I used to get all my running shoes from Nike, the Pegasus line which was always their basic running shoe that was very good overall. These days, I can get what is basically the same shoe from Decathlon for 1/5th the price of last year's Pegasus.
Running shoe tech is not some kind of secret thing. Any shoe manufacturer can buy a pair of any other shoes and cut it open and copy it. The only shoes that have anything special in them are the ones with the carbon fiber spring plate, and those are highly specialized and only last for a few races anyway, not for me as a casual runner in his 40s.
Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere.
While Hoka probably executed extremely well, I imagine it was an incredibly lucky position Hoka found themselves in when all those retailers had to replace Nike with something. Maybe even allbirds would be in a better position today had they launched 3-4 years later.
Edit: I just looked it up and it seems both Hoka and On were founded before Allbirds. Seems allbirds imploded (~2021), just as Nike was ceding all their retail space (also around 2021). Had they had another year, maybe they wouldn't have had to pivot into an AI datacenter company.
>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level.
Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas.
Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards.
It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
I was having ankle pain and had one of these gait analyses and also had inward pointing knees and got some shoes to correct it - and it helped loads! Much less knee pain and my ankle feels lessy achey too.
So don’t trust all sales people - especially if feel fine already. But if you have an issue it really can help.
Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.)
Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
The comments in the article about 'performance' are very real. When Nike was still in retail stores, 9/10 shoes were fashion sneakers and had nothing to do with athletics/running/performance.
By comparison, Hoka is positioned as a runners shoe. They have a variety of models based on the type of running you need (daily, long run, race), provide road/trail variants (their Speedgoat is amazing trail shoe), have large toe boxes to give your forefoot/toes the space needed to spread out on impact, also room to grow from swelling.
I'm sure Nike don't want to walk back from their fashionista offerings, but there are lessons in here for sure - maybe they need sub-branding like Nike Road, Nike Trail, Nike Casual or Nike Performance and Nike Casual.
Nike has Nike SB for skateboard and they are (were?) awesome, the last two pairs I bought lasted more than 5 years being worn everyday. For comparison Vans last at best 6 months for me.
I think they do have that - Nike SB for skate/street, Nike ACG for trail, etc. That said, I have twice gone to re-buy a trail-oriented shoe of theirs that I liked in the past, and found that it never stuck, and the new options in that space were garish or over-reliant on mesh which just lets in dirt and thorns.
Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand.
I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue.
It's a thing for sure, maybe just not screamed about. If you run in a shoe that is 10mm+ and then go to a 0mm like an Altra - it is wild how different it feels.
Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions.
In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes.
Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
What happened but not in the last 10 years (it happened before) is that 1990's children became adults and kept using trainers (personally I don't wear anything else). But this doesn't explain why Nike died this death. We will get some MBA story about in the future, I guess.
totally. some brands really made a huge step-up and became "fresh", which Nike declined and is now considered "stale". From my euro-centric perspective I see Autry, New Balance, Adidas and Asics all over the place. Even Reebok had a revival. Basketball and skateboarding shoes fell out of style and now everyone trends towards running or indoor soccer style shoes.
Looking around me I was convinced that most of Nike's and Adidas' sales were coming from the "fashion" side of things. People buying everyday shoes from a famous brand. The "professional" shoe was for professional athletes, football players, etc. I'd hear that a player signed with Adidas, or a runner was wearing Nike for a race, but regular people didn't go in stores for the specs, they went for the brand.
Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. The sales of running shoes must be trailing those of regular day to day sport shoes.
> In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere.
Man, I'm in such different circles than everyone. I've never heard of Hoka and I don't know any sneakerheads. Everyone I know is into Keens, Toms, or Sketchers.
Hoka blew up in the running space, like, ten+ years ago. The first Cliftons were pretty novel for being extremely plush. Light-ish weight maxi shoes weren't really a thing before Hoka popularized them. Now every running shoe brand offers something in that space.
More recently I think they've been adopted by the "active retiree" crowd? They're nice to walk in.
(I owned some of the original Cliftons myself. Did not love the flimsy tongue or cheap insoles that would slide around and crumple under your toes.)
Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
I have some Skechers slip-ins that I love. I live in Japan where you have to take off/put on shoes all the time at home, restuarants, doctors/dentists, gyms, etc, so they are incredibly convenient. Also very comfortable, and constructed about as well as a pair of Nikes costing twice as much.
