Title. Adidas had a surprise hit with the SL20 and RC 2.0. They release the sl20.2 as a very different shoe without explanation, and release a women’s RC3.0 without any fanfare or explanation as to why there is no men’s.
Reebok, after not having a spike for sale for what, 2+ years, releases a RBTC spike. No info on it at all on the site. No description, so specs. Just a page with 3 strange, off-angle pictures.
Even puma, diving back into the distance world, starts picking up pros all over and the shoes are only available overseas. No major messaging.
Nike absolutely ignores the streak line and doesn’t publicize the spike-flat in any way. Why? Why not make money by encouraging people to have a “training” spike/flat and a racing spike/flat?
All these companies prioritize athletes with social media, but don’t communicate their products worth a damn. Whyyyyyy?
Why is shoe marketing so BAD?
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
I don't think shoe companies need to care much about runners.
The main market are normal people who never run. That's where the bucks are made.
Hokas for example are mostly worn by people who have PI issues not by people who win Western States. -
Leo Burnett wrote:
I don't think shoe companies need to care much about runners.
The main market are normal people who never run. That's where the bucks are made.
Seems the case when you look at their websites and try to narrow the selection down to running shoes. They'll be a mixture of actual running shoes, "fitness/athletic shoes:", etc. For example, this fashion piece is under "running shoes" on Nike's site:
https://www.nike.com/t/jordan-zoom-trunner-ultimate-running-shoe-bW1Dzz/CJ1495-301 -
I guess I’m just surprised that this is purposeful. Especially considering that it’s not like it would be a big use of budget to have someone type up a product description or a release notification. I mean, if they spend the time and money developing the shoes, are they just expecting the market for those shoes to figure it out?
Just seems so bizarre. -
There is an old saying in marketing and advertising circles: "If you don't understand it, then you are not the target audience."
-
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
There is an old saying in marketing and advertising circles: "If you don't understand it, then you are not the target audience."
This doesn't really address the OP's question. On the one hand, I appreciate expertise and experience. VERY few of us have worked for a shoe company. On the other hand, when questions like this periodically come up running shoe marketing, we often get kinda smarty-pants "answers" from folks that don't really, or at least fully, address the question.
If these companies simply didn't make shoes intended for "serious" runners, got it. It's not "where the money is." But they do. Once they do, it's reasonable to ask why they seem to do things to turn off and/or confuse those consumers? Common examples, in addition to those above:
- Make a model runners like. Get rid of it. No replacement. Or at least no clear replacement. For recent Nike examples (of NO replacement), see Streak, Streak LT, Peg Turbo.....
- Make a model runners like. Change it constantly, often in ways lots of runners don't like.
- Name and constantly re-name your shoes in ways that are confusing. See Clown Shoes....and lots of others.
And it was funny to see the mention of Puma. I too saw the story on the front page about them newly-sponsoring some US runners. In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird. -
NikeSlow wrote:
In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird.
This was so hard.
https://us.puma.com/
(they launched their 'comeback' line today) -
Yeah, I would have purchased a pair of Peg turbos for the next 10 versions based off using the 2s.
Also if adidas would clear up their naming confusion I would be interested in giving their shoes a shot but I can’t tell what is what. Adios adizero adipro lightstrike boost....this isn’t hard.
I just continue to give Brooks my money for Glycerin 18s same as I did when I had Glycerin 8s 10 years ago. -
onlineshopper wrote:
NikeSlow wrote:
In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird.
This was so hard.
https://us.puma.com/
(they launched their 'comeback' line today)
OK, I could have taken SOME of the emphasis off that. But from a marketing/availability/visibility standpoint, not much. Zero Puma running shoes at Running Warehouse or Road Runner Sports. Google (Shopping) Puma Running Shoes, and one mostly sees the Puma website. What fraction of a percent is their US market share right now? And what will it be in 6, 12, or 24 months? But sponsoring US runners..... -
I mean...the team isn't even named. This "nitro" line is just starting its rollout along with the sponsorships as they try to get back into the market.
