A Word about Tracksmith

vivalarepublica wrote:

Maybe the gear companies would like to do this, but they know who butters their bread. It's the folks that want to pay a boatload for the latest collection, style, technology, etc., Guys like us that want to keep it simple and old school, but still like decent technology in the gear, are not going to help their bottom line.

But what if [insert large running gear company] caught on with this trend. They came with a niche line with similar styles as Tracksmith, but with less hit the wallet. Would that be too much of a risk for a company to undertake?

See that is a good question!

To the guy before... I didn't mean that message board posts alone. I am speaking more generally about the attitude of serious, competitive runners (both on and offline). I would imagine this website is the most-visited by serious runners. I could be wrong.

I am also not saying that message board posts would make an existing company decide to pack up and move on, but what about the 17-year-old who might have a cool idea in the back of his head. What if he/she comes here daily and see new brands get trashed on the boards and then hears jokes about them during group runs. I would think he would be less likely to move forward with that idea. Maybe not. I was honestly just thinking about it and wanted other opinions.

It's fine that your opinion is different than mine. I stand by my statement that any entrepreneur worth a dam is not influenced by the things you seem so worried about.

In my experience, people who use the phrase "ridiculously overpriced" are always outside of the target demographic.

Every business hopes to make a lot of money. As for "taking advantage of rich people," that's what premium segments in EVERY market are for. The marginal value of money is less for wealthy people, and the trick is to figure out if the marginal difference in product quality outweighs the cost for that target demographic. In some product categories, there isn't much of a premium segment, because rich people simply don't care if the product is premium or not. But in many others, including clothing and sporting goods, wealthy people are often willing to pay a lot more for goods that are only slightly better. (In fact, some luxury markets are actually winner-take-all, where the absolute best product has very little elasticity of demand because for some people, the value of the product is the knowledge that it is "the best." Think of Birkin bags, for example.)

I'm not sure that Trackmith has the winning formula, and there are problems with trying to come up with a premium running brand. For example, we don't have the same style heritage to draw on that Rapha did with cycling. Another problem is that running clothing is so simple that even when cost is no object, it's hard to make something that's clearly "better" than your generic Nike stuff. Nevertheless, runners are a large and very wealthy demographic, and it's awfully surprising that a premium running brand hasn't emerged before now. Lululemon has tried, as did Brooks with the recent Pure Project.

I'm not sure that companies like Trackmith will help the sport either, but it's possible. Nike was an undeniably cool brand in the 70s and early 80s, and it was very much associated with running. That association made running cool. Under Armour has made football cool(er) as well, even though football didn't need much help.

If all you're saying is that Trackmith will fail, you may be right, but not for the reasons you suggest. There are lots of people who can afford their products. I for one would have no problem spending $65 on a pair of shorts if they were really excellent. They last a long time, and I spend a lot of my life running, so it's not really that big of an investment. Less than the cost of a decent round of golf. I think the real test is whether they can deliver the goods. If the gear is really excellent, both functionally and stylistically, then they'll do very well.

george oscar bluth wrote:

It's fine that your opinion is different than mine. I stand by my statement that any entrepreneur worth a dam is not influenced by the things you seem so worried about.

Of course you're right. I mean, otherwise a company like this would be making hundreds of millions of dollars letting brand managers know what people are saying about their products across Social Media communities:

Oh wait...

vivalarepublica wrote:

But what if [insert large running gear company] caught on with this trend. They came with a niche line with similar styles as Tracksmith, but with less hit the wallet. Would that be too much of a risk for a company to undertake?

Doesn't Adidas have a huge line of Adidas Originals?

+1

nice post

Detroit Radian Sixers wrote:

george oscar bluth wrote:

It's fine that your opinion is different than mine. I stand by my statement that any entrepreneur worth a damn is not influenced by the things you seem so worried about.

Of course you're right. I mean, otherwise a company like this would be making hundreds of millions of dollars letting brand managers know what people are saying about their products across Social Media communities:

http://www.salesforcemarketingcloud.com/products/social-media-listening/

Oh wait...

If you re-read the conversation, and it would appear it might take you a few times, you will see that I did not say that they should be neglecting all consumer feedback from social media. So the point you are trying to make is not relevant to my stance.

Obstinate wrote:

I wish we had a company that would make simple, high-quality running stuff for a decent price. Shorts for $25. Shirts for $25. Shoes for $50. Good stuff without the gimmicks. Pipe Dream? Maybe it is, but it would be cool for someone to try. Maybe it could have a cool 70s vibe mirroring the road racers of the time.

Just FYI, I've been buying shorts from BOA for years now. They have a one inch inseam "elite" short for $29. Simple, nice quality, affordable.

