Yes. The models in the ads are not "minorities", they are 85% black. Is 85% of the US population black?
Again, what difference would that make in your buying decision? You won't buy the superior product because a black person advertises it? That is the classic definition of racism.
(Definitely not saying Nike products are superior.)
Are you saying you wouldn't buy something because an advertisement has minorities in it?
Yes. The models in the ads are not "minorities", they are 85% black. Is 85% of the US population black?
Maybe not you but Nike has seen decades of evidence through music, pop culture, etc that white people want to emulate "cool" black people. So if you're going to go the race route, acknowledge they are advertising to white and black people via using black models.
Yes. The models in the ads are not "minorities", they are 85% black. Is 85% of the US population black?
Again, what difference would that make in your buying decision? You won't buy the superior product because a black person advertises it? That is the classic definition of racism.
(Definitely not saying Nike products are superior.)
You're wasting your time trying to reason with a low IQ dolt.
Still producing great racing shoes (Vaporfly, Dragonfly, Aphlafly, etc) but their lineup of trainers is piss poor. First off, Nike has so few options for trainers. They’re a massive company, yet they’re offering like 6-7 trainers. That’s ridiculous…and their innovation with these shoes has been slow and pathetic. Pegasus severely lacks a good/durable cushioning system, especially in the forefoot. Structure is very similar, poor cushioning and durability. New Vomero seems decent, but has some fit issues. Then you have React Infinity and Invincible. Time to step up your game Nike.
Oh yeah, their marketing strategy was hostile to small shops for ages. The running shop in my town for decades was the ultimate small shop. The owner was the only employee except on rare occasions when he was out of town. Then the shop either closed or he got his sister or a friend to cover for him. He couldn't get Nikes for years, maybe even decades because it was just too small an operation. I don't much about marketing but Nike was obviously doing themselves out of a few sales by refusing to sell to him.
The alphafly is pretty much the only Nike shoe I'd buy right now, and it's never available, so I can't give them any money.
Surprisingly Peg 41 is pretty good. They're not marketing it right way by trying on all neon green color but it's on par with Brooks Ghost. I think actually even better than it. They fixed the mid sole. Quite springy while providing good cushioning.
For many years now Nike has not been a running shoe brand, they have become a fashion brand. There is way more money in that.
If they really plan on going back to their roots one of their first moves will be to sign Valby. She is the 'now' athlete in the running community. Then they will actually have to strengthen their product base which for the most part is crap. But that's the easy part.
For many years now Nike has not been a running shoe brand, they have become a fashion brand. There is way more money in that.
If they really plan on going back to their roots one of their first moves will be to sign Valby. She is the 'now' athlete in the running community. Then they will actually have to strengthen their product base which for the most part is crap. But that's the easy part.
It's not that easy though. Being running brand doesn't equate profitable business. It's a game of how many shoes they can sell to casual walkers and hobby joggers. Those are the people they make most money off of. It's probably safe to say Nike do make the best fashionable looking running shoes. I know people who won't wear Saucony or Brooks because simply they think the shoes are ugly.
For many years now Nike has not been a running shoe brand, they have become a fashion brand. There is way more money in that.
If they really plan on going back to their roots one of their first moves will be to sign Valby. She is the 'now' athlete in the running community. Then they will actually have to strengthen their product base which for the most part is crap. But that's the easy part.
It's not that easy though. Being running brand doesn't equate profitable business. It's a game of how many shoes they can sell to casual walkers and hobby joggers. Those are the people they make most money off of. It's probably safe to say Nike do make the best fashionable looking running shoes. I know people who won't wear Saucony or Brooks because simply they think the shoes are ugly.
The fundamental problem at Nike is that the company is run by MBAs and former McKinsey consultants that have no concept about product. They love analytics and believe that data can tell them everything. When Nike was great, product and marketing people ran the show. Former athletes that understood the champion's mindset populated senior management. In recent years, they have hired people from Ebay, Walmart, and Apple into those positions. These people know jack squat about athleticism and the sort of products that athletes want. Their concern is retail assortments, apparel hook-ups, market share, and keeping Wall Street happy. This is a far cry from the original crew of disruptive rebels that sought to redefine sports performance and style.
Nike has lost the ability to truly innovate and to imagine new ideas. Carbon plated shoes have on the market for nearly eight years and I know that they were being worked on as early as 2012. Nowadays, the company is just tweaking carbon layups and shapes a bit plus modifying the foams to make the shoes a touch better. That's not innovation! That's just engineering an existing product for marginal gains.
Getting rid of John Donahoe and Heidi O'Neill would be positive first steps for Nike to begin a renaissance and a return to athlete driven products. Right now, they are on a fast track to becoming an athleisure brand for seniors and wannabes.
I mean the exact same thing happened at adidas until they woke up and actually hired a guy who cares about sport and has a feel for sports product again (Bjorn Gulden).
The puzzling thing with Nike is that for the longest time it was them that no matter what stuck to their guns in always being not just sport first but running first and the success of this simplicity caused the other brands playing catchup (like adidas, UA etc) to make dumb@ss upper management decisions like hiring McKinsey weaselwarriors that bought to the table irrelevant corporate snake oil like "operational streamlining" and "organizational frameworks". Then out of nowhere Nike, despite being profoundly dominant in the sector, decided to explicably do the opposite of what made them so good and do the very thing that stopped their once desperate competitors from ever making inroads.
