Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout
fortune.com313 points by andsoitis 2 days ago
313 points by andsoitis 2 days ago
https://archive.ph/8NmSg
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. 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. 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. 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” 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" I’m not sure the structure of Product Management allows for it. I’ve worked places where UX Research was telling us exactly what people ask for, but because it has to pass through multiple layers of PM, the end result isn’t what people asked for. E.g. “families are telling us they want to talk directly with caregivers on WhatsApp” -> we build an admin dashboard with live chat. Nobody used the thing. Perhaps there is a relationship between layers of abstraction at a business and clarity of product. The more humans in the chain — with their own biases and agendas —, the less likely you are to build what people want. “People don’t know what they want” is a bit lame. Perhaps they just don’t want your ad-fueled growth-marketed product. > 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” 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." The book Incorruptible covers how to avoid that Can you give us a few pointers? Although I think I’d like to buy the book, looks good. > 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. or underestimating the value of partnerships. nike thought they were the storefront. reality and history proved otherwise. Is it what happened at Nike? I did not folly it very much 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. 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. 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? the only comparable shoe in terms of sales to the overall sales of the company you listed would be the on cloud 6 coast as id say the jordan trunner you listed doesnt even count for a tenth of a percentile of nikes models. The New balance 574 is the bread and butter shoe of new balance, followed by the 990 or newly the 530. There are some more lifestyle models mixed in like the 878, 2002 or 1906, but the 574 is THE new balance shoe, just like an Air Force 1 is THE nike shoe. So i dont really think your comparison holds true, as you could find those "atrocious" models also from ON, Hoka and New balance. The difference is, those brands dont have literally thousands of models, not colorways but models, to choose from, so a singular hit or miss hurts much more. https://andrewdremin.com/nike-dtc-strategy-failure-2026/ talks about how they changed their approach to product development to rehash old designs for a more fashion led approach. 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. 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. > In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere. Man, I'm in such different circles than everyone. I've never heard of Hoka and I don't know any sneakerheads. Everyone I know is into Keens, Toms, or Sketchers. Hoka blew up in the running space, like, ten+ years ago. The first Cliftons were pretty novel for being extremely plush. Light-ish weight maxi shoes weren't really a thing before Hoka popularized them. Now every running shoe brand offers something in that space. More recently I think they've been adopted by the "active retiree" crowd? They're nice to walk in. (I owned some of the original Cliftons myself. Did not love the flimsy tongue or cheap insoles that would slide around and crumple under your toes.) 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. https://thewalkahead.com/2016/09/21/karl-meltzer-crushes-at-... https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/run/clown-shoe-th... 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.) 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. 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. 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. > and Google doc A doctor employed by Google? A document you maintain and the AI autocomplete recommended Hoka? Something else? 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? Good thing for Hoka that the world keeps producing fresh batches of old people. They’ll do fine. 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. Same, I associate Hoka & Salomon with running, never would have thought someone would wear them as everyday sneakers. 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. +1. I started wearing Hoka a few years ago based on recommendation from my podiatrist. Would highly recommend them as everyday shoes. Because Hokas are so squishy they seem to be liked by people who do a lot of standing like nurses. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.) > 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. 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. Thats the same brand space of most of spanish speaking countries. I wonder why. 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. Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups? 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. > I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups? Probably, they certainly do in the UK i think one can be in Sketchers but who is into Sketchers? I have some Skechers slip-ins that I love. I live in Japan where you have to take off/put on shoes all the time at home, restuarants, doctors/dentists, gyms, etc, so they are incredibly convenient. Also very comfortable, and constructed about as well as a pair of Nikes costing twice as much. I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side. They certainly have design issues. For such a big brand, I dont get it... Why not make 'm look nice? 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Till they keep making the most comfortable shoes I buy, count me in as into sketchers. 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. 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. Similarly, when I was younger, I came across this test: Sit down on the floor (all the way, butt on the ground). Now stand without using your hands at all. I was told that inability to do that was a strong indicator of failing health. I imagine there's lots of different ways to evaluate general fitness like that. > 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. 