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
I have a pair of Sketcher slip-ins for when I want to do some quick errands. They may be ok when comparing to Nike or Adidas, but IMO they generally just feel terrible and don't provide good support. In no way comparable to e.g. my ECCOs, which not high-end either (though slightly more expensive than Sketchers).
Is this a US thing? In Australia all sports/shoe retailers have been stocking Nike the whole time. If I understand correctly folks are saying in the US Nike gave up its retail shelf space in favour of their own stores and online?
In my opinion, in US, they became more fashion than athletic. Without realizing athletic is a huge fashion trend. The talk of hoka and on taking share, is true, but it’s also an extension of the fashion trend for something new/fresh/unique/authentic in the athletic category. Apparel has seen similar shifts, newer entrants like Alo and Vuori have put Lululemon and other more established brands on their heals.
I suspect the danger of pivoting into a pure fashion design is that even in the fashion market people crave a little authenticity. Perhaps you never run but you like the idea and so buy running shoes. do you get the fake running shoes or the real ones?
The other one I have noticed is work boots. With a complex market interaction. Real work boots are expensive, built to survive in an adverse environment. However people crave something with substance. So there is a large customer base buying them for fashion. The manufacturer notices this and start to reduce quality(no need to build them so well if the customer won't notice) and you end up with an expensive boot that sucks. The (much smaller) real customer base, the workers, do start noticing and slowly start moving to a different brand, the fashion customers eventually pick up on this and follow. the whole process can take decades.
Can’t speak for worldwide, but in the US Nike decided to aim for exclusivity and basically pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.
It would be great and funny to have access to the internal presentation about why they needed to pursue that and all the benefits. That kind of business decks are always so plastered with wishful thinking that really makes me wonder how business people can keep deceiving themselves like that in every single company they work.
Allbirds never made serious running shoes. Hoka grew out of the ultra running scene and broadened their offering.. On are European and went hard with their unusual sole design.
Whats surprising to me is that all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool. Nike tries to position itself as Apple of sports but it probably doesn't work that well outside of high tech market because there are still many brands doing the high end at leas as well as them.
Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status.
Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out.
FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI.
A 5min 'best running shoes' session would mention both Hokas, ON's etc.
That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.
YMMV but Hoka Bondi is the most comfortable pair of sneakers I've ever had in my life. I'm not going back to Nike. Haven't heard/seen much of them until this year too though.
For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line.
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
The film Crazy Stupid Love features Ryan Gosling telling Steve Carrell he dresses like a stale 40-something divorcee then throwing his New Balance meshy running sneakers off the balcony of the mall. That was 2011.
The problem with shoes is that there figuratively (and literally) is no one-size-fits-all. There are several elements of a shoe that can wreck your experience with it without you understanding why.
- Heel drop, as others have said, can destroy your Achilles if you go too low. Too high and you can exacerbate hip issues.
- Big feet? If your manufacturer doesn’t offer wide versions, you’re going to have a bad time. You still might if they only expand the upper without actually widening the lower (Nike pulls this shit).
- Running on weird, slick surfaces? Better hope you have strong grip and traction (they’re not all equal by any stretch)
- Running in a hot climate? Better hope for a breathable shoe or your blisters will wreck you.
- Need stability elements? Or a carbon plate? Better hope you bought a stability shoe! Also keep in mind that there is research that those things can wreck your foot health long-term.
- Ugh, I’m so confused, I’ll just get the most popular running shoe out there, the Nike Pegasus! Well, you might be in for a nasty surprise when you learn that it’s the only modern shoe that still contains literal airbags. Step on bark chips the wrong way and your shoe might pop!
And that’s all before you get started on colorways. The idea that shoes are all equally good for everyone is as outdated as the idea that you can swap two people’s Chipotle orders and no one will notice.
I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since.
Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.
Can I ask what you switched to? I also spent 15 years running in Nikes, mostly Structure, Pegasus, Invincible 3. I tried to stop buying so many american products 2 years ago and went for a pair of On's which are now reaching the end of their life. I can't say I'm super happy with the On's like I was with my Nikes. Might just go back
For actually running (as opposed to just casual use), Nike was never actually my first choice. I used Brooks Glycerin in the past, and recently Hoka - both of which I think are great shoes. Unfortunately both are US based.
