Rendered at 21:32:46 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
nemothekid 18 hours ago [-]
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.
jarym 9 hours ago [-]
We keep reading different variations of the same story over and over - different companies and industries but make the same fatal mistakes.
1) Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data'
2) Kill the innovation because they can’t put a $ value on it
3) Rake in a few years of fast profits and soak in glory
4) Company implodes, CEO rides into the sunset, board that should have protected the company somehow largely intact.
Data wasn't the killer. Stupidity, greed and shortsightedness in roughly equal parts usually are.
sushibowl 9 hours ago [-]
This is called The McNamara fallacy (if it can't be measured, it's not important).
This and Goodhart's law are the bane of pure data-driven decision making.
hammock 9 hours ago [-]
There are some important corollaries to McNamara that need to be articulated. Something like
“If you can’t measure it, we still know it’s important, we’re not idiots, McNamara was imprecisely defined in its common form”
Yet at the same time,
“If you can measure it, you can convince enough people it’s the only thing that’s important and then overfit to it”
bluefirebrand 7 hours ago [-]
My Dad was basically a tool salesman for most of my life. He was really, really good at it. and I don't know if he ever measured anything. He just talked to people and tried his best to give people what they say they want
Crazy how successful he has been off of just that simple approach. It's something that drives me nuts about a lot of current product design strategies. Yes, sure. You can occasionally have a Steve Jobs style product visionary who delivers something that people never imagined
But for most of us I think we'd see a lot more success just talking to customers and delivering what they ask for, instead of filtering thier thoughts through a "product owner" who winds up having us build something else
My experience with a lot of current product direction advice is along the lines of "don't just give them what they ask for, because they don't know what they want. You have to figure out what they want and deliver that instead". I think this is a really stupid approach. If you are talking to people who "don't know what they want", then you have to find different people to talk to. In my experience the best ideas come from people who know exactly what they want.
The job of product should be to find those people and ask them, not to talk to the wrong people and guess at what they "really want"
hammock 9 hours ago [-]
> Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data'
We’re about to see many more of the same thing except the “data” has been replaced with “ai output”
jarym 9 hours ago [-]
Depressingly, I believe you are right.
WarmWash 8 hours ago [-]
Step 2.5 is "Start harvesting value by cannibalizing your own products (keep price high, cut quality), since there is nothing competitive in the pipeline."
Frieren 9 hours ago [-]
> Data wasn't the killer.
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and yet people treats data as a crystal ball that can predict the future.
Data can help a company to decide what to do next week with little though and great results.
It cannot set a long-term strategy without a lot of interpretation, guessing and adaptability. That same very good short-term decision may have been the first step towards destruction.
illiac786 6 hours ago [-]
Is it what happened at Nike? I did not folly it very much
jimmydddd 6 hours ago [-]
As best I can tell, main narratives are:
1) Nike decided to sell direct from their Web site and pulled shoes from Foot Locker to save on their cut. Foot Locker filled the empty shelves with Hoka.
2) Nike decided to stop innovating for performance, and focused on being a fashion brand. Hoka provided more cushioning, which runners were asking for.
3) Nike just kept rehashing old models with minor tweaks instead of coming out with new designs.
4) Nike kept its prices high.
dzonga 8 hours ago [-]
or underestimating the value of partnerships.
nike thought they were the storefront. reality and history proved otherwise.
ericmay 7 hours ago [-]
Maybe that narrative and story is overly-simplistic, feel-good stuff for engineers who think they're smarter than they are and the explanations for why these companies fail can be rather nuanced and completely unrelated to whatever decision some database developer thinks they would make? Maybe you're seeing patterns because your brain which is set by default to recognize patterns is deceiving you?
Nike specifically looks like the opposite of what you are asserting where the spreadsheet people take over. Here's the innovative kind of shoes that Nike is making that you are asserting is being killed in step 2: https://www.nike.com/t/jordan-trunner-o-s-mens-shoes-tC5xlGT...
This looks idiotic. I'm not buying it. And you want me to scroll through 700+ pairs of shoes where most look like that? Give me a break. This is what happens when "innovation" culture takes over without adults in the room.
A failure of design rehash is still an engineering failure in this industry. I don't think you can cleanly separate the two like you are more able to, though imperfectly, in software.
I don't mean to suggest that there aren't other problems or that spreadsheet people aren't dragging the company down. Changing to a more D2C business model was likely a bad idea, for example, which has influence/influenced by engineering/design as well. But I do mean to challenge this notion of "if only the engineers got to make the decisions" because from my point of view with respect to Nike and its clothing line, those are the engineers being unleashed to build whatever futuristic/fashionable products that they want to.
jarym 6 hours ago [-]
It was during covid, during a time when people were starting to think retail would never go back to normal and everyone would switch to exclusively online buying.
It was a bet that was unsupported by data (there wasn't any) and turned out to be wrong.
legitster 15 hours ago [-]
> 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.
wvh 11 hours ago [-]
I'm a trail runner in Northern Europe. Hoka has been omnipresent there for the last few years, as has (traditionally) Salomon.
Not sure I've seen much Hoka outside of trial running circles here yet.
I'm thinking about sneakers used for actually doing sport though.
mihaelm 11 hours ago [-]
Same, I associate Hoka & Salomon with running, never would have thought someone would wear them as everyday sneakers.
bhandziuk 9 hours ago [-]
Because Hokas are so squishy they seem to be liked by people who do a lot of standing like nurses.
RSHEPP 19 minutes ago [-]
Wife is ER nurse, she goes through a pair of Hokas every 3-6 months.
nelsonic 10 hours ago [-]
I wear (and know loads of people - e.g: doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. who wear) Hoka and On as everyday shoes. They are comfortable for many hours on your feet.
Insanity 9 hours ago [-]
+1. I started wearing Hoka a few years ago based on recommendation from my podiatrist. Would highly recommend them as everyday shoes.
wahnfrieden 10 hours ago [-]
Salomon has been a popular choice for everyday use for at least a decade. They’ve even been collaborating with high fashion brands for over a decade, like Boris Bidjan Saberi, Commes des Garcon, Margiela, Takahiro Miyashita etc etc with twice-yearly releases over years and not random one-off limited drops.
This has led to fashion boutiques carrying the non-collab Salomons as the demand has diversified. So people are exposed to the brand and have access to it at a variety of kinds of shops, not only at running outlets.
hello_moto 8 hours ago [-]
Go to Disneyland (in US), you’ll see tons of Hoka
loeg 14 hours ago [-]
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.)
itomato 11 hours ago [-]
Yes, for running mountain centuries and ultras.
Karl "Speedgoat" Meltzer broke the Appalachian Trail record in them, and whoever was doing marketing then really blew a big bubble with that result.
Trad brands didn't stand a chance against that sole and backstory.
I think Hoka's Speedgoat trainers really do live up to the marketing.
I do a lot of mountain and trail running here in Norway, and I've exclusively used Hoka Speedgoats for the last five years. Their performance is excellent.
(Just walking around any Norwegian town, it seems like the majority of trainers are Hokas.)
Tarsul 11 hours ago [-]
Thats interesting because what your first link tells is that he did change shoes twice as often as normal (every 122 miles instead of every 300 miles), which for me personally would be a clear sign to stay away from these shoes. But ok, I guess many runners are more fixated on their racing clock instead of longevity of their shoes.
alamortsubite 10 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't let that concern me at all. Large sections of the Appalachian Trail (including all of PA) are extremely rocky. It's hell on shoes. Having said that, I much prefer my Nike trail shoes to the Speedgoats I had.
itomato 8 hours ago [-]
Yes it was a speedrun. Fresh kicks, more clicks.
intrasight 11 hours ago [-]
My orthopedic doc and Google doc both said to get Hoka for the foot pain I am having.
I was at a small restaurant last week. Was chatting with the two owners. All three of us were wearing Hoka Bondi.
I am an ex-runner (hip issues). Wore Asics gel kayano for 30 years. Now I'm a Hoka man.
triceratops 7 hours ago [-]
> and Google doc
A doctor employed by Google? A document you maintain and the AI autocomplete recommended Hoka? Something else?
intrasight 7 hours ago [-]
"Google doc" is my girlfriend's term for asking Google medical questions.
triceratops 7 hours ago [-]
Lol thank you for the explanation
jawilson2 9 hours ago [-]
I just posted something similar. I think Hokas are in Facebook territory now. My 75 year old dad has been wearing them for 3 years. We just hiked in Alaska, and every single person retirement age or older was wearing Hokas.
I wonder if this is a market signal to short Hoka; old people wearing them will be dead in <10 years, and no young person will be caught dead wearing them because it's an old person shoe. What is the Instagram of shoes?
voakbasda 7 hours ago [-]
Good thing for Hoka that the world keeps producing fresh batches of old people. They’ll do fine.
Al-Khwarizmi 12 hours ago [-]
I'm from Spain and I mostly see Skechers, New Balance, Nike (doesn't seem to be doing that bad here?), ASICS, Adidas, Puma, Converse, Vans. Lately Salomon. I hadn't heard of Hoka before either, maybe we are behind the times.
weinzierl 12 hours ago [-]
While Hoka was originally a French company they have been US owned for a long time, so I think they are just not popular in Europe.
The Swiss brand On on the other hand seems to be everywhere all over Europe now and I am surprised you haven't seen them in Spain yet.
petre 11 hours ago [-]
They are both popular with runners in Europe as of post 2023. Most of the runners that stop at the cofee shop wear either one of those brands. 35+ demographic.
achenet 10 hours ago [-]
Frenchman here, I see plenty of Hoka sneakers, usually worn by people I'd describe as "athletic bourgeois". Generally white, ~25-45+, often also wearing other "sporty" clothing, usually running focused (shirts for various marathons/long-distance runs, for example), seemingly well to do (not the lower class types with their Nike Tn shoes and football jerseys, but people who look and act like they have well-paying office jobs).
user_7832 12 hours ago [-]
The list is quite similar in NL too tbh.
jmelo11 11 hours ago [-]
Thats the same brand space of most of spanish speaking countries. I wonder why.
petre 11 hours ago [-]
I got a pair of Spanish Joma sneakers last year and I like them better than NB. If they had better materials, more leather, it would be great.
The 35+ runners in my city mostly wear Hoka and OC, NB is mostly a mom/dad brand and Nike and Adidas is mostly worn by teens (Forum style), 25+ women (Gazelle, Samba, Superstar) and older demograhic who doesn't run but perform stand up type of work (the foam models).
I don't run. Most of my shoes are Adidas, but I like my Nikes better after I got two pairs, altough I dislike their branding. Most of my Adidas sneakers (Gazelle and Samba) are too narrow, the Terex have lost their outsoles, the Night joggers are fine, but the amount of foam and sponge annoys me and I have another pair with a very thick outsole which are also annoying. The skater Adidas versions (Tyshawn) are great, along with the Etnies shoes and the bike specific FiveTen brand (also Adidas). For outdoor activities I use Columbia aporoach shoes and Garmont 3/4 boots. I've injured both of my ankles with a pair of Black Diamond approach shoes because they're too narrow. When I want a bit more confort while walking, I take my Mizuno Wave Rider although their lining broke after less than a week and they're no go if it's too hot outside. They also get rocks in the outsole and are notoriously hard to clean if you accidentally step in sticky stuff.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
I think if you looked closer at runners you'd see many wearing Adidas, Asics, Brooks & Saucony, too. NB may be a mom/dad fashion brand with models like the 99x, 540, etc, but they're a default starting point for many runners because they're one of very few options that have wide an extra-wide across almost their entire lineup of running shoes.
You mention a handful of specific shoe models but none of them are running shoes (not even the "Night Jogger").