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… 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. Hunter-gatherers who survived to adulthood (and childbirth!) could expect to live to their mid 60's to early 70's. The big wins that modern medicine have gotten us are drastically decreasing infant/child mortality and deaths during childbirth. Compared to our ancestors, we've only really added 5-10 years to the life expectancy of elderly life. Largely unrelated to modern medicine, deaths by misadventure are reduced living in civilization, and then even moreso when you've got a large portion of the population not working in dangerous manual labor roles. 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. 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. > 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. 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? 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. >until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level. Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas. Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards. It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice. Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.) Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee. The 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. 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. 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. 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 :-/ Yeah it’s amazing - but I think feet don’t grow on adults, they get flatter over time and therefore longer/wider footprint. 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. I think they do have that - Nike SB for skate/street, Nike ACG for trail, etc. That said, I have twice gone to re-buy a trail-oriented shoe of theirs that I liked in the past, and found that it never stuck, and the new options in that space were garish or over-reliant on mesh which just lets in dirt and thorns. What are you wearing for trail runners now? 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. 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. If you want a recommendation I really like Merrell Agility Peak's or for something less run-y, the Moab. 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. 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. Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions. In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes. Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear. What happened but not in the last 10 years (it happened before) is that 1990's children became adults and kept using trainers (personally I don't wear anything else). But this doesn't explain why Nike died this death. We will get some MBA story about in the future, I guess. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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? > like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear. For running errands maybe. a whooooole lotta professionals on their feet, like nurses, dental hygenists, teachers, etc, are wearing Hokas. 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). Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand. I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue. > 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. 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. Try Mizunos. My Wave Riders have the amount of foam that a pair of ugly Sketchers would. No mention of heel drop? I thought Hoka's were in the low heel drop category. Or maybe it's not a thing anymore It's a thing for sure, maybe just not screamed about. If you run in a shoe that is 10mm+ and then go to a 0mm like an Altra - it is wild how different it feels. 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 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? Can’t speak for worldwide, but in the US Nike decided to aim for exclusivity and basically pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped. It would be great and funny to have access to the internal presentation about why they needed to pursue that and all the benefits. That kind of business decks are always so plastered with wishful thinking that really makes me wonder how business people can keep deceiving themselves like that in every single company they work. 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. 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. > 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. 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! 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. 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. > pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped. but it went how most mere mortals would expect ... In my opinion, in US, they became more fashion than athletic. Without realizing athletic is a huge fashion trend. The talk of hoka and on taking share, is true, but it’s also an extension of the fashion trend for something new/fresh/unique/authentic in the athletic category. Apparel has seen similar shifts, newer entrants like Alo and Vuori have put Lululemon and other more established brands on their heals. I suspect the danger of pivoting into a pure fashion design is that even in the fashion market people crave a little authenticity. Perhaps you never run but you like the idea and so buy running shoes. do you get the fake running shoes or the real ones? The other one I have noticed is work boots. With a complex market interaction. Real work boots are expensive, built to survive in an adverse environment. However people crave something with substance. So there is a large customer base buying them for fashion. The manufacturer notices this and start to reduce quality(no need to build them so well if the customer won't notice) and you end up with an expensive boot that sucks. The (much smaller) real customer base, the workers, do start noticing and slowly start moving to a different brand, the fashion customers eventually pick up on this and follow. the whole process can take decades. It is, they never changed their retail strategy (1-2 showcase stores per state + rebel & JD) here "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In my experience, they got big by successfully partnering with Ironman - around 2013-14, they started leading Kona shoe counts. Suddenly everyone went from ridiculing "moonshoes" to actually wearing them as daily trainers and oftentimes racers too.
