Reebok—Skechers—Under Armour—ON—Brooks. Fire your entire Marketing Departments

Totally get the uproar. But as a former athlete, I understand the Brands not wanting to handicap their athletes at the most important moment of their competitive lives. Truth be told, from a Marketing perspective, 90-95% of all running shoes are never worn to run. Yes that last 5-10% of consumers care deeply about the performance aspects of their footwear. But, at the end of the day I think it is right choice for both the Brands and the Athlete to wear whatever product will give them the utmost confidence on "that day". Good luck to all. Congrats to the Brands that get it.

If you’re a shoe company and you’re paying someone to endorse your shoes, yet when it comes time to endorse your shoes the sponsored endorser wears a competitor brand - you have a fundamental problem.

You can lipstick this pig all you want but Brooks, On and Reebok have failed mightily and now they are just making a public spectacle of it.

Cut this nonsense that shoe companies are doing the right thing and are “good” by allowing their athletes to endorse a competitor brand. The right thing is standing by your product. Simple. And that goes for the athletes as well. Everything a Reebok, On or Brooks athlete says from here on out about their shoes is completely hypocritical at this point.

what are the margins on track spikes vs. daily shoes vs. apparel anyway? the second two are probably the only ones with a wide enough market to generate profit. nobody is going to watch or read about a brooks runner racing in dragonflies and then just abandon the brand completely. show me the data, or hell, even a believable anecdote, that says this spike controversy is having an impact on brooks' bottom line.

Do NOT market the competitor wrote:

rizzo98 wrote:

LOL No shoe company every made money on selling spikes.

They sponsor athletes to sell the brand not to sell spikes. Running in someone else’s spikes does not sell the brand and therefore makes sponsorship meaningless.

But the message to a Sketchers-wearing hobby jogger is 'if you would ever want spikes, which you won't, buy Nike for the best speed". It doesn't tell that hobby jogger that Peg38s or Winflo or Infinity Runs are better for him than his Sketchers.

Hobby runners have been watching top T&F athletes wearing predominantly very few brands for decades, and still buy the running shoes that they like from other companies. Where this bad marketing choice (and I agree that it is bad) has an impact is with serious, ambitious runners. And there just aren't enough of them to matter.

Do NOT market the competitor wrote:

I understand that this board is mostly young kids and they only view things through the eyes of the athlete but advertising the competitor is a reason for dismissal from every company I’ve ever worked.

Wearing Nike for non Nike athletes is crazy and is creating an unbelievable commercial for Nike. The press is already asking questions and we haven’t even gotten to the Trials yet. If you work as a CMO at one of these companies you need to understand that you are stabbing your own brand in the back. When your athlete qualifies for the OG the shoe brand story will be bigger this year than ever.

Start putting your resume in to other companies because you should be fired moving forward.

The marketing folks (or whomever is directly involved in such things) don't make products. I can imagine it being defensible for them to allow their athletes to wear the shoes they think are considerably better than their own.

What is really interesting is why these SHOE companies have not come up with reasonable facsimiles in YEARS? Is it an unwillingness, for whatever business reasons, or simple inability, or....??? We're talking foam and plates, for crying out loud. Not visiting the nearest star.

Do NOT market the competitor wrote:

I understand that this board is mostly young kids......

You lost me right away.

This caused an uproar at the time

1976 Montreal Olympics

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q0gKXvkYFPU/UBDsLGBQuSI/AAAAAAAABlc/PSuaLwIC8dU/s320/lasse-viren-onitsuka-tiger.jpg

spikes wrote:

hoka has new carbon spikes for athletes that hit retail in december - I suspect DM did not receive approval

Bor won the steeplechase in Gateshead in Hola spikes. Not sure if it's a newer model or proto.

*Hoka

new spikes - the Cielo LD and MD was cleared by WA...will hit retail in dec

nopeeeeee wrote:

fxhjb wrote:

They need to yank the sponsorship. To the NAU athletes’ credit - not all of them have been wearing Nike. In fact, most of them were in Adidas at conference. Still, I find it odd that shoe companies will supply schools with shoes only to watch athletes turn around and wear Nike. This alone tells me there is something to the shoes. Athletes are turning down top-of-the-line spikes and going out and spending $150 for Dragonfly’s?

The thing with NAU is that these athletes are not sponsored by Adidas, the school just has a contract with them. Why wouldn’t they race in the dragonfly’s?