For my daily shoes, I have been wearing cushioned running shoes for the past ~10 years. For my daily trainers, I currently wear On Cloud Eclipse. For workout shoes I alternate between NB SC Trainer and On Cloudmonster Hyper. For trail running, Topo Vista or Inov-8 G280 (now called Trailyfly). For racing, NB SC Elite.
I also have a pair of Sambas for fashion; they're too narrow for anything else. I do light hiking in approach shoes (La Sportiva TX4 -- I ADORE these, to the point I bought their waterproof mid-height version for more extreme hiking), too!
(I am a runner, my son is a high school runner and works in a running shoe store. I'm deeper into the running shoe market than most.)
petre 2 hours ago [-]
> You mention a handful of specific shoe models but none of them are running shoes (not even the "Night Jogger").
Yup, because I don't run. Mostly hikes and daily dog walks, 4-5k. I don't really like cushioned shoes that much. I mostly wear them when I'm tired and my ankles hurt if it isn't too hot outside. If that's the case I usually wear the Wave Riders. The Nite Joggers I suspect are more of a cushioned fashion model disguised as a running shoe.
roryirvine 10 hours ago [-]
When you say OC, I suspect you mean On - their logo has the lower-case 'n' rotated 90 degrees, so looks a bit like Oc.
On & HOKA both have huge marketing towards "new" runners in the UK. And HOKA especially have made a point of marketing to women, in contrast to many traditional sportswear brands - with the rapid increase in numbers of women participating in sports, that's been a big part of their success.
thevillagechief 7 hours ago [-]
I ran a half marathon this weekend. Maybe 70% of people, including myself, had Brooks. The rest were Hoka mostly Hoka and a mix of Nikes and Asics. I had never heard of Brooks until a few years ago when I googled best running shoes and went down a rabbit-hole that barely cared about Nike.
prawn 14 hours ago [-]
Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
jerlam 2 hours ago [-]
Many shoe manufacturers do this with running groups, it's good marketing.
Unfortunately my oddly-shaped feet means I've had more bad than good experiences when trying to run a few miles in new shoes.
aembleton 11 hours ago [-]
> I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
Probably, they certainly do in the UK
9 hours ago [-]
boogieknite 14 hours ago [-]
i think one can be in Sketchers but who is into Sketchers?
freetime2 14 hours ago [-]
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.
flossly 14 hours ago [-]
They certainly have design issues. For such a big brand, I dont get it... Why not make 'm look nice?
SenHeng 7 hours ago [-]
There’s a high chance that whoever is in charge thinks they look nice.
After all, someone somewhere thought the PT Cruiser was worth manufacturing.
microtonal 13 hours ago [-]
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).
darreninthenet 12 hours ago [-]
It's interesting, I wear Sketchers for exactly the reason that they are the most comfortable shoe for being on my feet and standing/walking around all day... indeed when I was looking for such a shoe it was a friend of my wife's who is a nurse at our local hospitals A&E department who recommended them as practically what all the nurses (at least here in the uk) wear, according to her anyway.
SomeUserName432 10 hours ago [-]
I got an old pair of Sketchers which are great.
They are a bit worn, so a year or two I bought a new pair which are absolutely horrible to wear for any extended amount of time.
Been looking for a good replacement ever since, while my old ones are slowly wearing away. Plastic pieces chipping off the heel every week.
tpm 7 hours ago [-]
In theory I like Skechers; in practice they self-destruct after a few months on my legs. Luckily nowadays there is a lot of differents slip-on shoes I can buy - I've got 2 pairs of Crocs slip-on shoes which are better in every way and also Merrel slip-ons for the cold and wet days which are great too.
kenjackson 10 hours ago [-]
Yes the Sketcher slip ons have been a game changer. Also their shoe laces seem to be constructed so that the knot doesn’t untie over time. I had a single knot lace that stayed intact over four months of daily wear.
Most comfortable shoes ever? Maybe not. But probably top 5-10 in my lifetime.
TitaRusell 13 hours ago [-]
My mom. She is at that age when tying your shoelaces becomes difficult.
The human body really was never supposed to go over 50 but modern medicine finds a way.
schnebbau 12 hours ago [-]
> The human body really was never supposed to go over 50
As I get older I'm beginning to align with this.
When you're younger you think everything is going to be great until you die from a short illness at the average age of 79. Wrong. In my cohort of friends, notable age-related degradation started appearing in our late-30s/early 40s, even in the fit ones who stayed active.
stefanfisk 11 hours ago [-]
I’m in my mid 40s, and I constantly thinking about https://xkcd.com/605/ and trying to extrapolate what shape I’ll be in when I get ”old” based on the decline of the last ten years.
The projections are not looking good…
freetime2 9 hours ago [-]
I'm in the same boat. Looking around here, the older guys in the best shape that I know of are in the local triathlon club. Pushing 50s, 60s, and even 70s, and they are still very fit and can also party harder than I can.
I love cycling, and a run can be refreshing, but I don't really have any desire to swim - much less an open water swim. But triathlons seem to be a pretty effective path to longevity, so it may be something I need to force myself to take up. That and weight training.
wallst07 8 hours ago [-]
Over 50 here, I use the following as a test of someone's general balance/strength/flexibility:
Taking off your socks/shoes(tie/untie) without sitting down: hard for most in their 20/30s. Very hard with out bending over.
Pants are what gets hard when you get older, if you can't put on/off pants without sitting down I'd advise some basic training and/or doctor to help.
*assumes otherwise healthy person with no disabilities. I'm not a doctor, this is my own opinion.
legitster 5 hours ago [-]
Sketchers invests in comfort the way that Nike invests in performance.
If you're not a pro-athlete and are not fashion obsessed, why not just buy the most comfortable shoes available?
SenHeng 7 hours ago [-]
Old people in Japan are really into Sketchers.
epolanski 13 hours ago [-]
Till they keep making the most comfortable shoes I buy, count me in as into sketchers.
raverbashing 12 hours ago [-]
Shoelaces suck basically
10 hours ago [-]
maxglute 7 hours ago [-]
I can't tell if Hoka crossed the into fashion athleisure mainstream, there's a lot of fit people wearing them in cities, but can't tell if as fashion statement or back from run.
ChrisMarshallNY 11 hours ago [-]
Hoka is great. I have several pairs. I tend to go through a couple of pairs a year.
Not that long ago, they were an oddity, around here.
Let's hope success doesn't spoil them.
I used to use Nikes, then something happened, and the exact same type that were comfortable, last year, are now giving me blisters.
Enshittification doesn't just affect tech.
matwood 11 hours ago [-]
> I used to use Nikes, then something happened
Same. The original Nike Free's were amazing. When mine wore out I bought another pair and they were terrible. I kept trying different versions and none were like the originals. They were heavier, uncomfortable, and not nearly as flexible as the originals.
SenHeng 6 hours ago [-]
Same here. I love m Nike Free from 2018 and still wear them despite how natty they’ve become. But my wife insisted they must go, so I bought the latest version a few months back and it’s just not the same thing anymore. Why do all shoe brands have these gigantic sole cushions nowadays?
deinonychus 2 hours ago [-]
i encourage someone who has been running for longer than me to chime in, but
>Why do all shoe brands have these gigantic sole cushions nowadays?
trends! barefoot running just isn't as popular anymore.
yes, i also remember seeing nike frees everywhere in the late 2000s and through the 2010s and it's my understanding it was because barefoot running was a trendy idea. and whether everyone who wore nike frees to the grocery store etc knew about barefoot running, that's why they were popular. i'm not sure if it's appropriate to say the theories are discredited, but it's clearly less popular now.
people who run seriously like that supershoes help them beat PRs, and some of that tech (bouncy foam, springy plates) has trickled down into everyday beaters. and big cushy hoka-like shoes are just comfortable.
that said there are heaps of smaller companies (vivobarefoot etc) making barefoot minimalist everyday shoes. but i don't know what people who wear those shoes wear to run in.
blitzar 9 hours ago [-]
Everyone I know wears shoes.
Grazester 9 hours ago [-]
I too was like, who?
mamonster 16 hours ago [-]
>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.
probably_wrong 14 hours ago [-]
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.
wjnc 13 hours ago [-]
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.
probably_wrong 13 hours ago [-]
The explanation I got from my doctor was that one shouldn't fix posture problems by raising the inner part of the insoles a random amount because all that achieves is making you run "weird", putting pressure in the wrong part of the articulation and damaging the ligaments that keep the knee in place. The actual solution involved muscle development exercises, ripping out the insoles of those shoes to achieve a flat base and replacing them with custom-made ones, knee pads with metallic inserts, and a two-year training plan.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
Conventional wisdom among running coaches and orthopedists these days is that the most important thing is to run comfortably, and that just because something looks "weird" doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. Yes, it may be inefficient, but it probably isn't hurting the runner, either.
jonplackett 13 hours ago [-]
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.
AdamN 12 hours ago [-]
For me I didn't realize that my feet had actually grown and I was cramming my feet into the old sized shoes (and kept buying the old size too). Took years to figure that one out :-/
slow_typist 12 hours ago [-]
Yeah it’s amazing - but I think feet don’t grow on adults, they get flatter over time and therefore longer/wider footprint.
arlattimore 14 hours ago [-]
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.
prawn 14 hours ago [-]
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.
walthamstow 13 hours ago [-]
What are you wearing for trail runners now?
prawn 10 hours ago [-]
I wear this category for hiking rather than running (prefer sneakers over boots - less weight). Current shoes are something waterproof from Columbia that I've worn in snow and desert trails and quite like. Bought on special in the US just before heading into snow, so didn't research much. Previously had Nike Wild Trail. And many years back, I think it was Nike Trail that I bought in NZ, but never saw that moniker again.
I was looking at Nike ACG stuff recently, but the colourways in AU are black (clodhopper!), neon blue, white with khaki, camo, or an odd light brown. And on the side it spells out "All Conditions Gear" like you're an idiot who can't remember what your shoes are for.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
Nike are too narrow for me. I alternate between Inov-8 and Topo for trail shoes. I was really happy with an older pair of Adidas Terrex Pro, but haven't tried the new Agravic options in several years.
Trail running is highly dependent on the type of trails around you. I'm in the bay area and almost everything here is dry, dusty and hard. You can generally get by with structured road running shoes if you want to, and don't need much support beyond that. I would not recommend the same thing to east coast trail runners, or most northern Europeans.
sumo89 12 hours ago [-]
If you want a recommendation I really like Merrell Agility Peak's or for something less run-y, the Moab.
tarsinge 13 hours ago [-]
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.
gizajob 11 hours ago [-]
It seemed like Nike went down a fairly narrow path of only really selling very expensive basketball shoes, to the exclusion of all other footwear.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
Shoes salespeople wield huge influence over buying decisions, especially if they come off as authoritative.