For a non-US company, maybe give Asics (Japanese brand) a look? They never really fit me right personally, but I know they are popular amongst runners.
Not OP but I bought a pair of wide-toe trainers from Altra and I love them. They are the least ugly, properly wide shoes I have bought yet (and I've worn a good few).
Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials.
This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
>Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return.
Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape.
I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
+1 for poor quality. New Nikes seem to be blatantly made to wear out in a short few years. I got a pair of Air Max 270 in mid 2021. By 2025, the outer sole was so worn off that the air-sole was exposed to the ground while walking. That happened with very light use: COVID + WfH + not used when away + not used at sports + not my only pair of shoes.
I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy.
Beyond the stock market gambling aspect, what actually happened here?
> revenue down 2%
That means almost nothing, right? Some fluctuation must be expected. The Stock also looks like it really benefited from a Corona boost that is now cooling off.
Can someone with more insight explain why everyone is screaming?
Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with.
Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.
I think they should continue pushing ACG as a standalone apparal brand. they have good designs and could compete with The North Face and Patagonia in the streetwear/outdoor market
Runners are not even like 20-30% of the buyers of such shoes I'd wager. Most people buying a cushioned On, Hoka, or Nike running shoe are just looking for a shoe that's comfortable and versatile
I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes.
Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors.
i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.
Non-collectors don't need what the bots are buying, they can just go to the store and get normal sneakers. I don't see how limited edition shoe scalping affects the normal market at all.
I don't bother buying Nike's because every time I see a pair I like online, it turns out they're "collectibles" and sold out instantly.
Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey.
So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them.
Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.
There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?
Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1].
Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day.
Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point.
Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers.
And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.
Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.
The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either.
In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.
But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired.
All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
That is exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are marketed as racing shoes for a couple of marathons, tops. Everything on those shoes is designed to be as thin and as light as possible.
In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.
But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.
So I'm a brand loyalist for now..
It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)
Glad you’re happy with the Saucony Pro. I think the equivalent to the Vaporfly would be the Saucony Endorphin Elite though, which probably lasts no more than a couple of big races either.
If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!
That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.
There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.
You're missing one aspect: Nike relentlessly promoted wokism. It triggers 2 parts: Gives you less time to market to WASP; It makes your shops the first in line during mass unrests, which in turn floods the local market with cheap versions of your shoes.
Those big ads subtitled "Black culture" with a body-positive woman, on a 30mx30m, hung on the scaffolding of a magnificent Haussmann-period palace, it does have an effect on customer identification to your brand.
Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.
It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status.
But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices.
All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.
The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.
People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
I used to get all my running shoes from Nike, the Pegasus line which was always their basic running shoe that was very good overall. These days, I can get what is basically the same shoe from Decathlon for 1/5th the price of last year's Pegasus.
Running shoe tech is not some kind of secret thing. Any shoe manufacturer can buy a pair of any other shoes and cut it open and copy it. The only shoes that have anything special in them are the ones with the carbon fiber spring plate, and those are highly specialized and only last for a few races anyway, not for me as a casual runner in his 40s.
Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere.
While Hoka probably executed extremely well, I imagine it was an incredibly lucky position Hoka found themselves in when all those retailers had to replace Nike with something. Maybe even allbirds would be in a better position today had they launched 3-4 years later.
Edit: I just looked it up and it seems both Hoka and On were founded before Allbirds. Seems allbirds imploded (~2021), just as Nike was ceding all their retail space (also around 2021). Had they had another year, maybe they wouldn't have had to pivot into an AI datacenter company.
>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level.
Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas.
Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards.
It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
Just as a counterpoint to this.
I was having ankle pain and had one of these gait analyses and also had inward pointing knees and got some shoes to correct it - and it helped loads! Much less knee pain and my ankle feels lessy achey too.
So don’t trust all sales people - especially if feel fine already. But if you have an issue it really can help.
Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.)
Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
The comments in the article about 'performance' are very real. When Nike was still in retail stores, 9/10 shoes were fashion sneakers and had nothing to do with athletics/running/performance.
By comparison, Hoka is positioned as a runners shoe. They have a variety of models based on the type of running you need (daily, long run, race), provide road/trail variants (their Speedgoat is amazing trail shoe), have large toe boxes to give your forefoot/toes the space needed to spread out on impact, also room to grow from swelling.
