Nike Falling Out of Favor

Former Swoosh Guy wrote:

The company has lost the magic.

The current senior leadership is comprised of technocrats that have no concept about product, marketing, emotional connections, etc. The joint is run by a former Ebay exec, a former Walmart exec, and a ton of soulless ex-McKinsey and Bain people. They are more motivated by grinding out efficiencies and margins than by creating innovative and exciting products for athletes.

They also fixated on a consumer direct approach to sales. While that makes some sense in the online age, they sh*t on a lot of longtime retail partners and are starting to realize that consumers still like trying things on and the instant gratification of walking out of a store with something new. Last week, they brought back from retirement the guy that cultivated all of the retail partner relationships of the glory days.

A lot of the old guard is retired. Phil is fixated on his legacy, a University of Oregon football national title, and Oregon politics. Layoffs and restructurings have ousted a lot of longtime passionate people that lived for the brand. The CEO has mandated that employees have to be in the office four days a week while he continues to work full-time from his home office in Silicon Valley. I hear from friends still working inside the berm that the place is equal parts "Lord of The Flies" and the douchiest Greek house that ever existed. Once upon a time, you clamored to work at Nike because it was cool. Now, the new generation thinks that they are cool because they pull a paycheck from Nike. Great ideas get shot down because that makes higher ups feel threatened and marginally talented brown nosers get promoted for being obedient little suck ups. This has been going on for years and now Nike is harvesting what they have sown.

Right now, I am happy that I dumped my Nike holdings about two years ago. When John Donahoe took over, I had a gut feeling that things were going to go south. If I hadn't trusted that feeling, I would be looking for work today instead of enjoying retirement.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

800 dude wrote:

You just made stuff up. Go look at Runningwarehouse or Nike.com. Nike’s trainers range from $140-180, which is standard. Asics trainers are $140-200. NB $140-165. Brooks $140-200.

Nike’s racing shoes are $250-285, which is also typical. Saucony’s racing shoes are $225-275. Asics $250. NB $250. Adidas $300-500. Hoka $275. Puma $260-350.

All of the major brands price their shoes competitively with one another.

You listed the price for Nike's clunkier sub-mid-grade shoes and then compared it with the prices of the top of the lines elite shoes for everyone else, which certainly proves a lot. The brands I mentioned retail most of their better models at $110-150, and no one's paying the prices you mentioned unless they're special limited release elite shoes.

I probably should have searched your comment history before I bothered replying. You talk down to everyone like they're trash. Whether or not you're trolling, you're not worth the trouble.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Nike's biggest barrier to the mainstream market today isn't the quality of their product or whether their social policies are woke or not. Nike's problem is their product is simply far more expensive than other widely available running shoes.

When they were essentially the only, coolest game in town for fitness shoes and apparel decades ago, leaps and bounds ahead of their competitors, they could do this to their heart's content and print money.

Today, so many other top and lesser but still notable brands have emerged as options, and Nike's charging $250-350 for a pair of good trainers or flats when for that much money I can go buy 2-3 good pairs of shoes from Brooks, NB, Saucony, Underarmour, Topo, Asics, Salomon, whoever the hell else.

If Nike's shoes aren't hands down better and more durable than anyone else in every single way, why would I bother buying $350 Nike shoes at all? A carbon plate that might make me a couple ticks faster in a race at my absolute best? When I'm not getting paid to do that? Come on now.

There will always be supporters and diehards who will buy their products, but they've lost a chunk of the mainstream population for good if they don't lower their prices. No amount of clever marketing is going to get it back if shoes still cost $260 or $350 and people are mostly struggling to make ends meet.

I don't know what it costs them to produce a pair of shoes, so I don't know how unworkable it is for them to bring their prices back to Earth. But they're not getting any of their old market share back at those prices.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

800 dude wrote:

You just made stuff up. Go look at Runningwarehouse or Nike.com. Nike’s trainers range from $140-180, which is standard. Asics trainers are $140-200. NB $140-165. Brooks $140-200.

Nike’s racing shoes are $250-285, which is also typical. Saucony’s racing shoes are $225-275. Asics $250. NB $250. Adidas $300-500. Hoka $275. Puma $260-350.

All of the major brands price their shoes competitively with one another.

You listed the price for Nike's clunkier sub-mid-grade shoes and then compared it with the prices of the top of the lines elite shoes for everyone else, which certainly proves a lot. The brands I mentioned retail most of their better models at $110-150, and no one's paying the prices you mentioned unless they're special limited release elite shoes.

I probably should have searched your comment history before I bothered replying. You talk down to everyone like they're trash. Whether or not you're trolling, you're not worth the trouble.