My son works in a running shoe store that also does gait analysis and they default every new runner into something stable-neutral like a Brooks Ghost, Saucony Ride, or NB 880. They never default with Nike or Adidas because, although both brands make some excellent running shoe models, neither have anything that's in the same category (if Nike had a shoe that was a mix between the Structure & Pegasus, that would be id. If Adidas had something like the SL2 but with a little more structure, that would, too.). The problem with both Nike & Adidas is that they cater to a million different niche audiences, and while both have some amazing running shoe options at the top end (e.g. Vomero Plus for cushioned daily, Alphafly / Streakfly / Vaporfly for racing, etc) their shoes targeting casual runners doing 2-5mi slow runs a couple days a week are lacking. Yes, you could go with a Pegasus, and many do, but although that's a general purpose stable-neutral running shoe, there are way better options from other brands (including Hoka & On, but also Brooks, NB, Saucony, Asics, Topo, Altra, Mizuno, and more).
lr1970 2 hours ago [-]
+1 on Altra. I have Altra FWD and it is far the best running shoes I ever had.
mahrain 15 hours ago [-]
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.
monomania 14 hours ago [-]
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.
fransje26 12 hours ago [-]
> a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell
I call them clown shoes. Unfortunately, they are everywhere.
ahartmetz 8 hours ago [-]
They are officially called ugly sneakers and the name is very appropriate.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
I recommend Doctors of Running (website & podcast). They're a group of running PTs and each of them has different needs & preference. One in particular likes less cushioned and more structured shoes. There are ample options out there.
loeg 14 hours ago [-]
There are tons of non-maxi shoes around still.
petre 10 hours ago [-]
Try Mizunos. My Wave Riders have the amount of foam that a pair of ugly Sketchers would.
yolo3000 15 hours ago [-]
No mention of heel drop? I thought Hoka's were in the low heel drop category. Or maybe it's not a thing anymore
arlattimore 14 hours ago [-]
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.
yolo3000 12 hours ago [-]
Yup, Nike and Asics were like 10mm, while Hoka and other cool brands are lower. Back when I was running this was the main differentiator
chantepierre 14 hours ago [-]
Low-ish (4 to 6mm) but not really advertised.
eitally 8 hours ago [-]
That's just a bad salesperson.
mitxela 14 hours ago [-]
Could still be the same company though, if they were smart.
globular-toast 15 hours ago [-]
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.
darkwater 14 hours ago [-]
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.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
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.
adrian_b 12 hours ago [-]
I agree that something changed in the past ten years or so, because in the last few years I was surprised to notice on the street that almost everyone wears running shoes (in Europe).
I have transitioned myself to wearing only some kind of good quality running shoes, perhaps a decade before this became so fashionable, because I cared much more about my comfort than about the opinions that others might have about what I am wearing.
So I was surprised when everybody else appeared to have done the same thing, eventually.
Al-Khwarizmi 12 hours ago [-]
Yes, I confess I made the change when the masses started doing it and it became socially acceptable to wear running shoes to work. I think it started around ten years ago and consolidated with COVID. It's been a considerable improvement in quality of life. Now I only wear "real" shoes a few times per year, for formal occasions, and I wonder how I could spend all that time wearing them daily.
BTW, Nike Pegasus is what I wear all the time :D
Keyframe 11 hours ago [-]
I could care less about running shoes, or shoes in general, but late 80's and into the 90's it was like Nike vs Reebok and Adidas on the side, with a dash of Puma. Haven't heard about Reebok ever since. It was as big as Nike, so it doesn't seem unprecedented for these brands to die by stupid mistakes?
kasey_junk 9 hours ago [-]
Nike famously built there business on the back of the running trend of the late 70s and early 80s. It’s headquartered where it’s headquartered because of its association with a monster collegiate running program.
Before that they were known specifically for their innovation in serious running shoes.
If anything it’s that they abandoned that which caused their current downswing.
epolanski 13 hours ago [-]
> like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
For running errands maybe.
rc5150 5 hours ago [-]
a whooooole lotta professionals on their feet, like nurses, dental hygenists, teachers, etc, are wearing Hokas.
close04 14 hours ago [-]
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. Fashion and sports shoes don't replace each other. The sales of sport shoes just created a new market, they didn't cannibalize the rest of the sales. That must have been self-inflicted.
milchek 17 hours ago [-]
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?
dpark 16 hours ago [-]
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.
darkwater 14 hours ago [-]
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.
zaptheimpaler 12 hours ago [-]
Probably went something like - we need infinite growth to appease the stock market morons - we can’t raise prices any more for our shoes - what if we cut out the middlemen retail stores and disintermediated to save money - we will be digital native, COVID is here, the world is digital - RIP.
motoxpro 9 hours ago [-]
Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.
Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.
dpark 6 hours ago [-]
> we can pass those savings on to customers
Did they ever say that? I have trouble imagining any exec at Nike plan for passing savings onto consumers.
motoxpro 9 hours ago [-]
They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable.
I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!
dpark 6 hours ago [-]
It went great because they started it in the pandemic when essentially all shopping shifted to online, and at that point, why not buy direct from Nike vs online from Macy’s or whatever.
I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.
darkwater 8 hours ago [-]
I'm not saying that I could do better but just curious about this specific case. I mean, I know that in the web bubble most of us thought that what COVID-19 brought was there to stay forever (shift to mostly online, 100% white collar remote work etc) but from a corporation like Nike which should have a different point of view, I would expect a different line of reasoning as well.
And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.
blitzar 9 hours ago [-]
> pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.
but it went how most mere mortals would expect ...
conductr 14 hours ago [-]
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.
somat 13 hours ago [-]
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.
weinzierl 12 hours ago [-]
"In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere."
You mention Adidas as if they were in the same boat with Nike. While Adidas suffered from the Kanye West disaster this was a one time blunder and they rebound quickly.
in Europe I see On on the rise too, but Adidas is omnipresent.
ahartmetz 8 hours ago [-]
AFAIK, Adidas has been more niche* in the US, which makes sense given its German origin. I'm German and I don't recall a time when Adidas wasn't either #1 or #2 here. Kanye West barely registered.
* It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture, for example. Widely popular brands don't have such specific associations.
rc5150 5 hours ago [-]
"It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture"
Yeah about 35 years ago.
nemothekid 8 hours ago [-]
In the US, Nike/Adidas were #1 and #2. Thats all I meant - I haven't seen any change in Adidas, if anything they are even more popular now and are probably the #1 sneaker brand I see in San Francisco. The Samba is incredibly popular, it's as salient to me as the "air force 1" used to be.
ggregoire 7 hours ago [-]
The Adizero is incredibly popular among runners too
throwawayffffas 10 hours ago [-]
I went to one of Nike's flagship store in a major global city in a major retail street a few years ago. It was like a nightclub with very few shoes on a couple of walls and a couple on a pedestal. It was impossible to actually shop there. It was more akin to a branding showcase than an actual store.
sidewndr46 9 hours ago [-]
I saw this too. It felt like where corporate would showcase their shoes to a potential corporate merger or acquisition. Real shoe stores have huge inventory across dozens of specific shoes.
ButlerianJihad 10 hours ago [-]
There is a retail shopping mall here; it is not an outlet mall, but a Nike Store opened up and it feels like an outlet. It was bustling with a lot of people milling around. There were bags available at the front, which I thought were durable totes for sale, but turned out that they were shopping bags to hold your pre-purchase items?
There were rows and rows of shoes to try, and a salesman was helping me for a while, but after trying 3 pairs I just got the feeling that the store was a dumping ground for the odd styles and odd sizes, and having figured out which size fit me, I left all the shoes there, and only purchased a lanyard, which was at least $25.
allthetime 17 hours ago [-]
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.
throwaway2037 13 hours ago [-]
Hoka has a fairly unusual corporate history. They were founded in 2009 in Annecy, France. (Yeah, read that twice. No hate on Annecy, but that is a mega brand being started from a tiny French city!) Then in 2013, they were acquired by California-based Deckers Brands which is also the owner of UGG and Teva.
The real question: How did they become the Lululemon of casual sneakers? Just like lots of women who don't do yoga and barely attend the gym, they cannot get enough Lululemon in their wardrobe. The same can be said for Hoka running shoes: All kinds of normies that barely exercise wear them anywhere and always.
baoluofu 11 hours ago [-]
I see a lot more of ON being the sneaker brand for people who don't look like they exercise that much. I exercise regularly and got Hoka Clifton 10s for running and daily walking and they are hands-down the best shoes I have had for that purpose. So much so that I immediately bought a second pair so I can alternate between them each day to hopefully keep them lasting longer. I tried on loads of different brands in the running shop and the Clifton 10 wides were definitely the best for my feet, despite my initial assumption that I would prefer ON cloud runners.
throwaway2037 7 hours ago [-]
Frankly, I don't understand the purpose of your reply.
> I exercise regularly and got Hoka Clifton 10s for running and daily walking and they are hands-down the best shoes I have had for that purpose.
Sure, let me rephrase for you: "I do not exercise regularly and got Hoka Clifton 10s for daily walking and they are hands-down the best shoes I have had for that purpose."
rjsw 11 hours ago [-]
Hoka was founded by former Salomon employees, why would they want to move from Annecy?
arethuza 11 hours ago [-]
Indeed, Annecy is gorgeous and pretty close to some of the largest ski areas on the planet?
throwaway2037 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I totally agree. If I could found a 100M USD+ business from Annecy, that would be heaven on Earth!
allthetime 6 hours ago [-]
Maybe selection bias from where you live. I live next to endless world class hiking / trail running and everyone I see in hokas is using them.
They are also wildly supportive and absolutely suitable for wear as a non athlete who walks or is on their feet a lot.
They are popular it’s not surprising. See: how most people in $1000 Arc’teryx jackets arent summitting a mountain
JeremyNT 8 hours ago [-]
Hoka (like many other brands with running lineages) was careful not to devalue its brand.
Nike has some quality products, but they also consistently released garbage products and stamped a swoosh on them.
So there's the squeeze: people who want quality can go to a brand that's actually known for quality and avoid the guessing game, people who want garbage can get cheaper garbage drop shipped from China.
coffeebeqn 5 hours ago [-]
They also hiked their prices on things like Jordan’s until they’re in a new price category $200+ and against really quite high quality shoes
omnimus 16 hours ago [-]
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.
freetime2 15 hours ago [-]
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.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
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?
ericmay 9 hours ago [-]
I’m not quite sure but Nike really blew up back in the day with a focus on basketball via the Nike Jordan/Air Force One.
More recently I just don’t understand their product line up. If I click on Men’s in the US there are over 700 shoes. How do I even pick? Hello, earth to Nike. Nike is a Greek god. Maybe lean in to that a bit more?
Oh I get it “Inspired by the geometry of modern cities” they’re confused about good design and taking a hint from other dead brands like Hugo Boss or Burberry Outlet or maybe even Armani Exchange!
That’s why richfluencers are buying ON and Hoka and Vuroi and Lululemon still.
omnimus 7 hours ago [-]
That's why it's fashion... I wouldn't say these are comparatively turds at all. I mean some Hoka are OK (except the terrible blue logo) but I don't think you would find single ON shoe thats nicer than the Nikes you linked to.
ericmay 7 hours ago [-]
Which is probably why sales are declining. I wouldn't be caught dead in a shoe that looks like that. What would I wear it with? Jeans? When Nike makes "fashionable" products there's nothing for Nike to sell to me. I guess they can sell it to an NBA player and their entourage. Most people though aren't buying clothes that look like that, just like they're not buying stuff from the runway models.
So you take your customer base from a lot of folks to a small number of folks. It's totally fine and cool to build more niche products (we need more niche products and cottage industries) but if Nike's goal is to stay in the S&P 100 this strategy won't work. Customer base is way too small (and outside of the influencers) and has too few dollars to spend.
freetime2 9 hours ago [-]
I got into Nike shoes in the 2010s because they were really innovative. A sneaker head friend suggested I try a pair of LunarGlides, and they were the most comfortable shoes I ever wore at the time due to their Lunarlon soles. And their FlyKnit uppers that came at bit later revolutionized sneakers. I also really liked their Free Run line (although not actually for running), which had an innovative flexible sole.
I've never been one for fashion, but I thought their tech was awesome. But I can't really think of anything noteworthy since the mid 2010s or so. Their Vaporfly shoes may be a big deal to competitive distance runners, but not really to your average Joe.