I'm sure Nike don't want to walk back from their fashionista offerings, but there are lessons in here for sure - maybe they need sub-branding like Nike Road, Nike Trail, Nike Casual or Nike Performance and Nike Casual.
Nike has Nike SB for skateboard and they are (were?) awesome, the last two pairs I bought lasted more than 5 years being worn everyday. For comparison Vans last at best 6 months for me.
I think they do have that - Nike SB for skate/street, Nike ACG for trail, etc. That said, I have twice gone to re-buy a trail-oriented shoe of theirs that I liked in the past, and found that it never stuck, and the new options in that space were garish or over-reliant on mesh which just lets in dirt and thorns.
What are you wearing for trail runners now?
Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand.
I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue.
There are tons of non-maxi shoes around still.
No mention of heel drop? I thought Hoka's were in the low heel drop category. Or maybe it's not a thing anymore
It's a thing for sure, maybe just not screamed about. If you run in a shoe that is 10mm+ and then go to a 0mm like an Altra - it is wild how different it feels.
Low-ish (4 to 6mm) but not really advertised.
Could still be the same company though, if they were smart.
Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions.
In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes.
Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
What happened but not in the last 10 years (it happened before) is that 1990's children became adults and kept using trainers (personally I don't wear anything else). But this doesn't explain why Nike died this death. We will get some MBA story about in the future, I guess.
totally. some brands really made a huge step-up and became "fresh", which Nike declined and is now considered "stale". From my euro-centric perspective I see Autry, New Balance, Adidas and Asics all over the place. Even Reebok had a revival. Basketball and skateboarding shoes fell out of style and now everyone trends towards running or indoor soccer style shoes.
> like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
For running errands maybe.
Looking around me I was convinced that most of Nike's and Adidas' sales were coming from the "fashion" side of things. People buying everyday shoes from a famous brand. The "professional" shoe was for professional athletes, football players, etc. I'd hear that a player signed with Adidas, or a runner was wearing Nike for a race, but regular people didn't go in stores for the specs, they went for the brand.
Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. The sales of running shoes must be trailing those of regular day to day sport shoes.
> In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere.
Man, I'm in such different circles than everyone. I've never heard of Hoka and I don't know any sneakerheads. Everyone I know is into Keens, Toms, or Sketchers.
Hoka blew up in the running space, like, ten+ years ago. The first Cliftons were pretty novel for being extremely plush. Light-ish weight maxi shoes weren't really a thing before Hoka popularized them. Now every running shoe brand offers something in that space.
More recently I think they've been adopted by the "active retiree" crowd? They're nice to walk in.
(I owned some of the original Cliftons myself. Did not love the flimsy tongue or cheap insoles that would slide around and crumple under your toes.)
Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
i think one can be in Sketchers but who is into Sketchers?
I have some Skechers slip-ins that I love. I live in Japan where you have to take off/put on shoes all the time at home, restuarants, doctors/dentists, gyms, etc, so they are incredibly convenient. Also very comfortable, and constructed about as well as a pair of Nikes costing twice as much.
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
I have a pair of Sketcher slip-ins for when I want to do some quick errands. They may be ok when comparing to Nike or Adidas, but IMO they generally just feel terrible and don't provide good support. In no way comparable to e.g. my ECCOs, which not high-end either (though slightly more expensive than Sketchers).
They certainly have design issues. For such a big brand, I dont get it... Why not make 'm look nice?
Till they keep making the most comfortable shoes I buy, count me in as into sketchers.
Is this a US thing? In Australia all sports/shoe retailers have been stocking Nike the whole time. If I understand correctly folks are saying in the US Nike gave up its retail shelf space in favour of their own stores and online?
In my opinion, in US, they became more fashion than athletic. Without realizing athletic is a huge fashion trend. The talk of hoka and on taking share, is true, but it’s also an extension of the fashion trend for something new/fresh/unique/authentic in the athletic category. Apparel has seen similar shifts, newer entrants like Alo and Vuori have put Lululemon and other more established brands on their heals.
I suspect the danger of pivoting into a pure fashion design is that even in the fashion market people crave a little authenticity. Perhaps you never run but you like the idea and so buy running shoes. do you get the fake running shoes or the real ones?