Nike had their chance when they came out with Vaporflys in 2018 and had every big time marathoner destroy decade old records but the tech they had (foam and carbon plates) quickly got commoditized. 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. Frankly, I don't understand the purpose of your reply. Hoka was founded by former Salomon employees, why would they want to move from Annecy? Indeed, Annecy is gorgeous and pretty close to some of the largest ski areas on the planet? Yeah, I totally agree. If I could found a 100M USD+ business from Annecy, that would be heaven on Earth! 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 Whats surprising to me is that all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool. Nike tries to position itself as Apple of sports but it probably doesn't work that well outside of high tech market because there are still many brands doing the high end at leas as well as them. Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status. Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out. it's really interesting how Nikes style of shoes became unfashionable in the past 5-6 years. is it their focus on basketball and fitness shoes? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. > 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]. 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 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. Never heard of Hoka either, so I asked my wife just now: “oh yes, I have a pair.” 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. 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. 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. 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. > it looks like shoes for retirees This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago. 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. Fair. The kids are buying dad shoes from 20 years ago. On looks like dad shoes from right now. 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. 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. [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... 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. And gaviota is best for wide feet. They are really comfy Well, I guess I inadvertently got great recommendations for running shoes with my ignorance (and wide feet). Thanks. Cunningham’s Law strikes again. 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. 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. 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. What's the best generic allbirds style shoe? I refuse to play for the branding premium. 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. 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 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. yea but so comfortable :( no other shoe could carry my feet for miles with no outwardly visible branding 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 0 - https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111 > 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 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. Many, maybe even most, online casinos target women primarily. Not the sports betting sites though, also poker seems to be indifferent in terms of marketing even though it's dominated by men. Sports betting screws extremely male. 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. 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? When was this different? The 'traditional masculine' man doesn't shop - his wife shops for him. Wat This is really a thing? 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. 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. 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. >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. I don't think "culture war" was a big contributor. “We tried to sell things to women” as the basis for alienating… men? It does sound like a nonsensical take on this. Nike has many flaws, but selling to women isn’t one of them. Nowadays, it seems that catering to any audience other than 1) white 2) male is "culture war". 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" I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since. Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes. Can I ask what you switched to? I also spent 15 years running in Nikes, mostly Structure, Pegasus, Invincible 3. I tried to stop buying so many american products 2 years ago and went for a pair of On's which are now reaching the end of their life. I can't say I'm super happy with the On's like I was with my Nikes. Might just go back For actually running (as opposed to just casual use), Nike was never actually my first choice. I used Brooks 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. i bought a pair of new balances wide shoes and wont be going back to nike 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. 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). Yep, another happy Altra user here. I basically wear nothing else these days. Will never go back to a non-wide toebox shoe. 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. 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". Do you have any reason to want non-zero drop? Because that’s one of the main reasons to buy Altras, since it alleviates some of the issues that plague knees and hip joints. My Altras last about 2x any other running shoe, and I even took them on trail runs (Lone Peaks). Not defending the company, they’re pricey and the catalog is exaggerated, full of nonsense 30mm+ stack shoes, etc. 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) 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. Surprisingly if you're into marathons, the On Cloudboom Strike 2 is unusually roomy in the toebox for a big sports brand. 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. I still sometimes wear my decade-old Nike Free RNs held together with little more than spoiled hopes, dreams, and shoe goo. Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials. This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have. >Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have. I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return. Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape. I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow. 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. I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy. >30%+ of the price of a Nike product it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them > one was a full leather design made in Spain Would you care to share the brand name, for posterity? 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). 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. 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 +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. 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. Yes, this. My sister took me to the employee store, and even at 50% off the price/quality is a rip off. Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1]. Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day. Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point. [1]: https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-in... This is the value of consulting. If it works, you get to claim the win. If it fails, you blame the consultant. Executives probably got more money from it somehow. Whether McKinsey executives, Nike executives or both. 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. Runners are not even like 20-30% of the buyers of such shoes I'd wager. Most people buying a cushioned On, Hoka, or Nike running shoe are just looking for a shoe that's comfortable and versatile I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes. 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... There's not a direct correlation, but most Americans are not in shape. I run every other day. I use my last years Hokas where the foam and cushioning isn't good enough anymore as my walking shoes and use my current year ones for runs. Can't imagine that's uncommon Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/ 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+. 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 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. 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. 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? 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. Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers. And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality. Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com. yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality. I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me. 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? Google tells me: 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. 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. 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'. 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. 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. I know this does not really contribute to the discussion and I have nothing against you or what you've said, but man am I sick of reading the word moat in this context. May I ask why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat It seems like a very appropriate term that quickly conveys its meaning if your business is presumed to be the castle you want to protect. 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. Sneakerbots killed it for everyone. Priced out the demand IMO too early. But also, people only have 2 feet. > Sneakerbots killed it for everyone Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited. Slightly different take IMO. There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer. If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes. >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out. why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out? Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers. For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are. Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give. You can, I only poop once a day but I still have to pay the sewage company to get rid of it (negative price). yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors. i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely. Non-collectors don't need what the bots are buying, they can just go to the store and get normal sneakers. I don't see how limited edition shoe scalping affects the normal market at all. I don't bother buying Nike's because every time I see a pair I like online, it turns out they're "collectibles" and sold out instantly. Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey. So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them. > But also, people only have 2 feet. There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough. Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days. Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines. 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 don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. Great link. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". I loved their commercial with now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong at the time for its rebellious competitive spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products. > 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. 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." Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'... > "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. > 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. 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. 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? 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.
