and yoga pants has become a cliché growth strategy.
But underestimating just how much of an institution Simms was, and how much the fishing community (including anglers of all ages and demographics) values its traditions and institutions, has led to backlash. Revelyst is going to have to start proving just how much Simms still loves fishing and wants to remain a leader, or the boo-birds are going to grow louder (gimmicky “Dead on the Water” campaigns aren’t helping).
Simms wasn’t just a company that made waders. When K.C. Walsh acquired the firm in 1993, he (and his team of dedicated employees) quickly turned it into one of the “Big Three” fly-fishing companies (Orvis, Far Bank and Simms) that set the agenda for all things related to the sport. Now, we’re seeing something like what happened with the Big Three automakers–there’s General Motors, Ford and Stell… atlantis… Stella… oh, whatever the heck used to be Chrysler.
For context, when you landed at the Bozeman airport and saw the Simms art on the jetways, that said you just landed in the epicenter of the fly-fishing universe. An “innovation center” out by Gallatin Gateway doesn’t come close to flipping those switches.
And to be perfectly honest, I feel bad about that. I feel bad for the many great employees who remain from the glory days, because they’re taking heat they don’t deserve. I feel bad for the sport, because we need vibrant, committed companies that genuinely give a rip about things like clean rivers, lakes and oceans, as well as the people who like to fish in those places. I even feel bad for K.C. believe it or not, because even though he got paid and rode off into the sunset, it only took a few years to sully the legacy of that brand that took so much effort to position as a world leader.
I also feel bad because, last I checked, Simms is still making some very decent product. But when I go to buy my next pair of boots, am I going to stay brand loyal, or will that be the time to shop around? Will my favorite fly shop even carry Simms?
I have my hunches as to how this is all going to play out. And so, by the way, do many other companies in the fishing world. Orvis hasn’t exactly enjoyed the most positive press coverage in recent months, having announced significant layoffs and closing stores. But Orvis is also doing the right thing in that, instead of looking for greener pastures, it’s circling the wagons and getting back to its roots–hunting and fishing. Orvis is going to be just fine.
When it comes to middle management and the people actually designing and making the product at Simms, I think we should get off their cases.
But this should be a warning for anyone who thinks that “icky fishing stuff” stands in the way of progress or profit when your core business depends on, well, selling fishing stuff. Whether you’re a conglomerate of outdoor brands, or a conservation organization, or a specialty retailer, or lodge or outfitter–underestimating the value and importance of fishing when it comes to consumer sentiment among anglers is foolish. Dumbing the sport down to make it more “accessible” is short-sighted. It never works.
Knock fishing down a peg, and mix it in with the other dogs, and you lose all the mojo. And as they say, “If you aren’t the lead dog pulling the sled, the view never changes.”
Subscribe to the Angling Trade newsletter today.
 | A guest post by
|
Michael, that's a interesting editorial idea - there are definitely a number of "up-start" and legacy brands (Scott Fly Rods as just one example) that have placed the manufacturer-specialty retailer relationship above their opportunity to sell direct. But as digital ecosystems evolve, it becomes harder and harder to stay in this lane, as consumers consume everything on their phones. Simms challenge(s), obviously, happened with the changes in leadership and loss of focus on the core ethos markers of an endemic fly-fishing brand. Deeter pretty much nailed it: when you take down the Bozeman Airport artwork and start pumping out Grateful Dead waders as your new marketing strategy, you're creating a pretty steep hill to climb for your long-time supporters. Patagonia, Skwala, Grundens etc. should seamlessly pickup the market share in our opinion. ~Andrew
Interesting perspective on the challenge of pursuing (or, simply accepting) growth whilst staying true to your brand identity. I’m curious: a follow up post on fishing brands that aren’t choosing growth over identity. Thoughts?