The other one I have noticed is work boots. With a complex market interaction. Real work boots are expensive, built to survive in an adverse environment. However people crave something with substance. So there is a large customer base buying them for fashion. The manufacturer notices this and start to reduce quality(no need to build them so well if the customer won't notice) and you end up with an expensive boot that sucks. The (much smaller) real customer base, the workers, do start noticing and slowly start moving to a different brand, the fashion customers eventually pick up on this and follow. the whole process can take decades.
Can’t speak for worldwide, but in the US Nike decided to aim for exclusivity and basically pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.
It would be great and funny to have access to the internal presentation about why they needed to pursue that and all the benefits. That kind of business decks are always so plastered with wishful thinking that really makes me wonder how business people can keep deceiving themselves like that in every single company they work.
Allbirds never made serious running shoes. Hoka grew out of the ultra running scene and broadened their offering.. On are European and went hard with their unusual sole design.
Whats surprising to me is that all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool. Nike tries to position itself as Apple of sports but it probably doesn't work that well outside of high tech market because there are still many brands doing the high end at leas as well as them.
Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status.
Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out.
it's really interesting how Nikes style of shoes became unfashionable in the past 5-6 years. is it their focus on basketball and fitness shoes?
FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI.
We all live in our own bubbles.
Most races I've participated in or spectated at in the last few years you'd see Hoka on at least half the runners' feet.
Never heard of Hoka either, so I asked my wife just now: “oh yes, I have a pair.”
A 5min 'best running shoes' session would mention both Hokas, ON's etc.
That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.
YMMV but Hoka Bondi is the most comfortable pair of sneakers I've ever had in my life. I'm not going back to Nike. Haven't heard/seen much of them until this year too though.
Today, you're one of the lucky 10000![1]
For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/
On shoes are also very ugly. I don't think they have a single pair that has any style. I would love to try them but it looks like shoes for retirees.
> it looks like shoes for retirees
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
The film Crazy Stupid Love features Ryan Gosling telling Steve Carrell he dresses like a stale 40-something divorcee then throwing his New Balance meshy running sneakers off the balcony of the mall. That was 2011.
The problem with shoes is that there figuratively (and literally) is no one-size-fits-all. There are several elements of a shoe that can wreck your experience with it without you understanding why.
- Heel drop, as others have said, can destroy your Achilles if you go too low. Too high and you can exacerbate hip issues.
- Big feet? If your manufacturer doesn’t offer wide versions, you’re going to have a bad time. You still might if they only expand the upper without actually widening the lower (Nike pulls this shit).
- Running on weird, slick surfaces? Better hope you have strong grip and traction (they’re not all equal by any stretch)
- Running in a hot climate? Better hope for a breathable shoe or your blisters will wreck you.
- Need stability elements? Or a carbon plate? Better hope you bought a stability shoe! Also keep in mind that there is research that those things can wreck your foot health long-term.
- Ugh, I’m so confused, I’ll just get the most popular running shoe out there, the Nike Pegasus! Well, you might be in for a nasty surprise when you learn that it’s the only modern shoe that still contains literal airbags. Step on bark chips the wrong way and your shoe might pop!
And that’s all before you get started on colorways. The idea that shoes are all equally good for everyone is as outdated as the idea that you can swap two people’s Chipotle orders and no one will notice.
What's the best generic allbirds style shoe? I refuse to play for the branding premium.
I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since.
Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.
Can I ask what you switched to? I also spent 15 years running in Nikes, mostly Structure, Pegasus, Invincible 3. I tried to stop buying so many american products 2 years ago and went for a pair of On's which are now reaching the end of their life. I can't say I'm super happy with the On's like I was with my Nikes. Might just go back
For actually running (as opposed to just casual use), Nike was never actually my first choice. I used Brooks Glycerin in the past, and recently Hoka - both of which I think are great shoes. Unfortunately both are US based.
For a non-US company, maybe give Asics (Japanese brand) a look? They never really fit me right personally, but I know they are popular amongst runners.
Not OP but I bought a pair of wide-toe trainers from Altra and I love them. They are the least ugly, properly wide shoes I have bought yet (and I've worn a good few).
Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials.
This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
>Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return.
Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape.
I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
+1 for poor quality. New Nikes seem to be blatantly made to wear out in a short few years. I got a pair of Air Max 270 in mid 2021. By 2025, the outer sole was so worn off that the air-sole was exposed to the ground while walking. That happened with very light use: COVID + WfH + not used when away + not used at sports + not my only pair of shoes.