So that's my take - they stopped innovating, and other brands caught up and surpassed them.
10 hours ago [-]
throwaway2037 13 hours ago [-]
> all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool
Specific to Hoka: They are a status symbol probably started/hyped by social media. All kinds of people wear them who aren't remotely into running or exercise.
BobAliceInATree 8 hours ago [-]
Allbirds didn't really "pivot" into an AI datacenter. They sold off their shoe business at firesale to another company, which will still make & sell the shoes.
Then the name and public listing remaining was basically a shell, and basically SPACed into the AI datacenter company with more funding.
rawoke083600 7 hours ago [-]
Interesting and not saying you wrong lol. I live in South Africa (cape town), a modernish city by modern standards, but ive never heard of Hoka nor On Brand.
In some ways that should be good news to them as clearly some untapped markets still
JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago [-]
> Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised
Wendover did a good overview of Nike's strategic implosion a few months ago [1].
Hoka makes excellent running shoes. How they managed to convince people they’re great every day shoes is a bit of a mystery to me.
sph 17 hours ago [-]
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.
gregdeon 2 hours ago [-]
Interesting! Hoka is extremely popular in my circles. They make excellent running shoes for beginners and decent running shoes for more serious athletes. They're also very popular among folks like service workers and nurses who are on their feet all day. I was very sad to find that they don't fit my feet well.
dkdbejwi383 13 hours ago [-]
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.
tverbeure 14 hours ago [-]
Never heard of Hoka either, so I asked my wife just now: “oh yes, I have a pair.”
Bishonen88 17 hours ago [-]
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.
harshalizee 17 hours ago [-]
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.
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.
dublinben 6 hours ago [-]
This model[0] is touted as one of their top three "bestsellers" and is completely unobjectionable, as far as contemporary sneakers go. It's a plain white, leather-looking tennis shoe that doesn't even have their brand's stupid characteristic sole that collects gravel.
Even typically goofy looking Hoka will sell you something appropriate for all-day work wear, anti-slip soles and all.[1] It comes in black, white, and monochrome grey.
Nike doesn't seem capable of making a shoe that looks like a normal person could wear it in real life. Most of them look more appropriate for a space station than planet earth.
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.
omnimus 12 hours ago [-]
This is actually not at all style of On shoes. The New Balance / Adidas / Nike 90s "dad shoes" have been cool for almost a decade now (Balenciaga released their "dad" sneaker in 2016).
On shoes look like shoes for retirees right now. Teenagers don't wear On shoes.
dpark 6 hours ago [-]
Fair. The kids are buying dad shoes from 20 years ago. On looks like dad shoes from right now.
walthamstow 13 hours 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.
ivankra 16 hours ago [-]
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.
bogdan 12 hours ago [-]
And gaviota is best for wide feet. They are really comfy
sph 11 hours ago [-]
Well, I guess I inadvertently got great recommendations for running shoes with my ignorance (and wide feet). Thanks.
Cunningham’s Law strikes again.
indigovole 8 hours ago [-]
On's commitment to avoiding search clicks goes beyond their name.
Their logo deliberately looks more like 'qn' or 'nq' than 'on'. I _had_ a pair and couldn't remember or figure who made it for a while.
they did lock up their domain name, which must have taken some doing.
DoneWithAllThat 9 hours ago [-]
Hoka is big in the running market but that’s basically all. Same with New Balance. I think where Hoka got lucky was with the explosion of popularity of running and Nike failing to understand their need to offer a fashion running product not just a performance running product. Hoka did and reaped massive rewards as a result.
ifwinterco 5 hours ago [-]
New Balance were Dad shoes 10 years ago but somehow they are now fashionable in the UK (also Asics).
I'd literally never heard of Hoka or On in my life though before this thread and they do not look fashionable
iamben 10 hours ago [-]
Allbirds were just dreadfully uncool. Basically shoes manufactured for tech bros?
Even with another 5 years, I'm not sure they would have taken the market Hoka and On did.
jareklupinski 10 hours ago [-]
yea but so comfortable :(
no other shoe could carry my feet for miles with no outwardly visible branding
Onavo 15 hours ago [-]
What's the best generic allbirds style shoe? I refuse to play for the branding premium.
jimbob45 13 hours ago [-]
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.
DivingForGold 6 hours ago [-]
Go Woke - - - Go Broke.
alexpotato 10 hours ago [-]
There is a great article [0] that has some interesting points about this:
- Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike"
- So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women
- The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer
- They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly with other brands
> Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike"
There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut
DC-3 10 hours ago [-]
For every shop that exists in the real world to sell shit to women you have to remember there's an offshore sports betting portal on the world wide web to relieve men of their disposable income.
jeltz 9 hours ago [-]
Many, maybe even most, online casinos target women primarily.
Maxatar 8 hours ago [-]
Not the sports betting sites though, also poker seems to be indifferent in terms of marketing even though it's dominated by men.
tomjen3 7 hours ago [-]
Sports betting screws extremely male.
schaefer 4 hours ago [-]
what a funny Freudian slip for skew.
kridsdale1 3 hours ago [-]
They get screwed alright.
dmix 10 hours ago [-]
To visit the mens clothing section of brands like Zara or H&M at a mall you often have to walk through the women’s section on the first floor, then go up an escalator, then walk through the top floor’s second women's section to find the men’s section hidden away on the other half.
whatevaa 9 hours ago [-]
I once failed to find men section in H&M, even when it was listed as there :)
ndiddy 5 hours ago [-]
According to a Nielsen report, women control 70-80% of consumer spending and are responsible for a growing share of discretionary spending (expected to be 75% by 2029). Everybody is simply going to where the money is. https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2024/shapi...
Also how is Pizza Hut male coded?
triceratops 7 hours ago [-]
Why Pizza Hut?
basisword 10 hours ago [-]
When was this different? The 'traditional masculine' man doesn't shop - his wife shops for him.
dvngnt_ 8 hours ago [-]
Marriage rates are dropping and that generation is dying out.
triceratops 7 hours ago [-]
Wat
This is really a thing?
ativzzz 2 hours ago [-]
My mom, who stayed at home, buys clothes for my dad, who works. I don't think I've ever seen him buy clothes for himself other than shoes and outdoor work equipment.
notesinthefield 7 hours ago [-]
That explains why over the last two years Ive been able to buy almost any clothing from Nike and fits perfectly well when previously, as a big, muscular guy Nike was pretty much no-go for clothing. Huh.
listless 6 hours ago [-]
This makes sense from a business perspective. If your primary customers are men, you wanna branch out of that real quick. I think something like ~80% of all consumer spending in the US is done by women. You gotta go after that. That's an ENORMOUS market to just leave on the table.
That said, I fail to see how trying to attract more women alienated men. I just don't buy that culture war as a reason. I remember Nike doing some things that were a bit annoying that I wished they would just stay out of, but I still bought their shoes. The only thing more insufferable than the culture war is taking part in said culture war.
nater5000 6 hours ago [-]
>I fail to see how trying to attract more women alienated men
It's less about Nike making decisions that men don't like and more about Nike spreading themselves too thin.
Just think about Nike as a company: the products they actually sell are generic, barely mid-tier clothes and athletic gear. Their actual product is their brand. That's why all of their products prominently display their iconic logo and everyone and their grandma knows their slogan is "Just do it."
A brand is only as valuable as the awareness of the brand. So every dollar that Nike spends on marketing is incredibly important for driving their bottom line. If you split those marketing dollars in an attempt to reach a new audience, you're necessarily spending less of those marketing dollars on the existing audience that found your brand valuable. So, in trying to attract more women, Nike ended up attracting less men.
The question, really, is how important is this dynamic. Apparently, it's pretty important. I don't think Nike made a blunder in attempting to expand their audience. I'm willing to bet that they started seeing some writing on the walls which suggested not doing anything was going to be bad enough that taking the risk to spread themselves thin was appropriate. But at the end of the day, I think modern consumerism moves too fast and is so much less concentrated than it was in the past (when Nike dominated) that they just couldn't keep everything together as effectively as they needed to.
tencentshill 8 hours ago [-]
I don't think "culture war" was a big contributor.
CharlieDigital 5 hours ago [-]
Nowadays, it seems that catering to any audience other than 1) white 2) male is "culture war".
tuesdaynight 6 hours ago [-]
Good luck trying to argue that with people nowadays. Culture war mentality is perfect for wishful thinking, and it's hard to avoid falling into the trap.
Google, Apple, Facebook, etc, had their woke phase with tremendously growth, and nobody says "get woke, go broke" when they made billions. What about Twitter losing all its users because of Musk? Most of the people in my social circle who said that are still using Twitter nowadays. And if you dare to say that they are drinking the Kool-Aid, you are "not following politics close enough"
emptyfile 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
freetime2 14 hours ago [-]
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.
wideopenspace 14 hours ago [-]
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
freetime2 13 hours ago [-]
For actually running (as opposed to just casual use), Nike was never actually my first choice. I used Brooks 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.
And just to clarify - I don't think any of the brands above sell proper "wide toe box" shoes that I mentioned above. Xero and Altra are the best known brands (both US-based) in this category I think. There are also some really inexpensive options from Chinese companies on Amazon that I think are actually worth a look - Whitin seems to be the most popular on Amazon in the US, but I see the same shoes sold under different brand names. These shoes tend to be really light weight and comfortable for casual use or working out, but they just don't have enough cushion where I would want to run long distances in them.
Oh and Skechers sells some wide toe shoes as well - not as roomy in the toe box as the brands above, but still super comfy. But again, not something I would recommend for running.
topaztee 11 hours ago [-]
i bought a pair of new balances wide shoes and wont be going back to nike
CWuestefeld 8 hours ago [-]
This is what I'm wearing now, for this reason. But they keep messing with the products. They revised the 608 so the toe box isn't as big. The nylon 877 V1 seems to be my last choice.
corford 11 hours ago [-]
FYI, Hoka have an EU site too
ryanlitalien 8 hours ago [-]
I did the same, used to be a Nike guy. Switched to a zero drop, wide toe box Altra, and have stayed with them since. (Topo is another competitor in the same space)
billynomates 14 hours ago [-]
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).
dranudin 12 hours ago [-]
Once upon a time adidas made shoes that were wide enough for me. Then somehow they decided to make them narrower and I had to search for wider shoes. The search was very difficult, as it seems that most shoe producers do not produce actually foot-shaped shoes.
I bought my first pairs of Altra half a year ago, and I am very happy! The fit is really great.
I will not switch to anything else, as long as they continue producing in this shape.
otikik 12 hours ago [-]
Yep, another happy Altra user here. I basically wear nothing else these days. Will never go back to a non-wide toebox shoe.
lr1970 2 hours ago [-]
+1. Since I discovered Altra it feels pain to wear anything else.
trymas 8 hours ago [-]
This.
Neither Hoka, Asics, New Balance, et al. make truly wide toe box shoes.
Better than nothing - sure. Though after wearing Altras, feet health is much better and you can feel how all other shoes feel tight, even my widest Hokas are tight in comparison.
