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.
"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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
I have some Skechers slip-ins that I love. I live in Japan where you have to take off/put on shoes all the time at home, restuarants, doctors/dentists, gyms, etc, so they are incredibly convenient. Also very comfortable, and constructed about as well as a pair of Nikes costing twice as much.
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level.
Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas.
Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards.
It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
I was having ankle pain and had one of these gait analyses and also had inward pointing knees and got some shoes to correct it - and it helped loads! Much less knee pain and my ankle feels lessy achey too.
So don’t trust all sales people - especially if feel fine already. But if you have an issue it really can help.
Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.)
Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
The 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.
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 :-/
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.
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 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.
Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand.
I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue.
It's a thing for sure, maybe just not screamed about. If you run in a shoe that is 10mm+ and then go to a 0mm like an Altra - it is wild how different it feels.
Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions.
In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes.
Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
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.
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.
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?
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.
totally. some brands really made a huge step-up and became "fresh", which Nike declined and is now considered "stale". From my euro-centric perspective I see Autry, New Balance, Adidas and Asics all over the place. Even Reebok had a revival. Basketball and skateboarding shoes fell out of style and now everyone trends towards running or indoor soccer style shoes.
Looking around me I was convinced that most of Nike's and Adidas' sales were coming from the "fashion" side of things. People buying everyday shoes from a famous brand. The "professional" shoe was for professional athletes, football players, etc. I'd hear that a player signed with Adidas, or a runner was wearing Nike for a race, but regular people didn't go in stores for the specs, they went for the brand.
Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. 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.
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not quite sure but Nike really blew up back in the day with a focus on basketball via the Nike Jordan/Air Force One.
More recently I just don’t understand their product line up. If I click on Men’s in the US there are over 700 shoes. How do I even pick? Hello, earth to Nike. Nike is a Greek god. Maybe lean in to that a bit more?
Oh I get it “Inspired by the geometry of modern cities” they’re confused about good design and taking a hint from other dead brands like Hugo Boss or Burberry Outlet or maybe even Armani Exchange!
That’s why richfluencers are buying ON and Hoka and Vuroi and Lululemon still.
> all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool
Specific to Hoka: They are a status symbol probably started/hyped by social media. All kinds of people wear them who aren't remotely into running or exercise.
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.
FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI.
A 5min 'best running shoes' session would mention both Hokas, ON's etc.
That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.
YMMV but Hoka Bondi is the most comfortable pair of sneakers I've ever had in my life. I'm not going back to Nike. Haven't heard/seen much of them until this year too though.
For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line.
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
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.
The film Crazy Stupid Love features Ryan Gosling telling Steve Carrell he dresses like a stale 40-something divorcee then throwing his New Balance meshy running sneakers off the balcony of the mall. That was 2011.
The problem with shoes is that there figuratively (and literally) is no one-size-fits-all. There are several elements of a shoe that can wreck your experience with it without you understanding why.
- Heel drop, as others have said, can destroy your Achilles if you go too low. Too high and you can exacerbate hip issues.
- Big feet? If your manufacturer doesn’t offer wide versions, you’re going to have a bad time. You still might if they only expand the upper without actually widening the lower (Nike pulls this shit).
- Running on weird, slick surfaces? Better hope you have strong grip and traction (they’re not all equal by any stretch)
- Running in a hot climate? Better hope for a breathable shoe or your blisters will wreck you.
- Need stability elements? Or a carbon plate? Better hope you bought a stability shoe! Also keep in mind that there is research that those things can wreck your foot health long-term.
- Ugh, I’m so confused, I’ll just get the most popular running shoe out there, the Nike Pegasus! Well, you might be in for a nasty surprise when you learn that it’s the only modern shoe that still contains literal airbags. Step on bark chips the wrong way and your shoe might pop!
And that’s all before you get started on colorways. The idea that shoes are all equally good for everyone is as outdated as the idea that you can swap two people’s Chipotle orders and no one will notice.
