EKANA
Slide 25 of 34

The analysis

Money

Where EKANA's own cost falls

  • Reusable design structures, so a club's whole identity package and every later garment come out of one system rather than starting from a blank page. hypothesis
  • A narrow product architecture: a handful of repeatable categories, however custom the designs on top of them are. hypothesis
  • One consolidated production run per club per season instead of a trickle of small ones, because the family deadline gathers the whole order first. hypothesis
  • Packing done once, per player, at the point of production rather than by hand at the club. hypothesis
  • Structured drops and preorders, so community products are made against paid demand rather than a guess. hypothesis
  • A small controlled local stock, sized to defined rules, instead of either no answer to urgent needs or an open-ended one. hypothesis
  • Fewer bespoke arrangements. A few named funding modes cost far less to run than a different agreement with every club. hypothesis

Where EKANA's own revenue comes from

  • The core club kit, which is the business as it exists today. evidence
  • A club relationship that repeats, because what the club is tied to is an identity and a system rather than a price it can beat elsewhere next year. hypothesis
  • Community products sold through the club's shop to people who are not players. hypothesis
  • The second and third categories, training and gym wear and off-pitch wear, which a club at this level mostly does without, and which arrive here off the structure built for the match kit rather than as a second purchase the club went out looking for. hypothesis
  • Runs funded by local businesses, which are paid for before they are made. hypothesis

Economic activity around the club

  • Normal kit economics, unchanged in kind from what the club has today. evidence
  • Community merchandise bought by people the club never sold anything to before. hypothesis
  • Products a local business funds, some of which the club can give away as prizes or earned products without paying for them. hypothesis
  • Memberships and season tickets made more attractive by having something in the hand. hypothesis
  • Products tied to events and anniversaries, which give a reason to buy that a season change does not. hypothesis
  • More people around the club generally, which is the thing all of the above depends on and the thing least under anyone's control. hypothesis

The central hypothesis

Increase the total amount of economically useful activity around the club, rather than taking a larger margin on one football kit. This is also how the price question resolves. A club that set out to get all three jobs done would need a kit supplier, a training and leisure supplier and a web and identity supplier, and coordinate the three itself, which is a total almost nobody at this level pays, because almost nobody at this level tries. EKANA's own invoice goes up, from roughly the cheapest custom kit in Madrid into the band the specialists already occupy, and what the club gets for that step is not three purchases merged but two it had ruled out, carried by the same design system, the same order run and the same delivery as the first. The comparison with three suppliers shows what the job would otherwise cost; it is not a description of what a club is paying now, and the site never merges the two. No percentage is promised, on either side: the efficiencies are designed and not yet measured, and the club-side activity has not been tested with a single paid order.