We changed the title of the thread once we got access to the press release. We initially titled it, "Under new CEO E. Hill, Nike says it's back into growth and innovation. Coming soon: the world's "first motor-powered running" shoe"
By market cap, Nike is twice as big as anyone else. But don't tell that to new CEO Elliott Hill, “We’re at our best when we’re competing. And not only competing, but competing and winning... On my first day, I stood up on stage and my first slide said we are a sport company and we are a growth company, and they’re not mutually exclusive. And when we invite eight billion consumers into the world of sport, I like our chances of growing."
How will they grow? They say they want to be innovative as they claim they will soon have the world's "First motor-powered running and walking shoe."
Nike calls this motorised shoe Project Amplify and likens it toNike calls this motorised shoe Project Amplify and likens it to an ebike for feet, allowing the general population – rather than serious runners – to run or walk far quicker than they otherwise would do.How much quicker? In testing, the company’s researchers found that athletes experienced anywhere from a 9-22% improvement in metabolic effort. In other words, like going from a 12-minute mile to a 10-minute mile, using the same effort. an ebike for feet, allowing the general population – rather than serious runners – to run or walk far quicker than they otherwise would do.
How much quicker? In testing, the company’s researchers found that athletes experienced anywhere from a 9-22% improvement in metabolic effort. In other words, like going from a 12-minute mile to a 10-minute mile, using the same effort.
This motor shoe wasn't directly about improving metabolic effort, though I guess it would have by way of it's function - it was meant to detect differences in ground force pressure across different surfaces and adjust cushioning accordingly. Run on softer ground it would "tighter" up cushioning, run on harder ground it would do the opposite. Ultimately it wasn't really innovation - more of an invention and gadget that didn't solve any actual problem any athlete had. It did spark the then CMO of the brand, Eric Stamminger, to famous declare at a large brand meeting that in a decades time "all shoes will have motors in them".
The reason it failed? Well aside from it not solving an actual problem, it was heavy, expensive and it was a motor which needed some form of energy supply. Oh and it was simply unreliable because turns out putting a motor into an object that is consistently getting smashed into the ground isn't good for it.
What problem does this really solve for runners? People might point to supershoes as a similar thing but they aren't really - there is no external power supply that generates anything like a shoe with a motor would. Supershoes help you get closer to your maximum potential but they don't increase that ceiling. I can't see any serious runner wanting to wear a shoe with a motor in it. So what about non-serious runners then? Are they the ones Nike thinks will be paying the premium for a shoe with a motor in it? The ones who want the added weight and clutter of a shoe with a motor? The hassle of dealing with it when it goes wrong? What on earth is the market fit here?
Do walkers want to walk faster? Do they even want to walk "easier"? This sounds like a classic modern "innovators" circle jerk - sitting round creating fake problems to solve in the most complicated way and framing up as "innovation". A few "well if Steve Jobs had stopped when people told him he was crazy where would we be now huh" and it just snowballs from there.
It's clear Nike need to repair the perception that they are an innovative brand, which is in reality far more valuable that the reality of being an actually innovative brand. I just can't believe that after also realizing one of the ways they massively botched the last half decade was moving away from real sport and real athlete performance, that this is one of the executions they think turns that around. What real athlete wants a motor in their shoe to fudge their ability? More utter nonsense.
I don't think it's fair to compare 20 years ago technology to today's technology, but you do make some valid points. But I'm not sure you're thinking this through completely.
First of all, if it actually helped you walk easier, a whole lot of crippled people would be waiting in line for it and if their insurance was paying they'd happily buy them. If an evolved version of this had major performance enhancing benefits maybe a serious runner wouldn't want to use it but I could see parkour guys buying this up. If it allowed you to run fast for extended periods, special forces would be all over it. Police too.
I see people on e bikes and motorized scooters all the time. I don't have one but I've considered buying an e bike to follow my daughter around on runs to keep her safe when she has to run alone (the HS coach does that when the team is out training). Not because I don't ever want to pedal myself, but because I'm not sure I always want to pedal. If I had to choose between an e-bike and e-shoes I'd take the shoes in a heartbeat. I'm sure our coach would much rather be able to run with his kids than follow them on a scooter.
When the Segway came out it was considered stupid but it actually found a market in huge warehouses and other places where people walk long distances all day on their job. I don't know how common it is but I've been on vacations where Segway tours were offered (no thanks, but some people must be doing it). So these shoes could find a home there too. Maybe people here underestimate how difficult moving is for some people.
I don't know if Nike will succeed but I'm pretty certain that robotic exoskeleton devices will be huge in the future so I don't think they are stupid to make inroads into the market.
As far as myself, I can think of some instances where I'd maybe want this but if you brainstorm the future potential of robotics, I'm much more excited about the pair of shoes that will let me dunk a basketball and high jump 8 feet than I am about something that will do the work for me while I go for a run.
Sounds like a great way to strain, pull, and tear muscles that won’t be able to handle the speed and repeated ground impact.
Your point is totally valid but I don't think you're giving the engineers enough credit. Do you think they didn't think of that? Obviously the project is a major failure if people get hurt and end up suing Nike.
