Vaporfly 4% such a good shoe even New Balance sponsored athletes use them

Not Cuan Walker wrote:

...and Cuan Walker doesn't even work for them. He is just one of those people who is a fan of Nike more than running. Nothing more embarrassing than pretending you're sponsored or acting like you are.

Agreed - that makes it even more embarrassing.

Stephen Scullion an Under Armour athlete is also racing on the road in blacked out Nike 4% shoes. I always thought that if you were under contract you had to wear that companies shoes???

A number of multi-eventers sponsored by shoe companies that don't make field event shoes wear a lycra spat or cover with their brands logo on them.

Seems to me that Nike even had a jumper wearing another companies shoes since they liked them more and performed in them better. They were covered with a swoosh.

Painting a shoe with other markings though unusual, probably doesn't break any contracts.

Clueless in Canada wrote:

ha!!! wrote:

I'm sure Sketchers is stoked that in a major championship race Gollish (Canadian) decided she needed the Nike shoe edge. Interesting to see that she selectively cropped that photo for her blog. Classic.

Skechers Canada does not sell actual racing shoes in Canada so it's possible she had to wear something usable in a race. As well, she is in the Nike Team Canada outfit so it's possible she didn't even have a choice.

They sell the Go Mebs up here, and if even if they didn't, I would think someone who was given access to their prototype spikes would be able to get a pair.

Also, shoes are not a part of the team kit.

Blankness wrote:

John Clendon wrote:

[quote]lkj wrote:

Desi did the same thing with her Brooks at Boston, blacked them all out.

Why in the world would a shoe company want one of their athletes to run in a shoe (at a race as prominent as Boston, no less) that is basically impossible for 99.9+% of observers to identify as their brand ??

Because the only people squinting at shoe logos are hardcore running nerds who will be MORE excited about a blacked out prototype than a commercially available racing flat.

The spectator marketing value on the day of the race comes from the uniform, which is far more legible.

And the real marketing value is in the sponsor using the athlete’s image in subsequent advertising.

Yesterday as I was running through a public park I noticed a fat guy wearing either the Zoom Flys or Vaporflys (light blue with a dash of red). He looked like the guy on the fat boy slim cover, seriously.

https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&ei=2G5zW9rVHMzR-Qbun7TwDw&q=Fatboy%20Slim%20You%27ve%20Come%20a%20Long%20Way%2C%20Baby&gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TcwLIsvyDIzYAQAF1wDVw&oq=fat+boy+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.1.0j46i10j0l3.4084.9253..11061...1.0..0.320.1626.2-5j1......0....1j5.......5..46j35i39j46i39j0i131j46i131.e0R0GR6ckLw&ved=0ahUKEwjVsomM4u3cAhWBVrwKHW1DCSgQ7HIIJigA&tbm=isch&tbo=u#imgrc=yQI_DVc_eDTYBM

:

Soon gangster rappers will be wearing them, great.

doctorj wrote:

Most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

raymondy wrote:

Not Cuan Walker wrote:

...and Cuan Walker doesn't even work for them. He is just one of those people who is a fan of Nike more than running. Nothing more embarrassing than pretending you're sponsored or acting like you are.

Agreed - that makes it even more embarrassing.

First off, where did I say I am sponsored by Nike or pretend to be sponsored by Nike if I enjoy a brand?!

First off, I do often get product from Nike direct. I get a lot of stuff actually from them and I also buy things when or how I feel, and also got a lot of things from friends whenever I’m in Kenya. But just getting product from Nike does not mean that I am sponsored nor do I say I am sponsored by Nike.

I don’t need you to tell me what I can or can’t post on my own Instagram. I don’t know you and you don’t know me.

Idiots

Also saw that Ketema from Austria who finished 8th in European Champs and is an Adidas athlete also ran in a blacked out vaporfly

800 dude wrote:

Blankness wrote:

Why in the world would a shoe company want one of their athletes to run in a shoe (at a race as prominent as Boston, no less) that is basically impossible for 99.9+% of observers to identify as their brand ??

Because the only people squinting at shoe logos are hardcore running nerds who will be MORE excited about a blacked out prototype than a commercially available racing flat.

The spectator marketing value on the day of the race comes from the uniform, which is far more legible.

And the real marketing value is in the sponsor using the athlete’s image in subsequent advertising.

I don't know much about running shoe marketing/advertising (and perhaps the "experts" in those fields don't know as much as they think, either), but I can imagine that points 2 and 3 are valid. Not real persuasive on point one, though. I presume that the return on exciting the nerds is undetectable. But casual observers CAN tell what BRAND of shoe one is wearing (regardless of what model it is). Does it make sense to give away thousands of casual viewers seeing the winner of Boston in Brooks in order to excite nerds? I wouldn't think so.

Blankness wrote:

John Clendon wrote:

Wrong. That was a proto shoe from Brooks at the time.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Biw4w-bA4Zq/?hl=en&taken-by=des_linden

She even posted the actual shoe. Same idea as nike with a thicker midsole and new foam.

But that New Balance athlete is obviously wearing Nike sole +midsole with a 1400 upper on top.

Why in the world would a shoe company want one of their athletes to run in a shoe (at a race as prominent as Boston, no less) that is basically impossible for 99.9+% of observers to identify as their brand ??

Because if the run bad no harm...but if they run good it's press release time!