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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
> 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.
Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry