New Balance, Brooks, Asics, Saucony: should be very concerned with Nike's latest move

Nike will never overtake other companies with the "serious" runner because their durability is such crap. Any "serious" runner who does 40mpw would have to replace them roughly every two months. Maybe others have had better luck but most of my nike's crap out around 250 miles.

Nike will be back in the game when they sign Lonzo Ball and release his signature shoe, The Nike Air Ball.

I wear Asics DS-Trainer 22's and they last 250 miles. That's pretty much industry standard.

What? I have been wearing my streak 6 for 5 months already, and I am running 70mpw.

This. OP is a dunce.

breakdown wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Huh? Pegs have never been a streetwear shoe. In fact, they've long been the only Nike shoe that serious runners consider.

In any event, I wouldn't expect Nike to make many inroads with regular runners, at least in the short term. It doesn't really matter if they make a few good shoes this year. It takes a long time to change brand perceptions, and most runners don't perceive Nikes to be serious running shoes. Nike also doesn't have much shelf space at specialty running stores, and that's a big part of brand perception.

Nike does just fine selling running shoes to non-runners who shop at Dick's. People who run regularly, even the hobby-jogging masses, are still a niche market.

This. OP is a dunce.

Pegs have never been street use? Where have you been living? Do you live in such a poor area that people don't buy these? Go to a Nike store and watch people buy pegs as non running use. Or go to Nordstrom, they sell pegs like hot cakes. I guarantee they're not buying for running but for street use.

If you currently wear asics, brooks or Saucony and Nike had shoes that's similar to what you like, majority of you would switch to Nikes in a heartbeat. Why wear ugly shoes when you don't have to. And Nike has doubled down on getting the running enthusiasts away from niche brands like brooks.

While I generally agree with this statement - I will say the Wild Horse 3 Trail shoe is bomber proof. The shoe is on a different level durability wise. I'm at 500 miles on a pair now and I don't see it slowing down.

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Nike will never overtake other companies with the "serious" runner because their durability is such crap. Any "serious" runner who does 40mpw would have to replace them roughly every two months. Maybe others have had better luck but most of my nike's crap out around 250 miles.

Byebye brooks wrote:

Pegs have never been street use? Where have you been living? Do you live in such a poor area that people don't buy these? Go to a Nike store and watch people buy pegs as non running use. Or go to Nordstrom, they sell pegs like hot cakes. I guarantee they're not buying for running but for street use.

Your initial claim, however, was that the Pegasus was made and marketed as a streetwear shoe and that Nike was just now making it into a serious running shoe. That's ridiculous. It was always a serious running shoe. I don't think anyone doubts that Pegs are in fact worn as streetwear shoes, but that's a different issue entirely.

And as for the "poor areas" where people don't buy Pegs, I think you have it backwards. It's poor neighborhoods where people care about trendy sneakers. Upper middle class people don't really do "streetwear," and if they wear sneakers casually, it's more likely to be New Balance than Nike.

How dare the trendies and fatties co-opt the nikes as a fashion statement?

We need some justice

Of you with no knowledge of how much Pegs sell as casual wear shows you probably live somewhere in the midwest. You may feel like you've made it, but you have no idea until you make it out to the coast.

I never made claim that Pegs were made as street wear. I said they are attractive as streetwear even though they're running shoes. Pegs are running shoes, but catered to use as street wear as well. Now, with Pegs 34, my stance is that Nike's shifting to focus more for serious runners.

I know Nike has always made shoes for serious runners, but I think they are going full force with this to take the market share back from other brands in the niche category of attracting serious runners.

Hi byebye brooks... glad you are a big fan, and runner, of the Nike Pegasus.

Just want to share with you, as a Nike insider, we are not doing anything different with the Pegasus 34! It will continue to be our neutral cushioning workhorse!

JUST DO IT

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Nike will never overtake other companies with the "serious" runner because their durability is such crap. Any "serious" runner who does 40mpw would have to replace them roughly every two months. Maybe others have had better luck but most of my nike's crap out around 250 miles.

Most "serious runners" have a few shoes (workhorse(s) + go fast/tempo and probably a racer/flat) on the go and are probably stocking up every 6 months when something gets superseded or goes on sale.

Are these 'serious' runners replacing them at 80mi or when they're going to crap @ 250mi?

Brand's a preference thing, or whatever groupthink influence is going on to persuade people. Nike's working for me, but that's not to say they're any better than others.

Roger Murdoch wrote:

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Nike will never overtake other companies with the "serious" runner because their durability is such crap. Any "serious" runner who does 40mpw would have to replace them roughly every two months. Maybe others have had better luck but most of my nike's crap out around 250 miles.

Most "serious runners" have a few shoes (workhorse(s) + go fast/tempo and probably a racer/flat) on the go and are probably stocking up every 6 months when something gets superseded or goes on sale.

Are these 'serious' runners replacing them at 80mi or when they're going to crap @ 250mi?

Brand's a preference thing, or whatever groupthink influence is going on to persuade people. Nike's working for me, but that's not to say they're any better than others.

Hang on, I butchered that.

250mi = 6 1/4 weeks. Not a long time. Apologies for my prior idiotic calculations. People still ought to have multiple shoes if they're half 'serious'

If Nike are a running brand why do they no longer stock any of the major running companies in the U.K.? You want to get Nike shoes you either have to go to Nike.com or a big box/fashion store. Barely any of the specialist shops stock them. I've just worn a pair Nike lunarglide 8 which were given to me. The durability of these were truly shocking. After a week I could feel stones through the forefoot and after two weeks they were done.

Snikey wrote:

If Nike are a running brand why do they no longer stock any of the major running companies in the U.K.? You want to get Nike shoes you either have to go to Nike.com or a big box/fashion store. Barely any of the specialist shops stock them. I've just worn a pair Nike lunarglide 8 which were given to me. The durability of these were truly shocking. After a week I could feel stones through the forefoot and after two weeks they were done.

Nike are still in most of the running stores I go to (Belfast, NI). I wore the lunarglide 7 and they were great but tried on the 8's and they felt like crap comparatively.

Reptilians wrote:

Nike's road flats and track spikes are superior to any other, except for some competition from Adidas in the road flat category.

Nike elite athletes wear bespoke shoes and spikes because what they sell to the regular Joe Public is utterly sh1t. What NB, Adidas, Hoka and Saucony give to their elites can also be worn by you. For years Geb wore the cheapest pair of adidas distance spikes on the market. Adidas' Adios has long been considered the premier road flat on the market, hence 4 marathon WRs in a row.

Nike is just a drug cartel.

I didn't realize that Brooks dominated the running shoe market.

If you look at the Diamond League, all you see is Nike, a few Asics then very little of anything else. You have to look quite hard to see a Brooks athlete.

I guess this proves that there is very little (if any) correlation between elite athlete sponsorship and shoe sales.

Byebye brooks wrote:

If you currently wear asics, brooks or Saucony and Nike had shoes that's similar to what you like, majority of you would switch to Nikes in a heartbeat. Why wear ugly shoes when you don't have to. And Nike has doubled down on getting the running enthusiasts away from niche brands like brooks.

I've always thought the Swoosh was kind of ugly. And isn't the point that Nike isn't making shoes similar to what people running in those shoes like?