Saucony Stops Making Apparel

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Smart move. No one wears it. That is just the truth .

Think so? I've been wearing Brooks and Saucony apparel for at least 25 years. Quality stuff.

I do agree with you that non-runners don't select these brands as casual wear, and that is probably influencing Saucony's decision. Just as long as the men's line remains available from Saucony(dot)com I will continue to wear their stuff. "Run Your World", amigos.

Saucony will continue to offer a tightened line of apparel on it's website DTC and to a very small selection of retailers.

Saucony Apparel wrote:

Saucony will continue to offer a tightened line of apparel on it's website DTC and to a very small selection of retailers.

Hot damn! Thanks.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Smart move. No one wears it. That is just the truth .

I have yet to see anyone out in the open running or walking in saucony gear. In their running shoes? yes. Apparel? No.

You need to look around more because I'm sure it's out there. I run in Saucony Boston pants almost every day in the winter after it gets cold. They're great-superior to other running pants I've had.

I've had some Saucony shirts over the year and they were fine. I've also had some of their Vizipro stuff for running or walking the dog after dark. None of it was that different than what you could get from other makers, but it was all good quality, and it looked like my local running store was selling plenty of it.

NB is the envious one of all the majors in the running shoe channel. They are privately owned and are putting out some great product. They still are showing a strong interest in the local run shops from what I hear. They are like #3 in gross revenue behind Nike and Adidas.

Everyone loses money on apparel. NB is privately owned which makes it easier to not report losses, but you're naive if you think anyone but 1 or 2 brands is making money on apparel, no matter how items they're putting out..

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Smart move. No one wears it. That is just the truth .

Nike, Adidas, New Balance, Asics, under armour.... From an apparel stand point, that is what people wear.

I have yet to see anyone out in the open running or walking in saucony gear. In their running shoes? yes. Apparel? No.

Brooks is probably next. I rarely see people in Brooks apparel.

Those aforementioned brands have went the urban leisure route with their apparel, where as Saucony and Brooks didn't enter that realm. The gear is going to have to appeal to the non-running community as well. That is the only way to see apparel.

However, they have been focusing on a lot of throw back running shoes, and the young adults are eating them up. And their bullit shoes are really big in the Parkour community.

UNTRUE. In area's where-- hello, dip$hit-- stores actially stocked Saucony gear it sold pretty well, including on the men's side. But people don't buy what they don't see and the scum that ran Jack Rabbit into the ground.... Saucony actually made RUNNING shorts too, not the idiotic 8-10-12" long garbage Nike proffers.

If you ever touch a woman, show her the Saucony bras, they were quite good if not entirely uniquely so.

and losing money wrote:

Everyone loses money on apparel. NB is privately owned which makes it easier to not report losses, but you're naive if you think anyone but 1 or 2 brands is making money on apparel, no matter how items they're putting out..

This makes no sense. If you are losing money, just charge more and sell less. No point in bleeding. I don't think you understand how cheap you can make apparel.

You NEED to offer a full line, even if you don't sell much. A company would look like a Moran if they could only show models running in another company apparel. Need socks, shorts, pants, shirts, jackets, hats, and gloves.

Pulling apparel out of retailers makes sense if you can't drive enough volume to justify distribution cost. It never would make sense to not sell online.

and losing money wrote:

Everyone loses money on apparel. NB is privately owned which makes it easier to not report losses, but you're naive if you think anyone but 1 or 2 brands is making money on apparel, no matter how items they're putting out..

I doubt Craft is losing money or other quality brands. This statement above must be false.

hey, mad dog, Under Armour is like a $6B brand, #3 behind NIKE and adidas., and being primarily an apparel company, they make crap tons of money and profits off of apparel. Some of you guys are crazy not understanding the business.

Amazon, $85B (est)

NIKE, $30B

adidas, $23B

Under Armour, $5.6B

Puma, $4.2B

New Balance, $3.7B

Those are some of the biggest apparel companies.

That’s a micro percentage compared to how much of the population wears Nike, adidas, NB, ASICS and under armour gear.

Apparel needs to be big as everyday attire as well, and that is what you see with those brands.

I don’t see saucony gear in Marshalls, tjmaxx, Ross or Nordstrom rack. I see saucony in mostly specialty running stores, and the avg person does not shop at a running specialty store.

No one really wears it except for people in the running community, and that is a small base of people’s

However, a lot of people are wearing their vintage gym shoes , because sneaker heads are big on them.

El Cheapo wrote:

GH Sports is run by the late Greg Hind's family who founded Hind Performance Apparel.

They are a small family operation now.

https://www.ghsports.com/about-gh-sports

On their website it says they’ve been in business for 50 years. How is that possible they did business as and then sold Hind?

What is the point of buying another company and then keeping it alive?

Industry downturn wrote:

Saucony has stopped making apparel. That may seem like no big deal but it is the first domino.

Small time sponsorships will be the next thing to go.

I buy lower cost items on Amazon. They are just workout clothes.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Wejo,

Wonder how much NB makes from their deals with Liverpool, Porto, Sevilla and Stoke City. I'd be willing to bet it's a really, really good amount.

Hahaha they pay the clubs for this just like every brand, not the other way around. I'd say upwards of £20M annually for Liverpool, down to £2M-£5M for the smaller (but top flight) clubs like Stoke, Sevilla etc

Saucony made apparel?

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Smart move. No one wears it. That is just the truth .

Nike, Adidas, New Balance, Asics, under armour.... From an apparel stand point, that is what people wear.

I have yet to see anyone out in the open running or walking in saucony gear. In their running shoes? yes. Apparel? No.

Brooks is probably next. I rarely see people in Brooks apparel.

Those aforementioned brands have went the urban leisure route with their apparel, where as Saucony and Brooks didn't enter that realm. The gear is going to have to appeal to the non-running community as well. That is the only way to see apparel.

However, they have been focusing on a lot of throw back running shoes, and the young adults are eating them up. And their bullit shoes are really big in the Parkour community.

Wrong. Both Brooks and Saucony have/had plenty of lifestyle and athleisure wear.....it's not great and doesn't sell well, but they make it.

They did make athleisure apparel. It was called life on the run. That was their problem and where they lost a lot of money. If they just stuck to Omni tights, Boston Pants and the Vitarun collection, they’d be fine, but they didn’t. So next fall there will be select retailers that have their stuff. In regards to Amazon, they will still be on there, but only 3 retailers will be able to sell on it. Zappos. RRS, and someone else.

Saucony is not done making apparel, it is leaving store fronts, but will still be purchasable online. They are just not going to be in running stores, or other places. They are still making great shoes, still producing great athletes, their cloths are just going to be online now. Get your facts straight before you go spreading false information you trolls.