No one is arguing that they've got any market share right now, but someone from Puma was just interviewed on the Believe in the Run podcast and the slow rollout coming from years of total absence makes sense for them. They haven't made anything good for years and acknowledge that. Where they'll be 24 months from now is anyone's guess. Maybe it won't work at all and its all a waste of money, but judging what they have done versus what they are doing now and over the next couple years is harder than any other brand right now.
And complaining about sponsoring runners for someone who (I would guess) wants the sport to grow is weird. -
(and another note - they'll also be selling Puma via the Jackrabbit store network. Again, I think it's a matter of trying to be methodical about there comeback. There are logistics between being gone for years and scaling up production and buzz on the order of Running Warehouse or Road Runner Sports. We'll see if it works.)
-
Companies spend their advertising $ marketing the brand not individual models. Think about the auto companies. They are not pushing specific models generally (the exception is when introducing a brand new model) but rather the idea that they have models for everyone - and with shoe companies shoes for every type of runner.
Shoe models are changing all the time. They do this to try and stay ahead/keep up with competition. They don't care which shoe model you buy as long as you are loyal to the brand. -
onlineshopper wrote:
I mean...the team isn't even named. This "nitro" line is just starting its rollout along with the sponsorships as they try to get back into the market.
No one is arguing that they've got any market share right now, but someone from Puma was just interviewed on the Believe in the Run podcast and the slow rollout coming from years of total absence makes sense for them. They haven't made anything good for years and acknowledge that. Where they'll be 24 months from now is anyone's guess. Maybe it won't work at all and its all a waste of money, but judging what they have done versus what they are doing now and over the next couple years is harder than any other brand right now.
And complaining about sponsoring runners for someone who (I would guess) wants the sport to grow is weird.
I'm not here to beat up on Puma. In fact, they haven't been enough of a player in the US running shoe market for so long that it's difficult to have much of an opinion about them. And if they want to sponsor US runners, great. But it doesn't mean that runners chatting on running board might not scratch their heads out loud a bit about such a thing.
For whatever reason, it's easy for me to focus on Nike. As with any company, sponsor zero athletes, or sponsor a million athletes. I don't care a ton. But geez, as a company founded on running, just do simple things like keep models of your long-standing racing shoes around until you have replacement. ......and the Peg Turbo. -
JWT wrote:
Companies spend their advertising $ marketing the brand not individual models. Think about the auto companies. They are not pushing specific models generally (the exception is when introducing a brand new model) but rather the idea that they have models for everyone - and with shoe companies shoes for every type of runner.
Shoe models are changing all the time. They do this to try and stay ahead/keep up with competition. They don't care which shoe model you buy as long as you are loyal to the brand.
Not at all sure about this comparison. Just one example, and one could easily name a whole bunch more: Ford gets rid of the F150 out of the blue, no replacement. Ford constantly changes the name of Ford F150, making consumers confused about what is what? Ford doesn't ever do either of these things. Probably very good reasons for this. Many (all?) running shoes companies do. Hence the OP's question (and a common one). -
Not necessarily the same as marketing, but what the heck is happening at adidas right now? Their product lines are a mess. Inventory is non-existent for their "serious" running shoes--the Boston 9 and Adios 5 have disappeared from the US website and other places like Running Warehouse are basically out of stock. A few burry pictures of the new Boston, Adios, Adios Pro and Adizero Pro are floating around but there's been no official word about them. It seems like they're trying to get out of running altogether, except for a few lower-priced shoes and the Ultra Boost.
-
JWT wrote:
Companies spend their advertising $ marketing the brand not individual models. Think about the auto companies. They are not pushing specific models generally (the exception is when introducing a brand new model) but rather the idea that they have models for everyone - and with shoe companies shoes for every type of runner.
Shoe models are changing all the time. They do this to try and stay ahead/keep up with competition. They don't care which shoe model you buy as long as you are loyal to the brand.
You just compared the marketing to car manufacturers, and then excused an aspect of shoe development that is entirely oppositional to the car industry. No auto maker would turn a car that had been historically a truck into a compact car and not make a big press release about it.