nemothekid - 2 days ago
jarym - 2 days ago
sushibowl - 2 days ago
hammock - 2 days ago
bluefirebrand - 2 days ago
port11 - 4 hours ago
hammock - 2 days ago
WarmWash - 2 days ago
craftwerk - 11 hours ago
port11 - 4 hours ago
Frieren - 2 days ago
dzonga - 2 days ago
illiac786 - 2 days ago
jimmydddd - 2 days ago
ericmay - 2 days ago
sodastar - 4 hours ago
jarym - 2 days ago
ericmay - 2 days ago
jarym - 2 days ago
legitster - 2 days ago
loeg - 2 days ago
itomato - 2 days ago
LysPJ - 2 days ago
Tarsul - 2 days ago
alamortsubite - 2 days ago
intrasight - 2 days ago
triceratops - 2 days ago
jawilson2 - 2 days ago
voakbasda - 2 days ago
wvh - 2 days ago
mihaelm - 2 days ago
nelsonic - 2 days ago
Insanity - 2 days ago
bhandziuk - 2 days ago
wahnfrieden - 2 days ago
Al-Khwarizmi - 2 days ago
weinzierl - 2 days ago
achenet - 2 days ago
petre - 2 days ago
petre - 2 days ago
eitally - 2 days ago
petre - 2 days ago
roryirvine - 2 days ago
jmelo11 - 2 days ago
thevillagechief - 2 days ago
prawn - 2 days ago
jerlam - 2 days ago
aembleton - 2 days ago
boogieknite - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
flossly - 2 days ago
SenHeng - 2 days ago
microtonal - 2 days ago
darreninthenet - 2 days ago
SomeUserName432 - 2 days ago
tpm - 2 days ago
kenjackson - 2 days ago
legitster - 2 days ago
epolanski - 2 days ago
TitaRusell - 2 days ago
wallst07 - 2 days ago
kbelder - 2 days ago
schnebbau - 2 days ago
stefanfisk - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
OkayPhysicist - 2 days ago
maxglute - 2 days ago
ChrisMarshallNY - 2 days ago
matwood - 2 days ago
SenHeng - 2 days ago
deinonychus - 2 days ago
mamonster - 2 days ago
probably_wrong - 2 days ago
wjnc - 2 days ago
probably_wrong - 2 days ago
eitally - 2 days ago
jonplackett - 2 days ago
AdamN - 2 days ago
slow_typist - 2 days ago
arlattimore - 2 days ago
prawn - 2 days ago
walthamstow - 2 days ago
prawn - 2 days ago
eitally - 2 days ago
sumo89 - 2 days ago
tarsinge - 2 days ago
gizajob - 2 days ago
globular-toast - 2 days ago
darkwater - 2 days ago
close04 - 2 days ago
jahller - 2 days ago
adrian_b - 2 days ago
Al-Khwarizmi - 2 days ago
kasey_junk - 2 days ago
Keyframe - 2 days ago
epolanski - 2 days ago
rc5150 - 2 days ago
eitally - 2 days ago
mahrain - 2 days ago
monomania - 2 days ago
fransje26 - 2 days ago
eitally - 2 days ago
petre - 2 days ago
yolo3000 - 2 days ago
arlattimore - 2 days ago
yolo3000 - 2 days ago
milchek - 2 days ago
dpark - 2 days ago
darkwater - 2 days ago
zaptheimpaler - 2 days ago
motoxpro - 2 days ago
dpark - 2 days ago
motoxpro - 2 days ago
darkwater - 2 days ago
dpark - 2 days ago
blitzar - 2 days ago
conductr - 2 days ago
somat - 2 days ago
oliyoung - 2 days ago
weinzierl - 2 days ago
nemothekid - 2 days ago
ahartmetz - 2 days ago
throwawayffffas - 2 days ago
sidewndr46 - 2 days ago
ButlerianJihad - 2 days ago
allthetime - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
alex-korr - 11 hours ago
baoluofu - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
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." > 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.
