Who's the boss here?

When Daniel Grieder became CEO of Hugo Boss in 2021, better times had already been seen in Metzingen: Gone were the fat years when Germany's middle management bought one or two new suits from the brand every year without thinking, when Boss was reasonably cool in both the USA and Russia and on course for growth in Asia. Given the initial situation, it was somewhat impressive how quickly things picked up again with Grieder. The internal program was called "Claim 5" and - in addition to high investments in "digital" - primarily comprised brand work: Boss and Hugo were differentiated more clearly again, Boss was positioned more relevantly and at the same time (again) divided into sub-brands, and last but not least, eight percent of sales were regularly invested in marketing. Grieder is now struggling with the crisis, war and consumer restraint, but there is basically no alternative to the path taken. The real problem lies elsewhere: namely with the major shareholder Mike Ashley from the Frasers Group, who is an activist, clearly considers the company to be totally undervalued and is therefore demanding higher returns (and zero dividends). You can see the intention and you are disgruntled. Because now Grieder is forced to start restructuring under the name "Claim 5 Touchdown" and to trim the business for efficiency. This should increase the company's value in the short term. And damage the brand again in the long term. Mr. Ashley won't care, he will have moved on. But the case shows once again that activist investors and brands don't make a good fit. Or what do you think?

Here is the link: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-konsumgueter/modekonzern-boss-will-mit-neuer-strategie-profitabler-werden/100180517.html