Beyond advertisements, the shoe companies I listed don't even have accurate, if any, specs on these shoes. You said they have models for everyone--those models have individual, unique identities that they market! Why can't a shoe company? -
NikeSlow wrote:
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
There is an old saying in marketing and advertising circles: "If you don't understand it, then you are not the target audience."
This doesn't really address the OP's question. On the one hand, I appreciate expertise and experience. VERY few of us have worked for a shoe company. On the other hand, when questions like this periodically come up running shoe marketing, we often get kinda smarty-pants "answers" from folks that don't really, or at least fully, address the question.
If these companies simply didn't make shoes intended for "serious" runners, got it. It's not "where the money is." But they do. Once they do, it's reasonable to ask why they seem to do things to turn off and/or confuse those consumers? Common examples, in addition to those above:
- Make a model runners like. Get rid of it. No replacement. Or at least no clear replacement. For recent Nike examples (of NO replacement), see Streak, Streak LT, Peg Turbo.....
- Make a model runners like. Change it constantly, often in ways lots of runners don't like.
- Name and constantly re-name your shoes in ways that are confusing. See Clown Shoes....and lots of others.
And it was funny to see the mention of Puma. I too saw the story on the front page about them newly-sponsoring some US runners. In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird.
Marketing is all about tease and seduction. Most consumers will get a small taste, become intrigued, and then scour the web looking for more information like advance reviews. Why spend a ton of time on creative when most potential buyers are going to base their decision mostly off of a YouTube review. Your browser data will then be used to target you with secondary advertising with a call to action (BUY NOW @ ___________!!!) soon thereafter.
Product line decisions like drops and updates? Those are made for a myriad of reasons. Most often, sales will dictate what stays and what goes. Models like the Streak and Pegasus Turbo don't sell in great numbers compared to more standard models. They are niche shoes with a very low reward customer when compared to more standard models. Personally, I am rather surprised that the Streak Series lasted as long as it did. I speculate that the Peg Turbo was meant as a fast day companion for the standard Pegasus but became obsolete with more plated options being available. Most "serious" runners have a trainer and a racer. If you own a Peg 37 (or Zoom Fly 3) and a Next %, then you likely won't shell out another $180 for a non-plated tempo day shoe.
Footwear also operates much like the auto industry but with faster line turnovers. Today's foam/plate/silhouette/color/gimmick will be supplanted by another manufacturer's foam/plate/etc. within six months. That makes your current product "old" and banished to the clearance section at retail. Right now, there is an arms race going on because everyone wants the latest and greatest technology. I am sympathetic with runners that want a consistent fit and feel but, store buyers, influencers, and online reviewers will shun "old" stuff and it suffers sales losses. It is confusing but, right or wrong, the footwear companies feel the need to constantly keep things fresh. Remember adidas Boost? Five years ago, it was the sh**! Then Nike dropped Zoom X and Boost felt heavy and slow. Hoka did a carbon plate first, then Nike's carbon plate was stiffer, faster, and setting records. Now everyone is forced to do plated shoes to stay relevant. The North Face is doing plated TRAIL shoes now. When all is said and done, the big manufacturers will sell more units of "new" models than they will see second purchases of "old" favorites.
Someone mentioned that they can't find adidas Boston 9 and Adios models any longer. I understand that they are re-working all of their lightweight performance shoes to feature Lightstrike and either carbon plates/energy rods for 2021. I have seen the Boston 10 prototype and it is now a racing shoe with energy rods like the Adizero Adios Pro.
All change, all the time is the game now. Athletic footwear sales are up and Wall Street likes those numbers. Don't expect that to change in the near term. -
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
NikeSlow wrote:
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
There is an old saying in marketing and advertising circles: "If you don't understand it, then you are not the target audience."
This doesn't really address the OP's question. On the one hand, I appreciate expertise and experience. VERY few of us have worked for a shoe company. On the other hand, when questions like this periodically come up running shoe marketing, we often get kinda smarty-pants "answers" from folks that don't really, or at least fully, address the question.
If these companies simply didn't make shoes intended for "serious" runners, got it. It's not "where the money is." But they do. Once they do, it's reasonable to ask why they seem to do things to turn off and/or confuse those consumers? Common examples, in addition to those above:
- Make a model runners like. Get rid of it. No replacement. Or at least no clear replacement. For recent Nike examples (of NO replacement), see Streak, Streak LT, Peg Turbo.....