rjsw - 2 days ago
arethuza - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
allthetime - 2 days ago
omnimus - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
jahller - 2 days ago
ericmay - 2 days ago
omnimus - 2 days ago
ericmay - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
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. > all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool
JeremyNT - 2 days ago
coffeebeqn - 2 days ago
BobAliceInATree - 2 days ago
JumpCrisscross - 2 days ago
rawoke083600 - 2 days ago
sph - 2 days ago
tverbeure - 2 days ago
dkdbejwi383 - 2 days ago
gregdeon - 2 days ago
Bishonen88 - 2 days ago
harshalizee - 2 days ago
omnimus - 2 days ago
dpark - 2 days ago
omnimus - 2 days ago
dpark - 2 days ago
walthamstow - 2 days ago
dublinben - 2 days ago
ivankra - 2 days ago
bogdan - 2 days ago
sph - 2 days ago
indigovole - 2 days ago
jimbob45 - 2 days ago
bellgrove - 2 days ago
Onavo - 2 days ago
DoneWithAllThat - 2 days ago
ifwinterco - 2 days ago
iamben - 2 days ago
jareklupinski - 2 days ago
alexpotato - 2 days ago
sfmz - 2 days ago
DC-3 - 2 days ago
jeltz - 2 days ago
Maxatar - 2 days ago
tomjen3 - 2 days ago
dmix - 2 days ago
ndiddy - 2 days ago
basisword - 2 days ago
triceratops - 2 days ago
ativzzz - 2 days ago
notesinthefield - 2 days ago
listless - 2 days ago
nater5000 - 2 days ago
tencentshill - 2 days ago
port11 - 4 hours ago
CharlieDigital - 2 days ago
tuesdaynight - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
wideopenspace - 2 days ago
freetime2 - 2 days ago
topaztee - 2 days ago
CWuestefeld - 2 days ago
billynomates - 2 days ago
otikik - 2 days ago
dranudin - 2 days ago
trymas - 2 days ago
port11 - 4 hours ago
ryanlitalien - 2 days ago
castlecrasher2 - 2 days ago
presentation - 2 days ago
nunez - 2 days ago
cosmojg - 2 days ago
branko_d - 2 days ago
torben-friis - 2 days ago
gamessucknow - 2 days ago
lotsofpulp - 2 days ago
blitzar - 2 days ago
fransje26 - 2 days ago
cuvert - 2 days ago
globular-toast - 2 days ago
nomorewords - 2 days ago
m000 - 2 days ago
BirAdam - 2 days ago
jeffrallen - a day ago
jmyeet - 2 days ago
wvanbergen - 2 days ago
mitxela - 2 days ago
sh-run - 2 days ago
aprilthird2021 - 2 days ago
cpursley - 2 days ago
stevesimmons - 2 days ago
aprilthird2021 - a day ago
imp0cat - 2 days ago
notesinthefield - 2 days ago
jahller - 2 days ago
nl - 2 days ago
zhivota - 2 days ago
ciropantera - 2 days ago
zhivota - 2 days ago
fakedang - 2 days ago
bushwart - 2 days ago
jahller - 2 days ago
WalterBright - 2 days ago
rf15 - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
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. > Beyond the stock market gambling aspect
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. > 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)
throwawayffffas - 2 days ago
muse900 - 2 days ago
throwaway2037 - 2 days ago
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." > And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next.
wallst07 - 2 days ago
lotsofpulp - 2 days ago
pandaman - 2 days ago
MiloLeo - 2 days ago
lotsofpulp - 2 days ago
Unit327 - 2 days ago
epsteingpt - 2 days ago
ronsor - 2 days ago
epsteingpt - 2 days ago
HWR_14 - 2 days ago
bawolff - 2 days ago
tancop - 2 days ago
nadermx - 2 days ago
bawolff - 2 days ago
mitxela - 2 days ago
jahller - 2 days ago
mitxela - 2 days ago
leoedin - 2 days ago
andsoitis - 2 days ago
morkalork - 2 days ago
ikr678 - 2 days ago
bdangubic - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago
kgwgk - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago
mikestew - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago
mikestew - 2 days ago
triceratops - 2 days ago
mikestew - 2 days ago
jerlam - 2 days ago
kergonath - 2 days ago
throwawayffffas - 2 days ago
baud147258 - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago
triceratops - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago
triceratops - 2 days ago
dijit - 2 days ago