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
+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.
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy.
A huge percentage of Nike’s sales come from vintage shoes like dunks, air force ones, Jordan 1s, etc. By modern standards, they aren’t good shoes. They aren’t suitable for the sport they were originally designed for, and they aren’t comfortable compared to modern lifestyle shoes.
I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot?
Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
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?
First, the United States' stock markets (NYSE + NASDAQ) are not gambling. An index-tracking portfolio has never lost money over a 20 year time frame for the last 125 years.
Google tells me:
> Nike Annual Revenue Breakdown
> Fiscal Year 2026: $46.40 billion (+0.19% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2025: $46.31 billion (-9.84% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2024: $51.36 billion (+0.28% YoY)
Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth. Nike has had three terrible years. As a result, their stock is in the toilet.
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.
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.
Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with.
Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.
I think they should continue pushing ACG as a standalone apparal brand. they have good designs and could compete with The North Face and Patagonia in the streetwear/outdoor market
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.
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...
I love Nike shoes and brand but they just don’t produce anything since fly knits that I actually like. All I want is a flat shoe with a massive toe box and thin material for the gym with Nike branding - why is it so difficult to make something people want?
Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors.
i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.
Non-collectors don't need what the bots are buying, they can just go to the store and get normal sneakers. I don't see how limited edition shoe scalping affects the normal market at all.
I don't bother buying Nike's because every time I see a pair I like online, it turns out they're "collectibles" and sold out instantly.
Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey.
So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them.
Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.
There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
All I know is the "ON" shoes are easy to recognise on the street due to their completely bizarre soles, even for non shoe enthusiasts. Look even I didnt realize the N for new Balance was different for the N for Nike for like decades.
The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell.
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."
It could be because Nike aren't very good, and because half the world is boycotting US products after the tariffs shenanigans. I personally will choose other products whenever there is a viable alternative, and frankly there are plenty of non-US trainers / running shoes available.
lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe
Are you European? I ask because this seems like a very European thing to say.
Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
Wild that you can have Tim Cook, one of the most effective CEOs of all time, on your board of directors and fumble so badly. There must be some juicy drama that went on behind the scenes, I hope we get to hear it eventually.
I sometimes think half of Apple's success is down to the failure of the rest of the industry to deliver quality products. Microsoft and Intel in particular but all the OEM's as well. A world where they got their act together would look quite different.
I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?
Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1].
Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day.
Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point.
Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers.
And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.
Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.
I intellectually understand the retailpocalypse replaced by online shopping, but I will always want to try on clothes before buying them, and that goes double for shoes. After trying out New Balance for a year or two in adulthood I ended up going back to Nike running shoes (I still remember my pair of Air Icarus from high school, so light), just seemed to fit my feet better.
The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?"
But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.
The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.
People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
Wouldn't the fact that a Black man was their most popular face throughout their successful period negate the idea that it has anything to do with wokeness? I wish people as obtuse as you would take the time to pause and think every once in a while.
I am surprised how no one is mentioning how their sneakers dissolves in a couple months? Last store Nike sneaker I bought was 4 years ago. $120 or something and within 2 months it has become unwearable. Since then I only buy new balance from an outlet so the price remains below $100.
Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand.
I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
A very large part of this is simply that Nike was trading at an extremely aggressive valuation a few years ago.
The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple.
Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either.
In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.
PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100:
For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom.
"Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status.
But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices.
All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.
I realised that giving money to America is like giving money to 1937 Nazi Germany- you are funding the country that wants to destroy your way of life. So I had to find a different sneaker brand. Asics is Japanese and who doesn't like Japan? They are fucking adorable.
Adidas and Puma are German companies and they are pretty famous, Joma is Spanish, Decathlon is French, seems plenty of the options, if you don't wanna support Trumpistan.
We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.
But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired.
All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
That is exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are marketed as racing shoes for a couple of marathons, tops. Everything on those shoes is designed to be as thin and as light as possible.