- Make a model runners like. Change it constantly, often in ways lots of runners don't like.
- Name and constantly re-name your shoes in ways that are confusing. See Clown Shoes....and lots of others.
And it was funny to see the mention of Puma. I too saw the story on the front page about them newly-sponsoring some US runners. In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird.
Marketing is all about tease and seduction. Most consumers will get a small taste, become intrigued, and then scour the web looking for more information like advance reviews. Why spend a ton of time on creative when most potential buyers are going to base their decision mostly off of a YouTube review. Your browser data will then be used to target you with secondary advertising with a call to action (BUY NOW @ ___________!!!) soon thereafter.
Product line decisions like drops and updates? Those are made for a myriad of reasons. Most often, sales will dictate what stays and what goes. Models like the Streak and Pegasus Turbo don't sell in great numbers compared to more standard models. They are niche shoes with a very low reward customer when compared to more standard models. Personally, I am rather surprised that the Streak Series lasted as long as it did. I speculate that the Peg Turbo was meant as a fast day companion for the standard Pegasus but became obsolete with more plated options being available. Most "serious" runners have a trainer and a racer. If you own a Peg 37 (or Zoom Fly 3) and a Next %, then you likely won't shell out another $180 for a non-plated tempo day shoe.
Footwear also operates much like the auto industry but with faster line turnovers. Today's foam/plate/silhouette/color/gimmick will be supplanted by another manufacturer's foam/plate/etc. within six months. That makes your current product "old" and banished to the clearance section at retail. Right now, there is an arms race going on because everyone wants the latest and greatest technology. I am sympathetic with runners that want a consistent fit and feel but, store buyers, influencers, and online reviewers will shun "old" stuff and it suffers sales losses. It is confusing but, right or wrong, the footwear companies feel the need to constantly keep things fresh. Remember adidas Boost? Five years ago, it was the sh**! Then Nike dropped Zoom X and Boost felt heavy and slow. Hoka did a carbon plate first, then Nike's carbon plate was stiffer, faster, and setting records. Now everyone is forced to do plated shoes to stay relevant. The North Face is doing plated TRAIL shoes now. When all is said and done, the big manufacturers will sell more units of "new" models than they will see second purchases of "old" favorites.
Someone mentioned that they can't find adidas Boston 9 and Adios models any longer. I understand that they are re-working all of their lightweight performance shoes to feature Lightstrike and either carbon plates/energy rods for 2021. I have seen the Boston 10 prototype and it is now a racing shoe with energy rods like the Adizero Adios Pro.
All change, all the time is the game now. Athletic footwear sales are up and Wall Street likes those numbers. Don't expect that to change in the near term.
I think saying "spend a lot of money on creative" is an exaggeration. We're talking about making sure specs are listed and having a blurb of information on the actual product page. Something like "Now even more versatile" written somewhere near the SL20.2 at least lets running shoe enthusiasts understand the REASON for the redesign. Having "men's sizes coming soon" on the women's RC3.0 encourages people to frequently revisit the page and look for the release. Stating whether or not the RBTC spike has ANY reason to be $150 would increase sales.
These are additions that absolutely do not take a large amount of spending from creative. they're details that help support the sale of the product. -
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
NikeSlow wrote:
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
There is an old saying in marketing and advertising circles: "If you don't understand it, then you are not the target audience."
This doesn't really address the OP's question. On the one hand, I appreciate expertise and experience. VERY few of us have worked for a shoe company. On the other hand, when questions like this periodically come up running shoe marketing, we often get kinda smarty-pants "answers" from folks that don't really, or at least fully, address the question.
If these companies simply didn't make shoes intended for "serious" runners, got it. It's not "where the money is." But they do. Once they do, it's reasonable to ask why they seem to do things to turn off and/or confuse those consumers? Common examples, in addition to those above:
- Make a model runners like. Get rid of it. No replacement. Or at least no clear replacement. For recent Nike examples (of NO replacement), see Streak, Streak LT, Peg Turbo.....