I've actually brought this up in other contexts on other threads. I know Jack about the details of NCAA running; I just watch it on TV on rare occasion; I didn't participate in it myself. I know most of you have more info on the details of this than I do,

OK, I have always wondered what happens when you don't wear the gear of the school sponsor. I have never gotten much of an answer from this Board before. My guess is that the school (some representative thereof, maybe AD) signed something years ago but NIco (or whoever) hasn't. Perhaps someone who's been there can illuminate this.

What I asked before was:

Here's King Ches stepping to the start line to try and bag his 17th title. The camera pans over to him and ...... HE'S WEARING ASICS!!

I pick a high profile athlete, Oregon, and Nike intentionally since Phil would care..... A LOT.

I did get a response to the effect that I was some bizarre conspiracy theorist. But the question remains, What would happen in this case? The real-life way this happens would be that the runner hasn't technically broken any NCAA rule and hasn't taken any $$ but has a handshake agreement that nobody but the shoe company, the agent-to-be if there is one on the down-low, and the kid himself knows about.

For example, this NIco guy has never worn a non-Nike shoe has he? That is certainly who he's signing with in a year or so. And he wears them now, just like he did before NAU. So, can adidas do anything about it? Can NAU? Can the NCAA? Maybe if Ches wore something else, all that would happen is a dozen phone calls: Phil screaming at the AD; AD screaming at the coach; coach screaming at Ches; etc. Maybe nothing ultimately happens. Maybe you're simply allowed to wear whatever since you, the actual athlete, has no contract and no obligation to anyone.

Interesting topic, to me. I would enjoy reading any real input from anyone who has been in the system . Thanks!

Incredible that we skipped the athletes and the shoe engineers and went straight to blaming marketing teams

As pointed out earlier, the brand and marketing department really only care about the logo that's on the actual uniform, closest to the school's name. That's what is seen when the "camera pans over" -- since when has a camera ever panned feet closely at a sporting event? Sure, sometimes the camera zooms out to a panorama of the starting line, but even then feet would be seen straight on and logos would be difficult to make out if not invisible to the audience. Also, anyone with much of a profile wouldn't just sneak a different brand of spikes to the starting line, his coach(es) would know about this and have given a response long prior to the point when he's on camera.

spikes wrote:

new spikes - the Cielo LD and MD was cleared by WA...will hit retail in dec

If they don't hit retail till December then I'm not sure you'll see them at the Trials. WA regulations say that they must be in retail for ~1 month in order for them to be worn at a championship, but other races are fine. This is why Brooks announced athletes could wear what they wanted at the Trials because their shoes weren't going to be ready in time.

So even if Hoka has a good spike, athletes might not be allowed to wear it if it wasn't being produced in time.

Don't fire anybody without doing the math.

So the competition has a better spike than you do. Do you get more marketing and business from having your sponsored athlete cross the line in first place wearing your shorts and singlet, and with your sponsorship next to their name (at the pro level), and having your athletes thank you on screen for your sponsorship?

Or do you gain more from letting your athlete finish 2nd, or 17th, or whatever, but he's wearing your spikes?

My guess is someone has done the math and determined that blacking out the Nike logo is still the biggest win for Brooks and the others.

check the latest WA shoe compliance list - both Cielo spikes are listed. The allowance has been fluid

boomroom wrote:

Incredible that we skipped the athletes and the shoe engineers and went straight to blaming marketing teams

Yes to this. And that singlets and shorts will be more key than shoes.

Okay, think marketing. You make your athletes wear your shoes and they all lose. Oops, that looks a lot worse than winning or losing in Nikes. So that’s the grave marketing risk.

spikes wrote:

check the latest WA shoe compliance list - both Cielo spikes are listed. The allowance has been fluid

For sure, but I think it depends (and of course I could be misunderstanding this) on their distribution plan. There are a number of shoes on the list that have been approved for racing but....

"(d) Subject to compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) above, any new shoe (road or spike shoe) introduced on or after 28 July 2020 may be used in an International Competition after it has been made available via the Athletic Shoe Availability Scheme prior to the International Competition where the elite athlete proposes to wear the new shoe."

...so I think Hoka just has to have made plans for the Cielo to be in distribution in order for it to be at the Trials. So, for example, while the Nike Streakfly is approved and on the list, my understanding is that an athlete can wear that in current marathons, but not at the Olympics.

But the hell really knows. 🤷🏼‍♂️

once the shoe/spike has been approved by WA, it can be used at all meets - includes the trials and olympics