My biggest complaints though with Altras:
- They offer only zero drop (or near zero drop) shoes;
- Their QC to price ratio is atrocious (stitches failing, heel fabric gone to shreds 2-3 times faster than other brands, sole is so soft that it goes to shreds or wears out 2 times faster than others);
Problem for me is that I wouldn't even consider buying them if they wouldn't be the only shoe brand that I can access that has truly wide toe box and is not "barefoot shoe".
castlecrasher2 7 hours ago [-]
I don't know any non-US brands but echoing that I've only bought Altras for the past five or so years because of the large toe-box size and reasonable looks.
presentation 11 hours ago [-]
Surprisingly if you're into marathons, the On Cloudboom Strike 2 is unusually roomy in the toebox for a big sports brand.
nunez 6 hours ago [-]
Nike used to have sort-of minimalist shoes (Nike Free) but they (and Adidas) never really embraced that movement. New Balance tried with the Minimus line, but they eventually re-designed them with a more traditional architecture (narrower toe box, arch support, some drop). Same with Merrell.
cosmojg 4 hours ago [-]
I still sometimes wear my decade-old Nike Free RNs held together with little more than spoiled hopes, dreams, and shoe goo.
branko_d 16 hours ago [-]
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.
torben-friis 14 hours ago [-]
>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.
gamessucknow 8 hours ago [-]
Not sure if I’ve always been too rough with my should, but last year I needed to get more shoes as I was particularly active hiking and fishing that summer.
I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for.
A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.
fransje26 12 hours ago [-]
> one was a full leather design made in Spain
Would you care to share the brand name, for posterity?
cuvert 11 hours ago [-]
I think he might be talking about Camper Shoes. I have two pairs that are at least 6 years old, but they are not made for running, and, they are also not as comfortable for walking as many of the famous brands. One was made in Cambodia (Peu) and the other one in Vietnam (Drift).
branko_d 10 hours ago [-]
Cetti.
nomorewords 15 hours ago [-]
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
m000 13 hours ago [-]
+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.
BirAdam 9 hours ago [-]
I had the same experience with a pair of Nike Zoomfly Air. Bought in 2020, and they'd fallen apart by 2024 with extremely light use thanks to COVID and WfH. It was quite disappointing given the cost, and they had been quite comfortable shoes. Lately, I wear Brooks.
lotsofpulp 14 hours ago [-]
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.
blitzar 13 hours ago [-]
>30%+ of the price of a Nike product
it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them
globular-toast 15 hours ago [-]
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.
loeg 14 hours ago [-]
Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.
zhivota 13 hours ago [-]
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.
ciropantera 12 hours ago [-]
Same. I used to run a Pegasus pair to the ground and get a new one (ideally previous year's) without even thinking about it. They were usually cheaper than the competition and worked fine for me so why not. At some point they got just as expensive as a Hoka pair so I tried one and I'm not coming back. I'll try the Decathlon next time :) any particular model you would recommend?
zhivota 10 hours ago [-]
The JF190 trail runners feel just like Pegasus to me, I haven't tried the road version of the same but it's basically the cheapest shoe in the store. The first time I tried it, I almost couldn't bring myself to buy it, I felt like it was too good to be true for the price.
I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.
sh-run 18 hours ago [-]
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.
notesinthefield 7 hours ago [-]
The latest Vomero lineup, the Plus specifically was a MASSIVE hit in the road running community over the last year. Almost every member of my 100 person run club has a pair, some have 5+.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
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
nl 11 hours ago [-]
I agree with this.
I think they should make a range of climbing shoes to reinforce credibility on this market. Adidas has 5.10 and some pretty serious climbers (Janja Garnbret!) on their books. The competition (LaSportiva, Scarpa) is ripe for disruption.
aprilthird2021 17 hours ago [-]
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
cpursley 14 hours ago [-]
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.
stevesimmons 10 hours ago [-]
Most runners I know wear running shoes nearly the whole time.
They run in their new shoes, then switch them over to casual use as the cushioning starts to go.
And if you're a really keen runner, you'll have different shoes for each type of training (track, tempo, long and slow) and racing (track, XC, trail, mid distance, half to full marathon). So you end up with a constant flow of "worn but not worn out" shoes. Which you wear when not running...
imp0cat 16 hours ago [-]
Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/
rf15 13 hours ago [-]
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?
throwaway2037 13 hours ago [-]
> Beyond the stock market gambling aspect
First, the United States' stock markets (NYSE + NASDAQ) are not gambling. An index-tracking portfolio has never lost money over a 20 year time frame for the last 125 years.
Google tells me:
> Nike Annual Revenue Breakdown
> Fiscal Year 2026: $46.40 billion (+0.19% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2025: $46.31 billion (-9.84% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2024: $51.36 billion (+0.28% YoY)
Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth. Nike has had three terrible years. As a result, their stock is in the toilet.
throwawayffffas 10 hours ago [-]
The price of any individual stock though is mostly determined by hype. Revenue and concrete performance plays a part but hype is very much a driving factor and hype is fickle.
muse900 10 hours ago [-]
Well tbh, hype does tell you something about future demand. It doesn't guarantee sales, but how excited people are about a product gives you an idea of how likely they are to buy it.
I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting.
I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too.
And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.
throwaway2037 7 hours ago [-]
> And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next.
Yes, I addressed this directly in my post. "Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth."
wallst07 8 hours ago [-]
This is the naive short term way to think of a stock price. I assure you fund managers, hedge funds etc do not. And I'm sure you can reply with an anecdote, but that doesn't prove the rule of 'any stock'.
lotsofpulp 13 hours ago [-]
No one is screaming. Nike’s market cap is just being right-sized to reflect the lack of moat in the clothing/shoe business. Personally, Nike’s $54B vs Adidas’ $28B is still too high.
pandaman 4 hours ago [-]
From what I understand, their moat was the exclusive contract with Michael Jordan - it was a novel marketing at the time. I guess the novelty eventually wore off and other basketballers are not as skilled at selling shoes as Jordan.
Unit327 13 hours ago [-]
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.
epsteingpt 18 hours ago [-]
Sneakerbots killed it for everyone.
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
ronsor 18 hours ago [-]
> 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.
epsteingpt 18 hours ago [-]
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.
HWR_14 17 hours ago [-]
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.
mitxela 14 hours ago [-]
Or sell them at $1000 itself if that's really where the demand is at.
bawolff 17 hours ago [-]
>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?
tancop 16 hours ago [-]
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.
nadermx 16 hours ago [-]
For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
WalterBright 15 hours ago [-]
It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
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.
mitxela 14 hours ago [-]
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.
leoedin 13 hours ago [-]
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.
bawolff 17 hours ago [-]
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.
mitxela 14 hours ago [-]
You can, I only poop once a day but I still have to pay the sewage company to get rid of it (negative price).
andsoitis 18 hours ago [-]
> 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.
morkalork 18 hours ago [-]
Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
ikr678 16 hours ago [-]
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.
what 18 hours ago [-]
Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
MiroslavPokorny 18 hours ago [-]
Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
18 hours ago [-]
bdangubic 17 hours ago [-]
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 think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough.
Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on.
It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
mikestew 7 hours ago [-]
I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.
dijit 6 hours ago [-]
Your call, aside from the opening being a bit long winded, it's actually a well written bit of text that goes into what made Nike successful historically, and the psychology of corporate greed and it's ability to destroy vision.
The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing.
However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale.
So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer.
the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
mikestew 6 hours ago [-]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I lightly read half-way, but it didn’t catch me like it apparently did you. That aside, what you’ve said (and, AFAICT, what TFA was trying to say) matches the scatterbrained marketing and product vision I’ve witnessed recently, at least from the perspective of a competitive runner who has used their shoes since the ‘70s.
From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
triceratops 5 hours ago [-]
Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity.
Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women.
The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message.
Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.
mikestew 4 hours ago [-]
At the same time, Nike put out banners in Boston before the Boston Marathon that said "Runners welcome, walkers tolerated" and caught a rash of shit for it. Keeping in mind that runners have to qualify to run Boston (we'll ignore charity runners for the time being), and those qualifying standards are not easy. You're not going to walk your way to a Boston-qualifying time. (I'd guess 85-90% of actual runners can't qualify in their age group.)
My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
jerlam 2 hours ago [-]
I loved their commercial with now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong at the time for its rebellious competitive spirit:
It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products.
kergonath 10 hours ago [-]
> i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough.
You could have provided more context to avoid that.
dijit 10 hours ago [-]
people would have ignored that too.
throwawayffffas 10 hours ago [-]
It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
baud147258 8 hours ago [-]
Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'...
7 hours ago [-]
dijit 6 hours ago [-]
> "Nike is bad because it went woke."
They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience.
Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go.
The things they let go were their core demographic.
They were unable to bring in the whale anyway.
Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing.
It's not more political than that.
triceratops 5 hours ago [-]
> It's not more political than that.
I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
dijit 4 hours ago [-]
My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you.
They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.
I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.
Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
triceratops 3 hours ago [-]
But you yourself said Nike's decisions were driven by "greed, not malice".
Wtf is non-malicious hate?
If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical.
Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political.
> you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction
You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them.
> because... of a prejudice you have
What prejudice is that?
dijit 57 minutes ago [-]
You're right that greed isn't hate. I said as much, the motive was money, not malice.
But motive and content aren't the same thing. A company can platform contempt cynically, for cash, and it's still contempt. "Don't buy from people who hate you" was never a claim that Nike feels anything. It's about what they chose to sell, and who it's aimed at.
And it's the content that I object to, greed is mercurial, but those campaigns openly denigrate men to elevate women.
Do that to women, or gay people, or Muslims, and "it's just marketing, they don't really hate you" wouldn't fly, not for a second (in fact, it didn't in Nikes own history- the Boston Marathon "walkers tolerated" campaign was not well recieved). Nobody would tell the target of that derision to get over it then.
For some reason, I don't get that latitude, apparently; because it's men. I'm not really comfortable with the double standard, and it's the whole of my point to you now.
triceratops 42 minutes ago [-]
> The adverts openly denigrate men in order to try to bring up women.
I haven't seen 'em, no idea. The only "woke ad" on that article ("The Land of New Football") was boring and cringe. But I didn't see any denigration of people based on immutable characteristics.
> This is prejudice, and implying that I'm not permitted to feel offended by it
You straight up called me prejudiced. I'm a sports-loving, hetero guy too bro. I already told you you're free to be offended at whatever you like.
randunel 10 hours ago [-]
It's so annoying that more than half of the videos on there show up as "private" to users from my country.
bionhoward 17 hours ago [-]
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?
aczerepinski 10 hours ago [-]
A huge percentage of Nike’s sales come from vintage shoes like dunks, air force ones, Jordan 1s, etc. By modern standards, they aren’t good shoes. They aren’t suitable for the sport they were originally designed for, and they aren’t comfortable compared to modern lifestyle shoes.
I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot?
Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
slopinthebag 6 hours ago [-]
cuz jordans (especially 1s and 3s), dunks, af1s, air maxes etc look great and have heritage behind them. same reason people wear converse (awful basketball shoe). idk if they could change them without pissing off a lot of ppl.
I can't find any press release about it. And the Constituents section lists only 10 of them, so I can't check who is there. I even checked the PDFs with methodology but couldn't find the list there.
I even tried to limit the search on Google to spglobal.com domain and I can see this in the result preview: "Constituents. Top 10 Constituents by Index Weight. Full Constituents List. Constituent. Symbol. Sector*. Sector Breakdown." But when I click it, Full Constituents List is nowhere on the page.
What's going on? Am I missing something obvious?
Maxatar 8 hours ago [-]
How did you search? I really wonder if I just have a vastly different Google algorithm than others because whenever a post similar to this pops up I have no problem finding the info using the most obvious and basic of Google searches, while other people seemingly struggle to find authoritative information. At any rate, the info comes from S&P themselves:
For me, right now the latest result is from Feb 27, 2026
2 - Google search with this query: `site:spglobal.com Nike`
Even when I limited the search results to the last month, the only page that shows for me is https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en but I'm not sure why - it doesn't have anything to do with it.
I see now your link, thanks. I have no idea why it's not indexed in the site's own search or why it's skipped for me in Google. Interestingly, I just checked the same query on Bing and it's there, but not in the top.
