Reebok should go ask Barack for some bailout dough.
Reebok should go ask Barack for some bailout dough.
Don't forget that whole late 70s early 80s Reebok cadre of sorts: Barrios, Jones, Eyestone,etc. and even earlier - Sydney Maree. How about that skinny little white dude who won the '88 (?)trials? Paul Gompers? What about the Enclave in D.C.? Reebok was a player, especially on the local level. In Jersey during the 80s, I knew several runners who ran for Reebok and did quite well. They got "stuff" and coaching. Reebok did it right w/ the Aztec in the 70s - high tech shoe that would be a contender today, no doubt. How about the DL 5000 in the early 80s? these were well thought out shoes - light, flexible, cushioned, stable. Scroll down on this link: (Thanx Martinez - you're quite the shoe historian)
I used to love the Racer X's back in the mid 90's. I considered them my favorite flat ever until shoes like the piranha and adizero PR came out.
There's an article on Sportsbusinessdaily.com at
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&articleID=126936
Does anyone have an account and can post the article.
Reebok is NOT stopping their sponsorship of athletes, not are they stopping the production of running shoes. They are simply not going to be employing specialty shoe reps, the guys who get shoes into the specialty running stores.
naysayer wrote:
Don't forget that whole late 70s early 80s Reebok cadre of sorts: Barrios, Jones, Eyestone,etc. and even earlier - Sydney Maree. How about that skinny little white dude who won the '88 (?)trials? Paul Gompers? What about the Enclave in D.C.? Reebok was a player, especially on the local level. In Jersey during the 80s, I knew several runners who ran for Reebok and did quite well. They got "stuff" and coaching. Reebok did it right w/ the Aztec in the 70s - high tech shoe that would be a contender today, no doubt. How about the DL 5000 in the early 80s? these were well thought out shoes - light, flexible, cushioned, stable. Scroll down on this link: (Thanx Martinez - you're quite the shoe historian)
http://www.juanjosemartinez.com.mx/zapatos.html
naysayer, you are absolutely correct with the list of greats that ran in 'boks. Thanks for the refresher course. My impression of Reebok is that they did do some great things with elites, and good locals,as you mentioned, but it never seemed to transfer over to good retail sales, at least among the running store owners that I talked with. Again, as you mention it's probably a more local or regional thing. Your area did well with Reebok; in Minnesota, where my store was, not so good. But the Aztek (sp.?) and DL5000 were good shoes and did sell pretty well. Our area has always been dominated by Nike and New Balance ( now add Asics and Saucony), so it was always difficult for other shoe companies to have a big presence, no matter what great things they were doing to promote running at a local and national level.
Reebok is still sponsoring their Elite Athletes. Reebok is still sponsoring their events like Boston Indoor Games, Bay to Breakers, Peachtree etc....Reebok is still sponsoring Zap Fitness. They let go of 5 Running Specialty Sales Reps, they did not drop Running from Reebok!
wonderman wrote:
So did Reebok ever have great running products in the last 15 years? Don't remember too many great shoes.
Just within the last two-three years the Road Plus KFS has been really good for me. I bought a couple pair and still rotate them with Zoom Elites and Wave Inspires. Never tried Reeboks before that though. In late summer of '07 a running specialty store in the Chicago suburbs that I somewhat respect & trust came to one of the big race expos (Distance Classic) pushing 100% Reebok. I tried them and liked them a lot. At this same time their gear (shorts anyway) was good too.
why would we fund a german company?
LOLOLOLOLOL wrote:
Reebok should go ask Barack for some bailout dough.
I was employed by Reebok (a casualty from wednesday) and can speak of the specifics the went down on wednesday:
- all run specialty reps are gone
- 2009 events sponsored by Reebok are still a go
- 2009 athlete contracts are still a go
- has Reebok lost it's way, ABSOLUTELY!!!!
- selling into performance running channels is not a priority for Reebok (sporting goods and the mall)
- Reebok will be a classics and women's only brand in the next two years
- upper management was retained and this has been the problem for Reebok for many, many years. These assholes have been running the brand into the ground for years. They should be in prison for all of the shady back door business deals.
Sucks and I feel for everyone let go especially the specialty run reps and all the retailers that gave the brand an opportunity to redeem itself.
Reebok and the adidas Group can go f***-off!!!!!
the quality of Reebok as an organization is akin to the quality of their socks. okay at first, but after the first few washes...they fall apart.
If you are real and not a troll, I want to say...
Sorry about the job loss. I have been there and it sucks. I was layed off (laid-off?) twice in 3 years. The first time was when I had been married for just over 3 months, with no warning at all. My coworker and I were the last two in and became the first two to go. I, to this day, say the toughest part was not losing my job, but rather coming home and having to tell my wife.
Once you realize it was nothing you did and it was bad business practices that put the company in that situation, your anger will lessen.