In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.
But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.
So I'm a brand loyalist for now..
It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)
Glad you’re happy with the Saucony Pro. I think the equivalent to the Vaporfly would be the Saucony Endorphin Elite though, which probably lasts no more than a couple of big races either.
If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!
That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.
There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.
You're missing one aspect: Nike relentlessly promoted wokism. It triggers 2 parts: Gives you less time to market to WASP; It makes your shops the first in line during mass unrests, which in turn floods the local market with cheap versions of your shoes.
Those big ads subtitled "Black culture" with a body-positive woman, on a 30mx30m, hung on the scaffolding of a magnificent Haussmann-period palace, it does have an effect on customer identification to your brand.
Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.
It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
> Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
By "advertisements", I am sure you mean traditional adverts like TV, print media, and billboards. They were blowing up on social media thanks to paid influencers.
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.
> 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].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGhy62UZnbg
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Thats the same brand space of most of spanish speaking countries. I wonder why.
The list is quite similar in NL too tbh.
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.
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.
Everyone I know wears shoes.
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.)
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?
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.
Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?
> I think 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.
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.
They certainly have design issues. For such a big brand, I dont get it... Why not make 'm look nice?
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.
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.
> 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.
Till they keep making the most comfortable shoes I buy, count me in as into sketchers.
Shoelaces suck basically
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.
>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.
In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level.
Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas.
Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards.
It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
Just as a counterpoint to this.
I was having ankle pain and had one of these gait analyses and also had inward pointing knees and got some shoes to correct it - and it helped loads! Much less knee pain and my ankle feels lessy achey too.
So don’t trust all sales people - especially if feel fine already. But if you have an issue it really can help.
Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.)
Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
The 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.
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.
If you want a recommendation I really like Merrell Agility Peak's or for something less run-y, the Moab.
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.
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.
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.
There are tons of non-maxi shoes around still.
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
Low-ish (4 to 6mm) but not really advertised.
Could still be the same company though, if they were smart.
Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions.
In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes.
Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
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.
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.
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?
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
totally. some brands really made a huge step-up and became "fresh", which Nike declined and is now considered "stale". From my euro-centric perspective I see Autry, New Balance, Adidas and Asics all over the place. Even Reebok had a revival. Basketball and skateboarding shoes fell out of style and now everyone trends towards running or indoor soccer style shoes.
> like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
For running errands maybe.
Looking around me I was convinced that most of Nike's and Adidas' sales were coming from the "fashion" side of things. People buying everyday shoes from a famous brand. The "professional" shoe was for professional athletes, football players, etc. I'd hear that a player signed with Adidas, or a runner was wearing Nike for a race, but regular people didn't go in stores for the specs, they went for the brand.
Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. 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.
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.
> pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.
but it went how most mere mortals would expect ...
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI.
We all live in our own bubbles.
Most races I've participated in or spectated at in the last few years you'd see Hoka on at least half the runners' feet.
Never heard of Hoka either, so I asked my wife just now: “oh yes, I have a pair.”
A 5min 'best running shoes' session would mention both Hokas, ON's etc.
That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.
YMMV but Hoka Bondi is the most comfortable pair of sneakers I've ever had in my life. I'm not going back to Nike. Haven't heard/seen much of them until this year too though.
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.
Today, you're one of the lucky 10000![1]
For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/
On shoes are also very ugly. I don't think they have a single pair that has any style. I would love to try them but it looks like shoes for retirees.
> it looks like shoes for retirees
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
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.
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.
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
What's the best generic allbirds style shoe? I refuse to play for the branding premium.
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.
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.
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.
I once failed to find men section in H&M, even when it was listed as there :)
When was this different? The 'traditional masculine' man doesn't shop - his wife shops for him.
[dead]
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
FYI, Hoka have an EU site too
Surprisingly if you're into marathons, the On Cloudboom Strike 2 is unusually roomy in the toebox for a big sports brand.
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).
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.