Did you find a page that lists all the companies on S&P 100 in a simple table?
maxglute 7 hours ago [-]
Too much sneaker head gambling, Nikes started to feel like wearing pokemon.
gcanyon 17 hours ago [-]
I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
kazinator 17 hours ago [-]
Maybe they can come up with some push button pump gadget for inflating stocks.
ionwake 11 hours ago [-]
All I know is the "ON" shoes are easy to recognise on the street due to their completely bizarre soles, even for non shoe enthusiasts. Look even I didnt realize the N for new Balance was different for the N for Nike for like decades.
The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell.
But this is armchair speculation.
andy_ppp 10 hours ago [-]
I love Nike shoes and brand but they just don’t produce anything since fly knits that I actually like. All I want is a flat shoe with a massive toe box and thin material for the gym with Nike branding - why is it so difficult to make something people want?
fakedang 18 hours ago [-]
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.
bushwart 16 hours ago [-]
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.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality.
rrr_oh_man 10 hours ago [-]
> consumers
people
WalterBright 15 hours ago [-]
I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.
antonyh 12 hours ago [-]
It could be because Nike aren't very good, and because half the world is boycotting US products after the tariffs shenanigans. I personally will choose other products whenever there is a viable alternative, and frankly there are plenty of non-US trainers / running shoes available.
avazhi 12 hours ago [-]
You don't really think half the world is boycotting US products, do you lol?
antonyh 12 hours ago [-]
lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe
avazhi 12 hours ago [-]
Are you European? I ask because this seems like a very European thing to say.
Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
antonyh 8 hours ago [-]
Indeed European. I'm surprised to hear that Canada is no longer though, I thought the protests and avoidance were very much still ongoing. I only have international news to go by, and I've no way to be certain but I do know that nobody I know deliberately buys American now and will actively search out alternatives for brands that are based in the US. I could live in an anecdotal bubble though, but it sure does look like there is a bias against US-owned business. I'm sure your data is more accurate.
lesuorac 7 hours ago [-]
Certainly no bias against US Oil [1].
If you take exports / inflation there is a trend downward starting in 2024 [2] but 2025 is Trumps 2nd term so it's kinda been increased exports since then. Maybe at a retail level there's less demand for US but not in aggregate.
There's definitely a large group of consumers that are all about buying Canadian goods, and obviously the Canadian and American governments are having their scrap, but my point is that a genuine boycott on a global scale that would be concerted enough to harm American companies just isn't feasible. Even the Chinese, who have very obvious reasons to hate the US/Trump admin, and have the industrial sector, labour force, and local raw materials sourcing (rare earths for example) to build their own shit simply can't and haven't tried to completely decouple from all American goods. It just isn't possible. (Ditto the Americans being unable to decouple completely from the Chinese, despite all the threats to do so). It'd be true also to say that no country could boycott Chinese goods either at this point - they are too established into the global supply chain and making the economics work isn't feasible even if a country could find a way to source an entire production line somewhere else.
antonyh 5 hours ago [-]
All very good points. How do you think this has impacted Nike specifically? I know my reluctance to purchase takes maybe tens of dollars of the table, but do you think state-level friction has impacted the sportwear sector?
Kuraj 12 hours ago [-]
I don't think half the globe is that invested in what Trump is doing, much less against it.
theGeatZhopa 13 hours ago [-]
Just bought Nike Air Jordans the blue/white, 2025 model - it's a good shoe! I love it.
jmyeet 16 hours ago [-]
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.
This is the value of consulting. If it works, you get to claim the win. If it fails, you blame the consultant.
mitxela 14 hours ago [-]
Executives probably got more money from it somehow. Whether McKinsey executives, Nike executives or both.
gyomu 13 hours ago [-]
Wild that you can have Tim Cook, one of the most effective CEOs of all time, on your board of directors and fumble so badly. There must be some juicy drama that went on behind the scenes, I hope we get to hear it eventually.
tonyedgecombe 12 hours ago [-]
I sometimes think half of Apple's success is down to the failure of the rest of the industry to deliver quality products. Microsoft and Intel in particular but all the OEM's as well. A world where they got their act together would look quite different.
eightysixfour 11 hours ago [-]
I would argue it was moving towards a more Apple-like distribution model that has hurt them so much.
alfiedotwtf 14 hours ago [-]
McKinsey
AlexandrB 8 hours ago [-]
Canada just appointed their former CEO to a government role.
When the counterfeiters came, that's what they chose to put in the box.
They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.
boxed 11 hours ago [-]
The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?"
But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
hucklebuckle 2 hours ago [-]
Streetwear was booming. Nike had very sought after collaborations, the ball started rolling after they released a re-imagined version of 10 of their moest iconics sneakers (designed by Virgil Abloh from Off-White).
Elte 9 hours ago [-]
Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.
coffeebeqn 5 hours ago [-]
Some people were also collecting Jordan’s and everything else under the Sun with their stimulus
donandon 7 hours ago [-]
Pump and dump
randusername 9 hours ago [-]
Stimulus checks?
gedy 7 hours ago [-]
> “We made meaningful structural improvements to lay the groundwork for our Sport Offense across our team culture, innovative product, brand strength, and how we serve consumers in our countries and cities,” Hill said in the report. “While we continue to face top-line headwinds, we’re encouraged by progress in performance product and are focused on consistent execution, improved profitability and scaling our wins to realize our full potential.”
Yikes this sounds like corporate bingo card nonsense.
madaxe_again 16 hours ago [-]
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.
jonstewart 10 hours ago [-]
I intellectually understand the retailpocalypse replaced by online shopping, but I will always want to try on clothes before buying them, and that goes double for shoes. After trying out New Balance for a year or two in adulthood I ended up going back to Nike running shoes (I still remember my pair of Air Icarus from high school, so light), just seemed to fit my feet better.
But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.
kypro 11 hours ago [-]
A very large part of this is simply that Nike was trading at an extremely aggressive valuation a few years ago.
The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple.
Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
locallost 14 hours ago [-]
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.
coffeebeqn 5 hours ago [-]
The Chinese sneakers are made at the same factory out of the same materials and processes
jimt1234 17 hours ago [-]
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.
nradov 17 hours ago [-]
Athletic shoes are still popular for streetwear. But it's a fickle market where style trends count for a lot more than performance.
wyre 14 hours ago [-]
But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.
jahller 14 hours ago [-]
Nike actually had a good run with the Air Max in that segment, but as someone already said: trends are fickle
lifestyleguru 5 hours ago [-]
I agree here. Crocs and slides are default footwear now anytime outside winter, including indoors and outdoors. It's unimaginable but it has happened over the last few years. Other than crocs and slides youngsters are really confused wearing "Balenciaga style" sneakers and their copycats.
landdate 17 hours ago [-]
yeah but nike sells slides which are pretty popular with the youth.
I am surprised how no one is mentioning how their sneakers dissolves in a couple months? Last store Nike sneaker I bought was 4 years ago. $120 or something and within 2 months it has become unwearable. Since then I only buy new balance from an outlet so the price remains below $100.
Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand.
I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
hyperlinerapp 17 hours ago [-]
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.
spiderice 16 hours ago [-]
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.
MarkWayneNewton 8 hours ago [-]
A normal well adjusted person would be embarrassed to wear any advertising.
kenjackson 10 hours ago [-]
Honestly, I suspect most people will have no idea about these ads. I know I don’t.
hyperlinerapp 8 hours ago [-]
Maybe if you were hiding under a rock.
Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.
kenjackson 7 hours ago [-]
Maybe I have been. And how was Jaguar impacted? I haven’t seen a Jaguar ad in a decade, and almost as long one of their cars.
anon48293 16 hours ago [-]
I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.
eudamoniac 6 hours ago [-]
As soon as I saw that ad I knew Nike was not going to be "cool" for much longer. I switched to Brooks after that.
earth-tattoo 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lins1909 10 hours ago [-]
Wouldn't the fact that a Black man was their most popular face throughout their successful period negate the idea that it has anything to do with wokeness? I wish people as obtuse as you would take the time to pause and think every once in a while.
wallst07 8 hours ago [-]
MJ was not a "Black man" he was the best player of all time, That is what people see, not color. Everyone wanted to be like Mike.
I swear the people arguing for this are some of the most racist thinking people, at least the Maga crowd is up front with it.
earth-tattoo 8 hours ago [-]
Black man who was a TOP ATHLETE! Most Americans are not racist. We are against DEI (putting unqualified people in posh schools/jobs because of their skin color or gender).
rdtsc 5 hours ago [-]
> Wouldn't the fact that a Black man was their most popular face throughout their successful period negate the idea that it has anything to do with wokeness?
What does that have to do with wokeness? Sounds kind of racist to imply that.
hyperlinerapp 10 hours ago [-]
Having Mike was not being “woke.” Mike arguable was the best player in the history of the game (maybe he still is).
miningape 8 hours ago [-]
Exactly, wokism (at least how it's perceived by the non-ideological) is about representation for the sake of representation. Which doesn't apply when you're using the sport's (arguably) greatest athlete to promote a product, regardless of race.
throw282735 5 hours ago [-]
Except all the other brands replacing it are woke too.
cindyllm 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
morkalork 18 hours ago [-]
I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry
AIorNot 17 hours ago [-]
Maybe they should pivot to AI like AllBirds :)
VirusNewbie 18 hours ago [-]
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.
cramer4next 12 hours ago [-]
For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom.
"Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
redsocksfan45 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
relaxfolio 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
relaxfolio 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
emptyfile 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
TitaRusell 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Markoff 12 hours ago [-]
Adidas and Puma are German companies and they are pretty famous, Joma is Spanish, Decathlon is French, seems plenty of the options, if you don't wanna support Trumpistan.
antonyh 12 hours ago [-]
We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.
fransje26 12 hours ago [-]
Ah. I see we are going around the autocratic circle. Past and present!
cadamsdotcom 18 hours ago [-]
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.
standeven 17 hours ago [-]
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.
cadamsdotcom 17 hours ago [-]
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!)
standeven 17 hours ago [-]
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!
nielsk 17 hours ago [-]
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.
michaelt 14 hours ago [-]
> 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.
standeven 5 hours ago [-]
There are usually training versions of the race shoe, which are heavier due in part to thicker rubber soles and more durable foam. So you train in those, and then switch to the ultra-light, ultra-bouncy race version on race day.
userbinator 17 hours ago [-]
You did the footwear equivalent of putting racing slicks on a daily driver.
cadamsdotcom 16 hours ago [-]
I did, but it was because I'd had my expectations raised by Saucony's products (see my peer comment for more info)
YZF 17 hours ago [-]
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.
yfontana 13 hours ago [-]
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.
cadamsdotcom 15 hours ago [-]
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.
twalla 17 hours ago [-]
180km is pretty bad but you also trained in a race shoe that deliberately makes material tradeoffs to increase running efficiency.
tokai 9 hours ago [-]
Too much money and too little sense.
17 hours ago [-]
Alien1Being 18 hours ago [-]
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.
osnium123 17 hours ago [-]
Is Nike the Intel of shoe makers? A faded former giant that has major operations in Oregon.
eastbound 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Alien1Being 17 hours ago [-]
Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...
deaux 16 hours ago [-]
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.
fodkodrasz 14 hours ago [-]
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.
throwaway2037 12 hours ago [-]
> Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
By "advertisements", I am sure you mean traditional adverts like TV, print media, and billboards. They were blowing up on social media thanks to paid influencers.
fodkodrasz 9 hours ago [-]
You are right. Looks like I'm this old.
fodkodrasz 50 minutes ago [-]
offtopic: I just realized how much AI generated code and text I read daily. I started my answer in GPT-speak :D
emptyfile 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
4848588585 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
gamessucknow 7 hours ago [-]
Hopefully the execs get a nice golden parachute at least. Wouldn’t want them to face any consequences for their actions.