It's smart business for adidas to cut Reebok's specialty running division. Why would a company want to compete against itself? Now instead of paying two specialty reps per zone, they only have to pay one. Smart business. Running specialty was probably a drain on their cash reserves. I guarantee the crappy shoes they sell in malls outsell the Premier series several times over. I would be very surprised if Reebok even had 5% of the specialty market. There are seven running stores within a 30 minute drive of my house and zero of them carried Reebok. A small sample, for sure, but it's very telling.
Reebok makes a ton of money with its NFL and NHL licenses (less for NHL, but it's still a cash cow), and a lot of its business is "overseas" sports (real football, cricket, etc.). I could see the future Reebok being more team sports driven than it is now. More of a equipment manufacturer rather than an apparel manufacturer. They already make some great hockey equipment, especially for goalies.
Sorry to hear you lost your job, but the fact is that, despite numerous reworkings over the last decade, your division wasn't producing. It's hard to swallow, but it's the truth.
Old School Steve wrote:
I'm also not aware of Arthur working with Reebok, but he might have. I remember EB Bruting (ugliest running shoes ever made!), Converse (OK, but even Arthur couldn't help this BB shoe company). I think also he had a connection with Brooks, possibly helping him with his U.S. tour. I'll ask my friend Nobby who knows just about everything pertaining to Arthur Lydiard.
ASICS
Not a troll, the real deal.
Yes, maybe the point regarding this being a practical decision based on the fact that adidas and Reebok are competing for the same business, but that is what adi signed up for. I can tell you for a fact that the run specialty group was being told something different internally. This is why this is so hard to swallow and digest- it truly defines being blind sided. The licensee division was hit the hardest with majority of the division being let go (my world). It is no longer a priority and adi will absorb this from Reebok. The equipment for Hockey and Lacrosse have done well and shows that with the the right focus anything can accomplished in a short period of time. Running is the largest open to buy category in the industry, it is almost double the size of basketball (#2 OTB). Without running you have no company.
I am friends with the US Product Mgr for Running (he was retained by upper management but will probably resign because of this). He was recruited to change the face of US Running and does not want to represent a brand that could care less about running. You are correct, the cheap shoes are the majority of Reebok's running business, but that is the case for every large brand (Nike, adidas, Asics etc...). The reality is that price point product makes up over 50% of the industry $'s. Performance running only makes up 10% of the overall business. But, without performance running a brand has zero credibility and buyers from ALL the big retailers (Foot Locker, Finish Line, Footaction) are looking for credibility even though they do not focus on the performance aspect.
Yes, over time the bitterness will subside, but the sting isn't any less painful.
Gen. Motors wrote:
Old School Steve wrote:I'm also not aware of Arthur working with Reebok, but he might have. I remember EB Bruting (ugliest running shoes ever made!), Converse (OK, but even Arthur couldn't help this BB shoe company). I think also he had a connection with Brooks, possibly helping him with his U.S. tour. I'll ask my friend Nobby who knows just about everything pertaining to Arthur Lydiard.
ASICS
Asics sponsored Arthur's final tour in 2004. Brooks helped to sponsor the 1999 tour.
so all athletes and events are still being covered in 2009. What about after 2009? What about their college teams?
Mark Conover won the 88 trials. Paul Gompers I think was 4th. Steve Spence was up there too, Oh yeah, Ed Eyestone was third. Cool Looking Red,White and blue colors on their singlet/shorts.
Steve Jones ran in Reebok, I think the Paris racer.
Peter DeLacerda ran in Reebok for a while. He had that big lead in Pittsburgh at the 2000 trials. He had those cool looking canary yellow 3D Racers. Reebok has and does make decent stuff.
The 3D midsole technology should have been pushed more than it was. They'd put it in one trainer and one racer per production season and did almost nothing to market it. It was way better than that DMX crap, which was supposed to be their answer to Air/Shox? The fit of their shoes is what stopped me after one pair, the forefoot was restrictively narrow. The Racer X was great, however, wish I could still get some of those without paying fashionista prices.
run47 wrote:
It appears that Reebok sponsors more top US based female distance runners than any shoe company -- except for Nike.
edited.
Reebok:
Kim Smith, Blake Russell, Katie McGreggor, Jenelle Deatherage, Marie Davenport, Mary Cullen, Missy Buttry, Julia Lucas, Samia Akbar, Sarah Jamieson (Australia) and Monique Henderson (200m/400m sprinter).
Tiffany Ross-Williams would be another to add to the list.
The thing I'm wondering is, if it's true that Reebok are no longer focusing on promoting performance running shoes...
former employee7 wrote:
- all run specialty reps are gone
- 2009 events sponsored by Reebok are still a go
- 2009 athlete contracts are still a go
- selling into performance running channels is not a priority for Reebok (sporting goods and the mall)
Then why does it need to be supporting so many professional athletes and high profile sporting events?
It sounds to me that they are just going to fulfil their 2009 contractual obligations and then these athletes and events are going to be looking for a new sponsor for 2010.