(note, you can get different colors than the highlighter yellow)

I actually really appreciate the link. Are the 1 inchers really short? I am not afraid of short shorts - especially for workouts and races - but I don't want to be too aggressive. I am not trying start a fight, just curious as to how you perceive them (you obviously like them). I know that 1 inch is 1 inch is 1 inch, but there is little consistency between brands, etc.

Thanks again.

So one upscale brand that I invested in for a while was Karhu. Not sure if they are still around (on phone and not wanting to look on Safari). They were similar but actually had a history. Not sure about performance, but I had a few running shirts from them that I loved. Wore them all the time and they lasted for about 5 years being used for both running and casual wear.

george oscar bluth wrote:

If you re-read the conversation, and it would appear it might take you a few times, you will see that I did not say that they should be neglecting all consumer feedback from social media. So the point you are trying to make is not relevant to my stance.

Oh... I get it. They should only ignore the consumer feedback on the most relevant running community on the entire internet. That makes sense.

All nasty trolling aside, the OP doesn't appear to be making any charges. I think it is more of a "runners tend to be unfriendly to new companies" statement and I kind of agree. I, for one, like the stuff and I hope we see more companies making this kind of thing. I loved the heritage stuff Nike did and I would love to have more of it. I just wish their heritage lines were actually usable and not just fashion oriented. How cool would a waffle racer be if you could really race in it?

No hard feelings. You seem like a sharp dude.

DenaliLama wrote:

Doesn't Adidas have a huge line of Adidas Originals?

Can you use them for sport? I know I bought a few Nike heritage items and they are cool but you cannot use them for running.

I played soccer through HS and I wonder if the Adidas Originals stuff is just for style or if you could really work out in it.

DenaliLama wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

But what if [insert large running gear company] caught on with this trend. They came with a niche line with similar styles as Tracksmith, but with less hit the wallet. Would that be too much of a risk for a company to undertake?

Doesn't Adidas have a huge line of Adidas Originals?

I just looked that stuff up. Great retro line. I love the jackets.

But it doesn't seem to include much functional athletic clothing. Most of the stuff seems to be focused on style.

I didn't say they should ignore the feedback here, either.

"The legitimate criticisms are attempts by runners to have something more targeted towards them, and the baseless flaming is not going to be a deterrent to anyone with business acumen."

I think you are in agreement with that, no?

FWIW Nike had a waffle (Zoom waffle flat?) in the early 2000s that was functional - I briefly trained and ran road races in it.

Obstinate wrote:

I actually really appreciate the link. Are the 1 inchers really short? I am not afraid of short shorts - especially for workouts and races - but I don't want to be too aggressive. I am not trying start a fight, just curious as to how you perceive them (you obviously like them). I know that 1 inch is 1 inch is 1 inch, but there is little consistency between brands, etc.

Thanks again.

They're a bit longer than but similar to the race shorts I was issued in high school and college.

george oscar bluth wrote:

I think you are in agreement with that, no?

FWIW Nike had a waffle (Zoom waffle flat?) in the early 2000s that was functional - I briefly trained and ran road races in it.

100% in agreement with you.

I am going to look into those flats. Maybe someone has some on eBay. Thanks for the heads up.

800 dude wrote:

If the gear is really excellent, both functionally and stylistically, then they'll do very well.

Apparel is a notoriously fickle industry, and peddling trendy men's running clothes exclusively via a Website is rife with problems. Sans any retail outlets and a women's product line, they'll burn through that VC scratch in a hurry.

Obstinate wrote:

Think abut Under Armour. What if the football guys had said, "what a bunch of idiots. Who needs a $30 rash guard? No way." That company is rivaling Nike in many sports and is now bigger than Adidas.

Wow you are right at least in terms of market cap. Under Armour with very little presence in running has a market cap bigger than adidas.

adidas stock has tanked this month and is down nearly 40% from its high this year but Under Armour is worth more despite having only 2.6 billion in sales last year to adidas $19B.

6 times less in sales and its worth more.

Dr. Cheswick wrote:

Apparel is a notoriously fickle industry, and peddling trendy men's running clothes exclusively via a Website is rife with problems. Sans any retail outlets and a women's product line, they'll burn through that VC scratch in a hurry.

There is an interesting thing with men's apparel: we are less likely to want to try it on prior to buying. If you look outside of running at companies like Bonobos and other brands, they really elevated their sales by strictly relying on Internet sales and promotion (initially). The website was king. As they continued to grow, they turned their focus to other areas, but you could say that was due to entering the women's market.

You are right that apparel is extremely fickle and hard to replicate. What works with one brand might totally fail with another. We'll have to see what happens.