I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
Leather shoes are still disposable if you can't unstitch the sole. You need a Goodyear welted shoe if you want one that will last decades.
Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.
I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy.
>30%+ of the price of a Nike product
it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them
Beyond the stock market gambling aspect, what actually happened here?
> revenue down 2%
That means almost nothing, right? Some fluctuation must be expected. The Stock also looks like it really benefited from a Corona boost that is now cooling off.
Can someone with more insight explain why everyone is screaming?
Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with.
Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.
I think they should continue pushing ACG as a standalone apparal brand. they have good designs and could compete with The North Face and Patagonia in the streetwear/outdoor market
Runners are not even like 20-30% of the buyers of such shoes I'd wager. Most people buying a cushioned On, Hoka, or Nike running shoe are just looking for a shoe that's comfortable and versatile
I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes.
Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/
Sneakerbots killed it for everyone.
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone
Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
Slightly different take IMO.
There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.
Or sell them at $1000 itself if that's really where the demand is at.
>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out.
why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?
Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors.
i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.
Non-collectors don't need what the bots are buying, they can just go to the store and get normal sneakers. I don't see how limited edition shoe scalping affects the normal market at all.
I don't bother buying Nike's because every time I see a pair I like online, it turns out they're "collectibles" and sold out instantly.
Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey.
So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them.
Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.
You can, I only poop once a day but I still have to pay the sewage company to get rid of it (negative price).
> But also, people only have 2 feet.
There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.
Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?
Maybe they can come up with some push button pump gadget for inflating stocks.
Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1].
Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day.
Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point.
[1]: https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-in...
Executives probably got more money from it somehow. Whether McKinsey executives, Nike executives or both.
McKinsey
Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers.
And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.
Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.
yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality.
I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.
The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either.
In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.
Athletic shoes are still popular for streetwear. But it's a fickle market where style trends count for a lot more than performance.
But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.
Nike actually had a good run with the Air Max in that segment, but as someone already said: trends are fickle
yeah but nike sells slides which are pretty popular with the youth.
Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet..
Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone.
Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund.
Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.
But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired.
All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
That is exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are marketed as racing shoes for a couple of marathons, tops. Everything on those shoes is designed to be as thin and as light as possible.
In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.
But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.
So I'm a brand loyalist for now..
It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)
Glad you’re happy with the Saucony Pro. I think the equivalent to the Vaporfly would be the Saucony Endorphin Elite though, which probably lasts no more than a couple of big races either.
If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!
You did the footwear equivalent of putting racing slicks on a daily driver.
I did, but it was because I'd had my expectations raised by Saucony's products (see my peer comment for more info)
That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.
There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.
Sure that happens. But in this case the quality was there - the uppers and attachment to the soles was top notch.
They look and feel awesome.
But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.
180km is pretty bad but you also trained in a race shoe that deliberately makes material tradeoffs to increase running efficiency.
The market has more confidence in Nike than Nvidia, however - the former trades at a higher forward PE.
I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.
Maybe they should pivot to AI like AllBirds :)
I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry
They are welcome to make stuff that nobody wants. Weird designs, made poorly and disintegrating in months.
But then the share price drops.
ie: the market capitalisation drops.
They then have to pay more money to borrow.
Fewer investors are interested in giving them money.
The business spirals into irrelevance like Ken Olsen's Digital Equipment Corporation.
Restructuring happens
Employees lose jobs.
Restructuring happens again and again and again.
Employees lose jobs, more jobs and still more jobs.
Unpaid suppliers go bankrupt.
Finally they shut down and become an irrelevance like Nike, 777 Partners, DEC, BioXcel Therapeutics, Lycos, First Brands Group, Yahoo.
Is Nike the Intel of shoe makers? A faded former giant that has major operations in Oregon.
You're missing one aspect: Nike relentlessly promoted wokism. It triggers 2 parts: Gives you less time to market to WASP; It makes your shops the first in line during mass unrests, which in turn floods the local market with cheap versions of your shoes.
Those big ads subtitled "Black culture" with a body-positive woman, on a 30mx30m, hung on the scaffolding of a magnificent Haussmann-period palace, it does have an effect on customer identification to your brand.
Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...
Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.
It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status.
But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices.
All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.
The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.
People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy I just did the numbers
If Nike ain’t have MJ they’d have nothing
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over jumpman
don’t buy stuff from people who hate you.
https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men