Yep, another happy Altra user here. I basically wear nothing else these days. Will never go back to a non-wide toebox shoe.
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.
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.
> 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).
Cetti.
+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.
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy.
>30%+ of the price of a Nike product
it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them
Leather shoes are still disposable if you can't unstitch the sole. You need a Goodyear welted shoe if you want one that will last decades.
Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.
A huge percentage of Nike’s sales come from vintage shoes like dunks, air force ones, Jordan 1s, etc. By modern standards, they aren’t good shoes. They aren’t suitable for the sport they were originally designed for, and they aren’t comfortable compared to modern lifestyle shoes.
I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot?
Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
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:
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.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.
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.
Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with.
Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.
I think they should continue pushing ACG as a standalone apparal brand. they have good designs and could compete with The North Face and Patagonia in the streetwear/outdoor market
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.
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...
Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/
I have been wearing Vans for so long my foot is the shape of one. This made me check their stock... ouch.
I love Nike shoes and brand but they just don’t produce anything since fly knits that I actually like. All I want is a flat shoe with a massive toe box and thin material for the gym with Nike branding - why is it so difficult to make something people want?
Sneakerbots killed it for everyone.
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone
Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
Slightly different take IMO.
There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.
Or sell them at $1000 itself if that's really where the demand is at.
>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.
But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out.
why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?
Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors.
i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.
Non-collectors don't need what the bots are buying, they can just go to the store and get normal sneakers. I don't see how limited edition shoe scalping affects the normal market at all.
I don't bother buying Nike's because every time I see a pair I like online, it turns out they're "collectibles" and sold out instantly.
Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey.
So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them.
Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.
You can, I only poop once a day but I still have to pay the sewage company to get rid of it (negative price).
> But also, people only have 2 feet.
There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.
Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
All I know is the "ON" shoes are easy to recognise on the street due to their completely bizarre soles, even for non shoe enthusiasts. Look even I didnt realize the N for new Balance was different for the N for Nike for like decades.
The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell.
But this is armchair speculation.
Can anyone recommend durable, bright white, wide toe box, not ugly looking sneakers without any brand logos?
don’t buy stuff from people who hate you.
https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men
It's so annoying that more than half of the videos on there show up as "private" to users from my country.
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 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.
people would have ignored that too.
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."
Maybe they can come up with some push button pump gadget for inflating stocks.
It could be because Nike aren't very good, and because half the world is boycotting US products after the tariffs shenanigans. I personally will choose other products whenever there is a viable alternative, and frankly there are plenty of non-US trainers / running shoes available.
You don't really think half the world is boycotting US products, do you lol?
lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe
Are you European? I ask because this seems like a very European thing to say.
Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
I don't think half the globe is that invested in what Trump is doing, much less against it.
I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
Just bought Nike Air Jordans the blue/white, 2025 model - it's a good shoe! I love it.
When the counterfeiters came, that's what they chose to put in the box.
They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.
Wild that you can have Tim Cook, one of the most effective CEOs of all time, on your board of directors and fumble so badly. There must be some juicy drama that went on behind the scenes, I hope we get to hear it eventually.
I sometimes think half of Apple's success is down to the failure of the rest of the industry to deliver quality products. Microsoft and Intel in particular but all the OEM's as well. A world where they got their act together would look quite different.
I would argue it was moving towards a more Apple-like distribution model that has hurt them so much.
I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?
Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1].
Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day.
Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point.
[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.
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.
> consumers
people
I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.
I intellectually understand the retailpocalypse replaced by online shopping, but I will always want to try on clothes before buying them, and that goes double for shoes. After trying out New Balance for a year or two in adulthood I ended up going back to Nike running shoes (I still remember my pair of Air Icarus from high school, so light), just seemed to fit my feet better.
But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.
The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?"
But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.
Stimulus checks?
Here's a good video essay about their downfall
https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6
The market has more confidence in Nike than Nvidia, however - the former trades at a higher forward PE.
I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.
The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.
