Product Extensions The arena of product extensions can be separated into two clear

categories footwear based extensions and non-footwear based extensions. As with the
previous two alternatives, we see the effect that this option has on Crocs core
competencies.
In the case of footwear extensions, just as the case of vertically integrating into raw
materials, producing new materials will hurt the companys flexibility, by introducing variety
into the standardised manufacturing process that exists. Even currently, all non-croslite parts
are manufactured by third-parties and are assembled in-house. Hence, if Crocs has to bring
in new material based product extensions, it needs to contract third parties to supply readyto-attach parts of the same. However, new products out of croslite can also be thought of, for
which R&D into operationally feasible and in-vogue designs may be done.
With more products, more marketing campaigns are also needed. These increase the cost
and reduce the speed and responsiveness that earlier ads used to have in sync with the
demand surge in production. Also, artificial products used along with molded croslite would
lead to higher tariffs when produced in several countries, and would lead to higher costs.
This again leads to the conclusion that footwear based extensions are a good idea as long
as the non-croslite parts are completely manufactured by third parties and are sent to Crocs
plants just for assembly. In this way, core competencies of Crocs will not be compromised
with.
For non-footwear based extensions, Crocs should adopt the purchased variety model.
Manufacturing t-shirts and other apparels in-home would not at all be complimentary to the
company value chain. Hence, outsourcing the entire production will result in all costs to be
variable, allowing Crocs to leverage brand value and enhance bottom line in a risk-less
manner. The production model of chased demand as applied i3n footwear, neednt be
applied here.