Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

My phone rang on Tuesday, and a good friend was on the other end, telling me about the untimely and immediate demise of Briggs & Riley's effort in the Incentive business. In the space of 24 hours they went from "in the business" to "sorta out of the business" and Kevin Hagan was shown the door.

Ancedotal evidence says that part of the decision was based on the fortunes of US Luggage, the owner of the B&R Brand. And that's where I got really confused. Let's see-the retail side of the business is tanking, so let's get rid of the Special Markets business, the profitable business.

I spoke to Kevin later in the week and he shared with me that there was a lack of enthusiasm by USL to expend the funds necessary to make a fuller presence in the market. But in the relatively short time Kevin was there they had built a multi-million dollar business that by all measurements was covering its costs and making money.

Here we go again--another Brand deciding the "view isn't worth the climb". But is that really it? It's impossible to know for sure without being in the room where the decisions are made. But there is a case to be stated that suppliers can enter and exit the business and not lose as much as one might think.

"Momentum" is something we talk about a lot in our market. Kevin might not be at B&R, but the work he did will continue to generate business for months, possibly even a year or two after he leaves. If B&R agrees to ship current clients they might find they can retain 50%, perhaps even more of the business they have now without anyone in the Big Chair.

This bodes ill for Channel Specialists, especially those whose Brands sell to Service Award and Incentive Houses. Those clients have programs that last 18-24 months, and once it's placed in the program, it continues to redeem until re-merchandised. Are some Brands so sneaky that they know this, and whack their B-to-B managers yet still keep some percentage of the market?

Nah...

Pete