People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
Honestly, I suspect most people will have no idea about these ads. I know I don’t.
I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.
How are you not downvoted to hell? Lol. But I agree. Go woke, go broke!
Wouldn't the fact that a Black man was their most popular face throughout their successful period negate the idea that it has anything to do with wokeness? I wish people as obtuse as you would take the time to pause and think every once in a while.
Having Mike was not being “woke.” Mike arguable was the best player in the history of the game (maybe he still is).
[dead]
I am surprised how no one is mentioning how their sneakers dissolves in a couple months? Last store Nike sneaker I bought was 4 years ago. $120 or something and within 2 months it has become unwearable. Since then I only buy new balance from an outlet so the price remains below $100.
Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand.
I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
A very large part of this is simply that Nike was trading at an extremely aggressive valuation a few years ago.
The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple.
Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
McKinsey
The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either.
In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
Maybe they should pivot to AI like AllBirds :)
I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.
Athletic shoes are still popular for streetwear. But it's a fickle market where style trends count for a lot more than performance.
But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.
Nike actually had a good run with the Air Max in that segment, but as someone already said: trends are fickle
yeah but nike sells slides which are pretty popular with the youth.
This is the end of an era.-
PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100:
I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry
For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom.
"Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status.
But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices.
All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.
I realised that giving money to America is like giving money to 1937 Nazi Germany- you are funding the country that wants to destroy your way of life. So I had to find a different sneaker brand. Asics is Japanese and who doesn't like Japan? They are fucking adorable.
Adidas and Puma are German companies and they are pretty famous, Joma is Spanish, Decathlon is French, seems plenty of the options, if you don't wanna support Trumpistan.
We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.
Ah. I see we are going around the autocratic circle. Past and present!
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet..
Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone.
Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund.
Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.
But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired.
All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
That is exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are marketed as racing shoes for a couple of marathons, tops. Everything on those shoes is designed to be as thin and as light as possible.
In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.
But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.
So I'm a brand loyalist for now..
It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)
Glad you’re happy with the Saucony Pro. I think the equivalent to the Vaporfly would be the Saucony Endorphin Elite though, which probably lasts no more than a couple of big races either.
If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!
You did the footwear equivalent of putting racing slicks on a daily driver.
I did, but it was because I'd had my expectations raised by Saucony's products (see my peer comment for more info)
Too much money and too little sense.
That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.
There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.
Sure that happens. But in this case the quality was there - the uppers and attachment to the soles was top notch.
They look and feel awesome.
But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.
180km is pretty bad but you also trained in a race shoe that deliberately makes material tradeoffs to increase running efficiency.
They are welcome to make stuff that nobody wants. Weird designs, made poorly and disintegrating in months.
But then the share price drops.
ie: the market capitalisation drops.
They then have to pay more money to borrow.
Fewer investors are interested in giving them money.
The business spirals into irrelevance like Ken Olsen's Digital Equipment Corporation.
Restructuring happens
Employees lose jobs.
Restructuring happens again and again and again.
Employees lose jobs, more jobs and still more jobs.
Unpaid suppliers go bankrupt.
Finally they shut down and become an irrelevance like Nike, 777 Partners, DEC, BioXcel Therapeutics, Lycos, First Brands Group, Yahoo.
Is Nike the Intel of shoe makers? A faded former giant that has major operations in Oregon.
You're missing one aspect: Nike relentlessly promoted wokism. It triggers 2 parts: Gives you less time to market to WASP; It makes your shops the first in line during mass unrests, which in turn floods the local market with cheap versions of your shoes.
Those big ads subtitled "Black culture" with a body-positive woman, on a 30mx30m, hung on the scaffolding of a magnificent Haussmann-period palace, it does have an effect on customer identification to your brand.
Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...
Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.
It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
You are right. Looks like I'm this old.
[dead]
[dead]
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy I just did the numbers
If Nike ain’t have MJ they’d have nothing
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over jumpman