I don't think you understand costs of business.
I got offered a role at Converse in Europe about ten years ago. Turnover was next-level. And whilst going through their business, we discussed territories and even they operated through agencies rather than direct in every territory. In fact, IIRC there were very few direct territories. UK, France, Benelux and a couple of others. The majority was agencies.
...and granted, an agency is a step above a distributor but the point is that even a brand you'd deem as large as Converse operated in this same manner.
On DLX - during that time period you are harking back to (2004 to 2014), their support of non-American skater scenes was generally pish. They flowed a few people...thats it.
Pfanner was the first European to have a pro board on a DLX brand, I think. AH followed with some more.
2021...Harry Lintell - first European pro on Real ever.
2023...was Tom Knox the first Euro pro on Krooked? I feel like I am missing someone there.
DLX are the fucking shit. Love 'em and they have been kind enough to support me with product here and there, too - and they definitely have done and continue to do great things...but no one has a clean history. No one.You can throw size or profit margins or whatever else you like at it. But that isn't the whole story. The simplification you are working on isn't how the real world works.
What is with the link to a 20 year old article at the end there? A lot has changed since then. I don't understand the relevancy.
I love the ad hominen.
Me: "DC, Vans, Nike, and so on directly interacted with the Russian market [by-passing the distributors and all the problems associated with distribution companies"
You Response A: "You don't understand cost of business (despite seeing others do their jobs correctly and you pretending the distribution company doesn't cost money to run and increase costs for the consumer).
I love the Converse example too:
Me: Me: "DC, Vans, Nike, and so on directly interacted with the Russian market [by-passing the distributors and all the problems associated with distribution companies"
You: Converse doesn't directly interact with all markets, but they did interact with some markets directly.
Ok, this doesn't undo my point either. You're saying they still interacted directly with some markets. I imagine when making this decision to be lazy or to directly do so it is based on population, avg income of the potential customers, cultural prominence (i.e. the Russian market is not only its own cultural world, but prior to the war, strongly influenced other Russian speaking countries culture and trends), and a host of other variables.
My example of SoleTech ignoring Russia a country with 140 million people that had cultural influence over many of its neighbors is not Estonia with a population of less than 1.5 million or what tiny Euro nation we want to reference. The Russian skate scene was pretty amazing 2012 and SoleTech had no idea what was going on and no understanding of the entire Eastern European/Eur-Asian region.
Me: DLX has visible support of the American local scenes.
You: DLX in Europe.
Ok.
SoleTech failed on multiple fronts. They failed internationally and they failed their American consumers as well. It was a company that was "skater owned" but didn't operate as a skater owned company should. They lived on their legacy, they didn't interact with their American customers, they didn't understand their American customers, and they did the same thing abroad, despite being one of the wealthiest skate companies of the early 2000s. They had every opportunity to do more, but they didn't.
They sold price point trash, they had their own infighting within the company, they didn't support local scenes in America the way DLX does, and they didn't support international scenes the way Nike, Vans, and DC did.
Sole Tech faced problems when Nike started eating their lunch, but Nike was only able to each their lunch cause they weren't even paying attention.
Finally, I'm sorry you don't understand the relevancy of the characteristics of a skater owned company and what the scene expects them to do. These are broad and general characteristics and expectations within the culture, not something that goes out of fashion. Do you think there is no meaning in anything written before 2020? Should we throw away all social science and history because it is too old? All the insights on consumer behaviors or social-pychology developed in 1920, 1950, 1980, and 2000 should be thrown away?