This is hilarious. My fat old ass will be able to keep up with college kids running the park and annoy them to no end.
Actually, no you won't. So these shoes may be able to move your feet quicker so what? What about the rest of your body and the strain on other areas to keep up with faster moving feet?
Yeah, actually I will to an extent. I won't break that easily. Same effort = 9 - 22% faster paces.
Sal, as much as I may agree with you that Nike offerings often seem more about fashion and lack appeal to the serious athlete, you must concede that the four-percent project circa 2016 that gave rise to the supershoe generation was a very real and important athletic innovation.
These things are injury boots. They'll overload the muscles, tendons, bones, cartilage of the wearer injuring them.
It's like in my competitive days. Coming back from an injury my aerobic system would improve quicker than my physical structure. I'd have to very carefully watch my workload to make sure I wasn't overloading my body resulting in injury again.
Sal, as much as I may agree with you that Nike offerings often seem more about fashion and lack appeal to the serious athlete, you must concede that the four-percent project circa 2016 that gave rise to the supershoe generation was a very real and important athletic innovation.
When did I say it wasn't? I actually made the specific comment that this and the 4% project are very very different.
The biggest difference is that the 4% project was centered around two very important things - 1) selling the dream of achieving something though impossible and 2) doing it through the lens of performance sport. This is exactly what a sports brand should be doing and it's why it was just Nike's best (and last) product/marketing campaign they did in the last 25 years, it (as you alluded to) changed the industry as every brand essentially followed them.
This is a (surely) expensive gimmick/gadget. "This could make a 12min miler a 10min miler" - seriously think about this. Which 12 minute miler out there is desperately aspiring to run a 10min mile? Even if they were, who is going to pay the money to do this or commit to wearing this (because there is 100% a social stigma aspect attached to it).
If it is a gadget to help people with disabilities walk better then kudos to Nike for supporting that, but this feels like something I would promote as a partnership vs my CEO claiming it as the forefront of my brands newfound push to once again be perceived as a sports brand focussed on athlete targeted innovation.
All ebikes do is provide access to park trails for people who are not athletic, and create danger for pedestrians on sidewalks and trails. Just use a real bike or jog.
Nike emphasizes their mission continues to be cantered around athletes
yet this shoe targets people running 10-12 minutes miles , do you consider such a person an athlete?
My Mom hoofs 3 miles around her neighborhood every day at about 17 minute pace. She's 78. I actually don't really think of her as an athlete, but I think she's awesome. I'm guess you're young an male. You might feel differently about what constitutes an athlete if you were old or female or disabled.
I actually think this is interesting because of the positive impact it might in fact have on old people and people suffering from various disabilities like cerebral palsy and people with paraplegia that still have some ability to move their lower extremities. The first group is obviously the largest. My Dad has had more health issues than my Mom and is in his 80s. He walks daily but it becomes harder every year.
“It's clear Nike need to repair the perception that they are an innovative brand, which is in reality far more valuable that the reality of being an actually innovative brand. I just can't believe that after also realizing one of the ways they massively botched the last half decade was moving away from real sport and real athlete performance, that this is one of the executions they think turns that around. What real athlete wants a motor in their shoe to fudge their ability? More utter nonsense.”
Sal, as much as I may agree with you that Nike offerings often seem more about fashion and lack appeal to the serious athlete, you must concede that the four-percent project circa 2016 that gave rise to the supershoe generation was a very real and important athletic innovation.
When did I say it wasn't? I actually made the specific comment that this and the 4% project are very very different.
The biggest difference is that the 4% project was centered around two very important things - 1) selling the dream of achieving something though impossible and 2) doing it through the lens of performance sport. This is exactly what a sports brand should be doing and it's why it was just Nike's best (and last) product/marketing campaign they did in the last 25 years, it (as you alluded to) changed the industry as every brand essentially followed them.
This is a (surely) expensive gimmick/gadget. "This could make a 12min miler a 10min miler" - seriously think about this. Which 12 minute miler out there is desperately aspiring to run a 10min mile? Even if they were, who is going to pay the money to do this or commit to wearing this (because there is 100% a social stigma aspect attached to it).
If it is a gadget to help people with disabilities walk better then kudos to Nike for supporting that, but this feels like something I would promote as a partnership vs my CEO claiming it as the forefront of my brands newfound push to once again be perceived as a sports brand focussed on athlete targeted innovation.
Maybe Nike is for seeing a future with more robotics in athletics? Hell, we already have the robot marathon runner. Maybe Nike is seeing a future rising interest in Special Olympics due to the increase of PEDs in sport. Maybe people will be more inclined to watch athletes cheat by way of robotics vs chemical compounds.
Which 12 minute miler out there is desperately aspiring to run a 10min mile?
Sal, I usually find your posts very well-reasoned but I think a fast-person bias is showing here. I think the running world is full of older people who are now slow but used to be much faster and would happily fork over $$$ to be faster again, even if only for jogging around the neighborhood (hopefully not for cheating in races). I wouldn't buy these now, but give me 5-10 years and I might...
