LRC: Dumb: = Brooks does not have the resources of Nike

Do you understand what it means to have different budgets for say, sports marketing between two different companies?

Nike sports marketing competes for resources with other departments within Nike and is granted a much larger sum of money than say...

Brooks sports marketing which competes for resources within Brooks corporate and is given quite little.

Also, I believe Warren's (and Berkshire's) voice in the matter of resource allocation is, erm, limited when it comes to athlete contracts.

Do we need to talk about the company size difference between Brooks standalone vs Nike?

Do you even business, bro?

Can't really compare the two companies. Brooks chooses to market towards runners and overweight fatties with joint problems. Nike has expanded its market to literally ALL OF SPORTS. Can you guess who has more money?

A poster who calls himself "lrc idiocy" certainly lives up to the name.

You don't have even a basic understanding of finance to be commenting. Now get your allowance from mommy and scoot along little boy.

() wrote:

Do you understand what it means to have different budgets for say, sports marketing between two different companies?

Nike sports marketing competes for resources with other departments within Nike and is granted a much larger sum of money than say...

Brooks sports marketing which competes for resources within Brooks corporate and is given quite little.

Also, I believe Warren's (and Berkshire's) voice in the matter of resource allocation is, erm, limited when it comes to athlete contracts.

Do we need to talk about the company size difference between Brooks standalone vs Nike?

Do you even business, bro?

Yes, I have an MBA, have even been to Berkshire's / Buffets annual shareholders "gala" in Omaha and asked Warren a question. (If you know how that works.)

Which is how I know Brooke's budget is "psychological," (as is Nike's.)

As of year ago Brooks was reported as the most popular athletic wear brand besides Nike, Brooks w 10% of the market, Nike w 40%.

You think Brooks spends 25% as much as Nike on track and running.

You idiots, are idiots.

Brooks own CEO has all but bragged how cheap he is.

Brooks propaganda wants you two idiots to believe it's a real David v. Goliath story.

It isn't. The Brooks runner stated their team was young. Not impoverished.

You drunken idiots, and poor journalists need to do more research.

Brooks is cheap.

Hi OP. I like Brooks running shoes because the shoes fit me well and do not cause injuries. If Nike made these shoes I would be 'nike guy'. Companies are boring. Shoes are good. Thanks for reading.

What is this thread in response to?

What exactly is your stance? It seems like you're trying to make the case that Brooks has enough resources to compete with Nike, but I'm not sure. In case that is your stance, I'll respond as though.

Brooks clearly has the capital to invest more in athletes than current. And I'm guessing if the Sports Marketing program had their say (as alluded to earlier), they would get that funding, but even if so it would be nowhere near what Nike has available. I have no idea the real numbers, but I'm guessing Nike is somewhere between 10 and 50 times larger than Brooks, and it could be much, much larger I really have no idea. But that said, Nike's image is the competitive top finisher - Brooks is about inclusiveness, they spend more money marketing the every day runner. Throwing millions of dollars at top athletes isn't their thing.