Bluestein 13 hours ago [-]
This is the end of an era.-
PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100:
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.
1) Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data'
2) Kill the innovation because they can’t put a $ value on it
3) Rake in a few years of fast profits and soak in glory
4) Company implodes, CEO rides into the sunset, board that should have protected the company somehow largely intact.
Data wasn't the killer. Stupidity, greed and shortsightedness in roughly equal parts usually are.
This and Goodhart's law are the bane of pure data-driven decision making.
“If you can’t measure it, we still know it’s important, we’re not idiots, McNamara was imprecisely defined in its common form”
Yet at the same time,
“If you can measure it, you can convince enough people it’s the only thing that’s important and then overfit to it”
Crazy how successful he has been off of just that simple approach. It's something that drives me nuts about a lot of current product design strategies. Yes, sure. You can occasionally have a Steve Jobs style product visionary who delivers something that people never imagined
But for most of us I think we'd see a lot more success just talking to customers and delivering what they ask for, instead of filtering thier thoughts through a "product owner" who winds up having us build something else
My experience with a lot of current product direction advice is along the lines of "don't just give them what they ask for, because they don't know what they want. You have to figure out what they want and deliver that instead". I think this is a really stupid approach. If you are talking to people who "don't know what they want", then you have to find different people to talk to. In my experience the best ideas come from people who know exactly what they want.
The job of product should be to find those people and ask them, not to talk to the wrong people and guess at what they "really want"
We’re about to see many more of the same thing except the “data” has been replaced with “ai output”
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and yet people treats data as a crystal ball that can predict the future.
Data can help a company to decide what to do next week with little though and great results.
It cannot set a long-term strategy without a lot of interpretation, guessing and adaptability. That same very good short-term decision may have been the first step towards destruction.
nike thought they were the storefront. reality and history proved otherwise.
Nike specifically looks like the opposite of what you are asserting where the spreadsheet people take over. Here's the innovative kind of shoes that Nike is making that you are asserting is being killed in step 2: https://www.nike.com/t/jordan-trunner-o-s-mens-shoes-tC5xlGT...
This looks idiotic. I'm not buying it. And you want me to scroll through 700+ pairs of shoes where most look like that? Give me a break. This is what happens when "innovation" culture takes over without adults in the room.
Here's a Hoka shoe: https://www.hoka.com/en/us/mens-everyday-running-gear/clifto...
Here's an ON shoe: https://www.on.com/en-us/products/cloud-6-coast-3mf1003/mens...
Here's a New Balance shoe: https://www.newbalance.com/pd/574-core/ML574V3-40377.html?dw...
Maybe they should let the boring spreadsheet people take over?
I don't mean to suggest that there aren't other problems or that spreadsheet people aren't dragging the company down. Changing to a more D2C business model was likely a bad idea, for example, which has influence/influenced by engineering/design as well. But I do mean to challenge this notion of "if only the engineers got to make the decisions" because from my point of view with respect to Nike and its clothing line, those are the engineers being unleashed to build whatever futuristic/fashionable products that they want to.
It was a bet that was unsupported by data (there wasn't any) and turned out to be wrong.
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.
Not sure I've seen much Hoka outside of trial running circles here yet.
I'm thinking about sneakers used for actually doing sport though.
This has led to fashion boutiques carrying the non-collab Salomons as the demand has diversified. So people are exposed to the brand and have access to it at a variety of kinds of shops, not only at running outlets.
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.)
Karl "Speedgoat" Meltzer broke the Appalachian Trail record in them, and whoever was doing marketing then really blew a big bubble with that result.
Trad brands didn't stand a chance against that sole and backstory.
https://thewalkahead.com/2016/09/21/karl-meltzer-crushes-at-...
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/run/clown-shoe-th...
I do a lot of mountain and trail running here in Norway, and I've exclusively used Hoka Speedgoats for the last five years. Their performance is excellent.
(Just walking around any Norwegian town, it seems like the majority of trainers are Hokas.)
I was at a small restaurant last week. Was chatting with the two owners. All three of us were wearing Hoka Bondi.
I am an ex-runner (hip issues). Wore Asics gel kayano for 30 years. Now I'm a Hoka man.
A doctor employed by Google? A document you maintain and the AI autocomplete recommended Hoka? Something else?
I wonder if this is a market signal to short Hoka; old people wearing them will be dead in <10 years, and no young person will be caught dead wearing them because it's an old person shoe. What is the Instagram of shoes?
The Swiss brand On on the other hand seems to be everywhere all over Europe now and I am surprised you haven't seen them in Spain yet.
The 35+ runners in my city mostly wear Hoka and OC, NB is mostly a mom/dad brand and Nike and Adidas is mostly worn by teens (Forum style), 25+ women (Gazelle, Samba, Superstar) and older demograhic who doesn't run but perform stand up type of work (the foam models).
I don't run. Most of my shoes are Adidas, but I like my Nikes better after I got two pairs, altough I dislike their branding. Most of my Adidas sneakers (Gazelle and Samba) are too narrow, the Terex have lost their outsoles, the Night joggers are fine, but the amount of foam and sponge annoys me and I have another pair with a very thick outsole which are also annoying. The skater Adidas versions (Tyshawn) are great, along with the Etnies shoes and the bike specific FiveTen brand (also Adidas). For outdoor activities I use Columbia aporoach shoes and Garmont 3/4 boots. I've injured both of my ankles with a pair of Black Diamond approach shoes because they're too narrow. When I want a bit more confort while walking, I take my Mizuno Wave Rider although their lining broke after less than a week and they're no go if it's too hot outside. They also get rocks in the outsole and are notoriously hard to clean if you accidentally step in sticky stuff.
You mention a handful of specific shoe models but none of them are running shoes (not even the "Night Jogger").
For my daily shoes, I have been wearing cushioned running shoes for the past ~10 years. For my daily trainers, I currently wear On Cloud Eclipse. For workout shoes I alternate between NB SC Trainer and On Cloudmonster Hyper. For trail running, Topo Vista or Inov-8 G280 (now called Trailyfly). For racing, NB SC Elite.
I also have a pair of Sambas for fashion; they're too narrow for anything else. I do light hiking in approach shoes (La Sportiva TX4 -- I ADORE these, to the point I bought their waterproof mid-height version for more extreme hiking), too!
(I am a runner, my son is a high school runner and works in a running shoe store. I'm deeper into the running shoe market than most.)
Yup, because I don't run. Mostly hikes and daily dog walks, 4-5k. I don't really like cushioned shoes that much. I mostly wear them when I'm tired and my ankles hurt if it isn't too hot outside. If that's the case I usually wear the Wave Riders. The Nite Joggers I suspect are more of a cushioned fashion model disguised as a running shoe.
On & HOKA both have huge marketing towards "new" runners in the UK. And HOKA especially have made a point of marketing to women, in contrast to many traditional sportswear brands - with the rapid increase in numbers of women participating in sports, that's been a big part of their success.
Unfortunately my oddly-shaped feet means I've had more bad than good experiences when trying to run a few miles in new shoes.
Probably, they certainly do in the UK
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
After all, someone somewhere thought the PT Cruiser was worth manufacturing.
They are a bit worn, so a year or two I bought a new pair which are absolutely horrible to wear for any extended amount of time.
Been looking for a good replacement ever since, while my old ones are slowly wearing away. Plastic pieces chipping off the heel every week.
Most comfortable shoes ever? Maybe not. But probably top 5-10 in my lifetime.
The human body really was never supposed to go over 50 but modern medicine finds a way.
As I get older I'm beginning to align with this.
When you're younger you think everything is going to be great until you die from a short illness at the average age of 79. Wrong. In my cohort of friends, notable age-related degradation started appearing in our late-30s/early 40s, even in the fit ones who stayed active.
The projections are not looking good…
I love cycling, and a run can be refreshing, but I don't really have any desire to swim - much less an open water swim. But triathlons seem to be a pretty effective path to longevity, so it may be something I need to force myself to take up. That and weight training.
Taking off your socks/shoes(tie/untie) without sitting down: hard for most in their 20/30s. Very hard with out bending over.
Pants are what gets hard when you get older, if you can't put on/off pants without sitting down I'd advise some basic training and/or doctor to help.
*assumes otherwise healthy person with no disabilities. I'm not a doctor, this is my own opinion.
If you're not a pro-athlete and are not fashion obsessed, why not just buy the most comfortable shoes available?
Not that long ago, they were an oddity, around here.
Let's hope success doesn't spoil them.
I used to use Nikes, then something happened, and the exact same type that were comfortable, last year, are now giving me blisters.
Enshittification doesn't just affect tech.
Same. The original Nike Free's were amazing. When mine wore out I bought another pair and they were terrible. I kept trying different versions and none were like the originals. They were heavier, uncomfortable, and not nearly as flexible as the originals.
>Why do all shoe brands have these gigantic sole cushions nowadays?
trends! barefoot running just isn't as popular anymore.
yes, i also remember seeing nike frees everywhere in the late 2000s and through the 2010s and it's my understanding it was because barefoot running was a trendy idea. and whether everyone who wore nike frees to the grocery store etc knew about barefoot running, that's why they were popular. i'm not sure if it's appropriate to say the theories are discredited, but it's clearly less popular now.
people who run seriously like that supershoes help them beat PRs, and some of that tech (bouncy foam, springy plates) has trickled down into everyday beaters. and big cushy hoka-like shoes are just comfortable.
that said there are heaps of smaller companies (vivobarefoot etc) making barefoot minimalist everyday shoes. but i don't know what people who wear those shoes wear to run in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was looking at Nike ACG stuff recently, but the colourways in AU are black (clodhopper!), neon blue, white with khaki, camo, or an odd light brown. And on the side it spells out "All Conditions Gear" like you're an idiot who can't remember what your shoes are for.
Trail running is highly dependent on the type of trails around you. I'm in the bay area and almost everything here is dry, dusty and hard. You can generally get by with structured road running shoes if you want to, and don't need much support beyond that. I would not recommend the same thing to east coast trail runners, or most northern Europeans.
My son works in a running shoe store that also does gait analysis and they default every new runner into something stable-neutral like a Brooks Ghost, Saucony Ride, or NB 880. They never default with Nike or Adidas because, although both brands make some excellent running shoe models, neither have anything that's in the same category (if Nike had a shoe that was a mix between the Structure & Pegasus, that would be id. If Adidas had something like the SL2 but with a little more structure, that would, too.). The problem with both Nike & Adidas is that they cater to a million different niche audiences, and while both have some amazing running shoe options at the top end (e.g. Vomero Plus for cushioned daily, Alphafly / Streakfly / Vaporfly for racing, etc) their shoes targeting casual runners doing 2-5mi slow runs a couple days a week are lacking. Yes, you could go with a Pegasus, and many do, but although that's a general purpose stable-neutral running shoe, there are way better options from other brands (including Hoka & On, but also Brooks, NB, Saucony, Asics, Topo, Altra, Mizuno, and more).
I call them clown shoes. Unfortunately, they are everywhere.
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.
I have transitioned myself to wearing only some kind of good quality running shoes, perhaps a decade before this became so fashionable, because I cared much more about my comfort than about the opinions that others might have about what I am wearing.
So I was surprised when everybody else appeared to have done the same thing, eventually.
BTW, Nike Pegasus is what I wear all the time :D
Before that they were known specifically for their innovation in serious running shoes.