Cue Donahoe and his "Consumer Direct" nonsense - an unimaginative and arbitrary response to covid based on the comical idea that the world was changing forever and sport as we knew it was over. No longer would people ever dare to enter a potentially life threatening sports store to buy a pair of shoes and they sure and hell won't ever do sports again in such a social manner. Yep - nice foresight John. What did Hoka, ON et al do? The total opposite - look at where they are now.
However, even though Donahoe is technically still the CEO this is purely because Phil Knight is too proud to admit he made a shocking f-up with this decision which also went against everything Phil allegedly stood for. So what's happened is while Donahoe is holed up in SF counting the 32.8 million bucks he made last year in salary, bonuses and realized stock options, Mark Parker is back on campus behind the scenes trying to resurrect running product and there is new "reinvestment" in running by way of a new EKIN (or running specialty tech rep) dedicated to each state.
Nike is in a hole but they are one of the only brands within their sector of retail that is big enough to get out of it. They still have huge brand cache, many of the worlds best and most recognizable athletes and the resources to do it. The plan centers around the first step being Paris and then LA2028 as the pinnacle of the planned recovery.
Nike released another disappointing quarterly earnings report today - stock down another 6%. The stock is down around 20% over the past year compared the market as a whole UP around 28%. That's a 48% swing!
Nike released another disappointing quarterly earnings report today - stock down another 6%. The stock is down around 20% over the past year compared the market as a whole UP around 28%. That's a 48% swing!
The lawsuit alleges that Donahoe and Chief Financial Officer Matt Friend continually touted the strength of its strategy when in fact it was “unable to generate sustainable revenue growth.”
In case anyone at Nike reads this, want to continue to emphasize their trainers are terrible now. I wore Nikes for 6 or so years especially the Pegasus and now I only buy Nike super shoes. Also their clothes are ridiculously overpriced. I can get the same exact clothing without the swoosh for half the price.
It's funny to hear about all these business level decisions being made when my experience with this is purely as a runner buying shoes but it seems to lineup perfectly. I also have noticed that Nike has let some major sponsored athletes go in more recent years that, to me were surprising. I follow pro soccer (or football for any international readers) and Nike boots have been more sparse than I've ever seen since I've been following the sport closely circa 2010. In 2020, Neymar who was one of their most prominent athletes left for Puma and Raheem Sterling followed in 2021. They've also lost some kit deals in that time. I really noticed this in an ad Nike released leading up to Euro 2024, featuring Mbappe, Haaland, and Vinicious Jr. It was a great ad but it pretty much only featured those three marquee players and then had a quest appearance by Nike legacy athlete Ronaldinho. In the past, Nike commercials have featured their star athletes (Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, etc.) alongside a cast of their other athletes, just to show how prevalent Nike is in the football space. What's weird is on the track it's almost the opposite, where Nike has lost a few major stars (Kerley, Marcell Jacobs, Helen Obiri) but maintain a high saturation of guys/gals in the Diamond League and notable meets.
Nike has really taken their eye off the ball at the lower and mid range. Their racing shoes are still awesome, but their trainers are not popular anymore. The Zoom Fly and Invincible are clearly inferior to alternatives from other brands, like the Endorphin Speed, Takumi Sen, Supercomp Trainer, etc. the last decent trainer Nike made was the now-discontinued Tempo.
I also see other brands make a really big effort around running events in the UK. Brooks, On, and Hoka have a strong presence and you can see the effect if you go to Parkrun. All the people running 25-40 minutes (the overwhelming majority of participants) are wearing brands other than Nike. Nike really screwed up
It's funny to hear about all these business level decisions being made when my experience with this is purely as a runner buying shoes but it seems to lineup perfectly. I also have noticed that Nike has let some major sponsored athletes go in more recent years that, to me were surprising. I follow pro soccer (or football for any international readers) and Nike boots have been more sparse than I've ever seen since I've been following the sport closely circa 2010. In 2020, Neymar who was one of their most prominent athletes left for Puma and Raheem Sterling followed in 2021. They've also lost some kit deals in that time. I really noticed this in an ad Nike released leading up to Euro 2024, featuring Mbappe, Haaland, and Vinicious Jr. It was a great ad but it pretty much only featured those three marquee players and then had a quest appearance by Nike legacy athlete Ronaldinho. In the past, Nike commercials have featured their star athletes (Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, etc.) alongside a cast of their other athletes, just to show how prevalent Nike is in the football space. What's weird is on the track it's almost the opposite, where Nike has lost a few major stars (Kerley, Marcell Jacobs, Helen Obiri) but maintain a high saturation of guys/gals in the Diamond League and notable meets.
It's because when it comes down to it, it's quite simple - whatever you have is never enough.
It wasn't enough to be making X billion dollars in revenue a quarter at X % profit margin and for that to be growing steadily but consistently. It's all appetite appetite appetite, more more more and to be honest it's where the con-artists like Donahoe lurk in the shadows and literally make their money.
Because all he did was come in with a tease based on rudimentary and circumstantial fundamentals and it was enough to convince not just an operating board but an owner that it was a path to the "more more more".
And you are right it wasn't just a product focus shift, it was pulling money from sports marketing (athlete sponsorships etc) - why? Because in the mythical new "post-covid" world, not only would people never dare to go to a store to buy anything, they certainly weren't going to go to a sports arena to watch live sports right? So why bother having athletes then? So they slashed budgets that had anything to do with sports and instead directed it towards digital infrastructure and supply chain optimization - none of which in reality matter if you don't have your core competency on lock - which is the best sports product in the industry.