- Make a model runners like. Change it constantly, often in ways lots of runners don't like.
- Name and constantly re-name your shoes in ways that are confusing. See Clown Shoes....and lots of others.
And it was funny to see the mention of Puma. I too saw the story on the front page about them newly-sponsoring some US runners. In a country where you'd have to try REALLY hard to buy their running shoes (...if they even have any?). Weird.
Marketing is all about tease and seduction. Most consumers will get a small taste, become intrigued, and then scour the web looking for more information like advance reviews. Why spend a ton of time on creative when most potential buyers are going to base their decision mostly off of a YouTube review. Your browser data will then be used to target you with secondary advertising with a call to action (BUY NOW @ ___________!!!) soon thereafter.
Product line decisions like drops and updates? Those are made for a myriad of reasons. Most often, sales will dictate what stays and what goes. Models like the Streak and Pegasus Turbo don't sell in great numbers compared to more standard models. They are niche shoes with a very low reward customer when compared to more standard models. Personally, I am rather surprised that the Streak Series lasted as long as it did. I speculate that the Peg Turbo was meant as a fast day companion for the standard Pegasus but became obsolete with more plated options being available. Most "serious" runners have a trainer and a racer. If you own a Peg 37 (or Zoom Fly 3) and a Next %, then you likely won't shell out another $180 for a non-plated tempo day shoe.
Footwear also operates much like the auto industry but with faster line turnovers. Today's foam/plate/silhouette/color/gimmick will be supplanted by another manufacturer's foam/plate/etc. within six months. That makes your current product "old" and banished to the clearance section at retail. Right now, there is an arms race going on because everyone wants the latest and greatest technology. I am sympathetic with runners that want a consistent fit and feel but, store buyers, influencers, and online reviewers will shun "old" stuff and it suffers sales losses. It is confusing but, right or wrong, the footwear companies feel the need to constantly keep things fresh. Remember adidas Boost? Five years ago, it was the sh**! Then Nike dropped Zoom X and Boost felt heavy and slow. Hoka did a carbon plate first, then Nike's carbon plate was stiffer, faster, and setting records. Now everyone is forced to do plated shoes to stay relevant. The North Face is doing plated TRAIL shoes now. When all is said and done, the big manufacturers will sell more units of "new" models than they will see second purchases of "old" favorites.
Someone mentioned that they can't find adidas Boston 9 and Adios models any longer. I understand that they are re-working all of their lightweight performance shoes to feature Lightstrike and either carbon plates/energy rods for 2021. I have seen the Boston 10 prototype and it is now a racing shoe with energy rods like the Adizero Adios Pro.
All change, all the time is the game now. Athletic footwear sales are up and Wall Street likes those numbers. Don't expect that to change in the near term.
It would be really interesting to know the precise reason(s) for some of the decisions. And what the data looks like. I have no doubt that you're right about describing a Streak as a niche product that earns them fairly little. But that's not enough to fully explain it, because the Streak was around for quite a few years, and one can trace a nearly or completely uninterrupted string of predecessors back to the Nike Eagle (or maybe even a few more years back with the Elite). American Eagle, Duelist, Spiridon, Spiridon Gold, etc. That's over 40 years, now.
Were the Streak's sales EVEN lower than its predecessors? Does the existence of $250+ racing shoes fundamentally change things with regard to whether you want to sell an Eagle/Streak-like shoe? Both, other things.....???
One last thought: If Nike was a MUCH smaller company, I might understand the elimination of bare bones racer more. But they make a gazzillion shoes (and bazzillion other products), and they've made such a shoe for going on half a century. If Reebok and Saucony and a number of other MUCH smaller companies find a bare bones racer still "worth" making, it seems at least a bit surprising that Nike would come to a different conclusion. -
Yes, I've noticed that, too. I don't know for sure, but most likely this is due to the fact that we just don't always notice these ads. It is also rare for major brands to promote just one model. I have noticed that it is much more common for large brands to advertise large collections that may have a model that you like. It is impossible to make a big advertisement for a single shoe model as people prefer different models. Marketing works differently for different products and I realized this when I used the services to promote my sports blog https://hackdigital.com.au/