If anything it’s that they abandoned that which caused their current downswing.
For running errands maybe.
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. Fashion and sports shoes don't replace each other. The sales of sport shoes just created a new market, they didn't cannibalize the rest of the sales. That must have been self-inflicted.
Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.
Did they ever say that? I have trouble imagining any exec at Nike plan for passing savings onto consumers.
I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!
I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.
And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.
but it went how most mere mortals would expect ...
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.
You mention Adidas as if they were in the same boat with Nike. While Adidas suffered from the Kanye West disaster this was a one time blunder and they rebound quickly.
in Europe I see On on the rise too, but Adidas is omnipresent.
* It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture, for example. Widely popular brands don't have such specific associations.
Yeah about 35 years ago.
There were rows and rows of shoes to try, and a salesman was helping me for a while, but after trying 3 pairs I just got the feeling that the store was a dumping ground for the odd styles and odd sizes, and having figured out which size fit me, I left all the shoes there, and only purchased a lanyard, which was at least $25.
The real question: How did they become the Lululemon of casual sneakers? Just like lots of women who don't do yoga and barely attend the gym, they cannot get enough Lululemon in their wardrobe. The same can be said for Hoka running shoes: All kinds of normies that barely exercise wear them anywhere and always.
They are also wildly supportive and absolutely suitable for wear as a non athlete who walks or is on their feet a lot.
They are popular it’s not surprising. See: how most people in $1000 Arc’teryx jackets arent summitting a mountain
Nike has some quality products, but they also consistently released garbage products and stamped a swoosh on them.
So there's the squeeze: people who want quality can go to a brand that's actually known for quality and avoid the guessing game, people who want garbage can get cheaper garbage drop shipped from China.
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.
More recently I just don’t understand their product line up. If I click on Men’s in the US there are over 700 shoes. How do I even pick? Hello, earth to Nike. Nike is a Greek god. Maybe lean in to that a bit more?
Who is buying turds like this? https://www.nike.com/t/ava-edge-mens-shoes-8EA9wWpq/IM1973-0... [cherry-picked example but id say half their shoes follow this awful design pattern]
Oh I get it “Inspired by the geometry of modern cities” they’re confused about good design and taking a hint from other dead brands like Hugo Boss or Burberry Outlet or maybe even Armani Exchange!
That’s why richfluencers are buying ON and Hoka and Vuroi and Lululemon still.
So you take your customer base from a lot of folks to a small number of folks. It's totally fine and cool to build more niche products (we need more niche products and cottage industries) but if Nike's goal is to stay in the S&P 100 this strategy won't work. Customer base is way too small (and outside of the influencers) and has too few dollars to spend.
I've never been one for fashion, but I thought their tech was awesome. But I can't really think of anything noteworthy since the mid 2010s or so. Their Vaporfly shoes may be a big deal to competitive distance runners, but not really to your average Joe.
So that's my take - they stopped innovating, and other brands caught up and surpassed them.
Then the name and public listing remaining was basically a shell, and basically SPACed into the AI datacenter company with more funding.
In some ways that should be good news to them as clearly some untapped markets still
Wendover did a good overview of Nike's strategic implosion a few months ago [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGhy62UZnbg
We all live in our own bubbles.
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.
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/
Even typically goofy looking Hoka will sell you something appropriate for all-day work wear, anti-slip soles and all.[1] It comes in black, white, and monochrome grey.
Nike doesn't seem capable of making a shoe that looks like a normal person could wear it in real life. Most of them look more appropriate for a space station than planet earth.
[0] https://www.on.com/en-us/products/the-roger-advantage-m-3mf3...
[1] https://www.hoka.com/en/us/mens-recovery-comfort-shoes/bondi...
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.
On shoes look like shoes for retirees right now. Teenagers don't wear On shoes.
Cunningham’s Law strikes again.
Their logo deliberately looks more like 'qn' or 'nq' than 'on'. I _had_ a pair and couldn't remember or figure who made it for a while.
they did lock up their domain name, which must have taken some doing.
I'd literally never heard of Hoka or On in my life though before this thread and they do not look fashionable
Even with another 5 years, I'm not sure they would have taken the market Hoka and On did.
no other shoe could carry my feet for miles with no outwardly visible branding
- 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.
- Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike"
- So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women
- The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer
- They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly with other brands
0 - https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111
There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut
Also how is Pizza Hut male coded?
This is really a thing?
That said, I fail to see how trying to attract more women alienated men. I just don't buy that culture war as a reason. I remember Nike doing some things that were a bit annoying that I wished they would just stay out of, but I still bought their shoes. The only thing more insufferable than the culture war is taking part in said culture war.
It's less about Nike making decisions that men don't like and more about Nike spreading themselves too thin.
Just think about Nike as a company: the products they actually sell are generic, barely mid-tier clothes and athletic gear. Their actual product is their brand. That's why all of their products prominently display their iconic logo and everyone and their grandma knows their slogan is "Just do it."
A brand is only as valuable as the awareness of the brand. So every dollar that Nike spends on marketing is incredibly important for driving their bottom line. If you split those marketing dollars in an attempt to reach a new audience, you're necessarily spending less of those marketing dollars on the existing audience that found your brand valuable. So, in trying to attract more women, Nike ended up attracting less men.
The question, really, is how important is this dynamic. Apparently, it's pretty important. I don't think Nike made a blunder in attempting to expand their audience. I'm willing to bet that they started seeing some writing on the walls which suggested not doing anything was going to be bad enough that taking the risk to spread themselves thin was appropriate. But at the end of the day, I think modern consumerism moves too fast and is so much less concentrated than it was in the past (when Nike dominated) that they just couldn't keep everything together as effectively as they needed to.
Google, Apple, Facebook, etc, had their woke phase with tremendously growth, and nobody says "get woke, go broke" when they made billions. What about Twitter losing all its users because of Musk? Most of the people in my social circle who said that are still using Twitter nowadays. And if you dare to say that they are drinking the Kool-Aid, you are "not following politics close enough"
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.
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.
And just to clarify - I don't think any of the brands above sell proper "wide toe box" shoes that I mentioned above. Xero and Altra are the best known brands (both US-based) in this category I think. There are also some really inexpensive options from Chinese companies on Amazon that I think are actually worth a look - Whitin seems to be the most popular on Amazon in the US, but I see the same shoes sold under different brand names. These shoes tend to be really light weight and comfortable for casual use or working out, but they just don't have enough cushion where I would want to run long distances in them.
Oh and Skechers sells some wide toe shoes as well - not as roomy in the toe box as the brands above, but still super comfy. But again, not something I would recommend for running.
Neither Hoka, Asics, New Balance, et al. make truly wide toe box shoes.
Better than nothing - sure. Though after wearing Altras, feet health is much better and you can feel how all other shoes feel tight, even my widest Hokas are tight in comparison.
My biggest complaints though with Altras:
- They offer only zero drop (or near zero drop) shoes;
- Their QC to price ratio is atrocious (stitches failing, heel fabric gone to shreds 2-3 times faster than other brands, sole is so soft that it goes to shreds or wears out 2 times faster than others);
Problem for me is that I wouldn't even consider buying them if they wouldn't be the only shoe brand that I can access that has truly wide toe box and is not "barefoot shoe".
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.
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.
I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for.
A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.
Would you care to share the brand name, for posterity?
I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.
it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them
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.
I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.
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 make a range of climbing shoes to reinforce credibility on this market. Adidas has 5.10 and some pretty serious climbers (Janja Garnbret!) on their books. The competition (LaSportiva, Scarpa) is ripe for disruption.
They run in their new shoes, then switch them over to casual use as the cushioning starts to go.
And if you're a really keen runner, you'll have different shoes for each type of training (track, tempo, long and slow) and racing (track, XC, trail, mid distance, half to full marathon). So you end up with a constant flow of "worn but not worn out" shoes. Which you wear when not running...
> 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?
Google tells me:
Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth. Nike has had three terrible years. As a result, their stock is in the toilet.I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting.
I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too.
And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men
Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on.
It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing.
However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale.
So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer.
the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women.
The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message.
Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.
My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U
It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products.
You could have provided more context to avoid that.
They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience.
Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go.
The things they let go were their core demographic.
They were unable to bring in the whale anyway.
Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing.
It's not more political than that.
I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.
I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.
Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
Wtf is non-malicious hate?
If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical.
Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political.
> you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction
You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them.
> because... of a prejudice you have
What prejudice is that?
But motive and content aren't the same thing. A company can platform contempt cynically, for cash, and it's still contempt. "Don't buy from people who hate you" was never a claim that Nike feels anything. It's about what they chose to sell, and who it's aimed at.
And it's the content that I object to, greed is mercurial, but those campaigns openly denigrate men to elevate women.
Do that to women, or gay people, or Muslims, and "it's just marketing, they don't really hate you" wouldn't fly, not for a second (in fact, it didn't in Nikes own history- the Boston Marathon "walkers tolerated" campaign was not well recieved). Nobody would tell the target of that derision to get over it then.
For some reason, I don't get that latitude, apparently; because it's men. I'm not really comfortable with the double standard, and it's the whole of my point to you now.
I haven't seen 'em, no idea. The only "woke ad" on that article ("The Land of New Football") was boring and cringe. But I didn't see any denigration of people based on immutable characteristics.
> This is prejudice, and implying that I'm not permitted to feel offended by it
You straight up called me prejudiced. I'm a sports-loving, hetero guy too bro. I already told you you're free to be offended at whatever you like.
I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot?
Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
I can't find any press release about it. And the Constituents section lists only 10 of them, so I can't check who is there. I even checked the PDFs with methodology but couldn't find the list there.
I even tried to limit the search on Google to spglobal.com domain and I can see this in the result preview: "Constituents. Top 10 Constituents by Index Weight. Full Constituents List. Constituent. Symbol. Sector*. Sector Breakdown." But when I click it, Full Constituents List is nowhere on the page.
What's going on? Am I missing something obvious?
https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina...
>Sept 21, 2026 S&P 100 Deletion NIKE NKE Consumer Discretionary
1 - the search function on the S&P Global site: https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&...
For me, right now the latest result is from Feb 27, 2026
2 - Google search with this query: `site:spglobal.com Nike`
Even when I limited the search results to the last month, the only page that shows for me is https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en but I'm not sure why - it doesn't have anything to do with it.
I see now your link, thanks. I have no idea why it's not indexed in the site's own search or why it's skipped for me in Google. Interestingly, I just checked the same query on Bing and it's there, but not in the top.
Did you find a page that lists all the companies on S&P 100 in a simple table?
The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell.
But this is armchair speculation.
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.
people
Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
If you take exports / inflation there is a trend downward starting in 2024 [2] but 2025 is Trumps 2nd term so it's kinda been increased exports since then. Maybe at a retail level there's less demand for US but not in aggregate.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
[2]: You have to edit graph by hand to do `a/b` after adding inflation as `b`- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXP0015
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...
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...
https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/
I dont know what style you're after. These are my recommendations for brands that look decent.
AltraRunning (Escalante), LemsShoes (Zenspeed, trailtrasher, primal3), VivoBarefoot, Fluxfootwear, OhneProject, XeroShoes (Wynn)
They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.
But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
Yikes this sounds like corporate bingo card nonsense.
I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.
But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.
The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple.
Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
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.
https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6
Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand.
I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.
I swear the people arguing for this are some of the most racist thinking people, at least the Maga crowd is up front with it.
What does that have to do with wokeness? Sounds kind of racist to imply that.
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.
"Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
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 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!)
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!
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.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
They look and feel awesome.
But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.
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.
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.
PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100:
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