Why is shoe marketing so BAD?

Running Shoes/Running Gear

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

#41

This post was removed.

2 years ago 04/22/2022 8:02am EDT

re: onlineshopper

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)

Trying on a pair of shoes that are an image on your computer is just such a pain.

Seriously? I know that I like the Puma Eternity Nitro but it took a phone call to Puma and waiting for the guy to call me back and assure me that I an return them via mail to order them.

I would rather go to a store and try them on, decide if I like them or not, and buy them, or not.

2 years ago 04/22/2022 8:46am EDT

re: Pletan

I think the “marketing” of running shoes is just fine. They get shoes to reviewers and influencers and that makes its way to Reddit and LetsRun which eventually gets into local running groups. If you are someone willing to pay north of $150 for a pair of trainers and $200 for racers, you are getting plenty of marketing. Its just that the marketing isn’t as obvious as it used to be since print and tv ads are now irrelevant.

That said, most shoe companies seem to have HORRIBLE naming conventions for their lines. There is absolutely no reason that the most popular racer in the world right now should have a three word name with a % symbol. And I get that all companies now have a “super shoe” and a “training partner” for that shoe, but there is no need give them such similar names that it creates confusion as to which is which.

2 years ago 04/22/2022 8:50am EDT

re: Portland Hobby Jogger

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 sounds like the kind of clueless, arrogant thing that a marketing "professional" would say.

2 years ago 04/23/2022 10:50am EDT

re: Pletan

Probably for a variety of reasons. Shoes aren't sexy. The companies are more concerned with building their brand than having a "hit." The coat of sweatshop labor isn't what it used to be, hence margins aren't as fat and less money can be spent on ad buys. Running shoes specifically are a niche item (more non-runners than runners by far.) The sponsored athletes are relative unknowns when it comes to their recognition in the sports world. Etc.

2 years ago 04/23/2022 12:33pm EDT

re: MEMrunner

MEMrunner wrote:
I think the “marketing” of running shoes is just fine. [...]
That said, most shoe companies seem to have HORRIBLE naming conventions for their lines.

But...naming conventions are shoe marketing! And the naming conventions are very, very bad.

#47

This post was removed.

1 year ago 06/20/2022 10:11am EDT

re: Pletan

Marketing? It's where it should be, minimal. The reviews are more helpful in narrowing down choice for individual need. Never hesitate to return shoes, either, if they don't feel right after 5-10 miles.

#49

This post was removed.

#50

This post was removed.

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Why is shoe marketing so BAD?

Hot Now

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Why is shoe marketing so BAD?

Follow runn

Block runn

Follow MEMrunner

Block MEMrunner

Follow colder and wiser

Block colder and wiser

Follow stan the corgi

Block stan the corgi

Hot Now

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.