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

Poor take.

Reebok got a lot (relative term, it's running after all) of play out of their medical student running 2:09. Very few know what shoes he was wearing and even fewer care. And when Olli Hoare medals this summer I don't think On will mind too much that they have to airbrush his spikes out of the promotional materials they generate afterwards.

free shipping with purchases wrote:

Poor take.

Reebok got a lot (relative term, it's running after all) of play out of their medical student running 2:09. Very few know what shoes he was wearing and even fewer care. And when Olli Hoare medals this summer I don't think On will mind too much that they have to airbrush his spikes out of the promotional materials they generate afterwards.

They'll mind very much. After the cake is half eaten, the streamers and balloons are on the floor, and the sports marketing guys of ON are sticking around cleaning up, it will set in at that very moment that Hoare was wearing an Asics uniform and Nike spikes when he medaled and then, and only then, they will realize that it will be themselves that will be airbrushed out.

Do NOT market the competitor wrote:

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

You don't have to say "moving forward."

And to the rest of you illiterates out there, why are you using an apostrophe to make Dragonfly plural?

lightnquick wrote:

free shipping with purchases wrote:

Poor take.

Reebok got a lot (relative term, it's running after all) of play out of their medical student running 2:09. Very few know what shoes he was wearing and even fewer care. And when Olli Hoare medals this summer I don't think On will mind too much that they have to airbrush his spikes out of the promotional materials they generate afterwards.

They'll mind very much. After the cake is half eaten, the streamers and balloons are on the floor, and the sports marketing guys of ON are sticking around cleaning up, it will set in at that very moment that Hoare was wearing an Asics uniform and Nike spikes when he medaled and then, and only then, they will realize that it will be themselves that will be airbrushed out.

But will anyone citizen runner in On running shoes switch as a result? Probably not.

So basically the defense is that it doesn’t matter because the public doesn’t bother to pay any attention to what shoes the PROs are wearing.

WOW. So no need to sponsor pro runners. Sports marketing departments are proving that there is no need for them.

The real surprise from the weekend was that the new spike flat from Asics is quicker than the dragonfly

They're fighting a losing battle though aren't they?

Choice 1 - wear the sponsor shoes and its obvious that they aren't as quick. LOSE.

Choice 2 - wear blacked out nikes and some people won't notice. STILL LOSE BUT NOT BY AS MUCH

All they can do is wait for the tech teams to come up with something and mitigate the damage in the meantime.

1. Be loyal to the athletes. (Employees)

2. Be loyal to the company that pays your check. (Employer)

The worst decision would be thinking that you can please both.

Tough decision because someone will not be happy.

Right. They should try to imply their version is better with athlete performances.

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.

1) Any good company has contracts with there athletes. It is written in a (good) contract what is allowed to do and what not.

2) If the other brands are still not able to develope competitive shoes, than rather fire the development department.

The percentage of people who notice what brand shoe a runner is wearing is miniscule. As a Marketing/Promotions Director who contracts/fires teams of athletes each year, do you really want athletes to use the excuse" I was handicapped by my Brand's shoes" if they don't make the Olympic Team? Which is worse? I agree it is a problem, but in my opinion, the athlete's careers should come first.

In the podcast, Joe Klecker mentioned that ON is currently developing and sending them new spikes for the group to try.

My prediction is that ON will not have the resources and financial incentives to come up with competitive spikes. It is much cheaper to supply the group with nike/new balance spikes.

Can't speak for all schools either, but my school was "high profile" and had 2 different running brand sponsorships during my time. There was no requirement to wear their footwear in either practice or competition, but since it was a "good deal" most people did. For apparel, we had to wear our school issued stuff (branded) at meets and while traveling/hanging around. If media was coming in to do a piece we were also supposed to wear correctly branded apparel (no mention on shoes since this likely wouldn't be visible in photos).

feckinfeckinfeckin wrote:

They're fighting a losing battle though aren't they?

Choice 1 - wear the sponsor shoes and its obvious that they aren't as quick. LOSE.

Choice 2 - wear blacked out nikes and some people won't notice. STILL LOSE BUT NOT BY AS MUCH

All they can do is wait for the tech teams to come up with something and mitigate the damage in the meantime.

In these threads it's a common thing for the supposed experts to tell everyone how little they know about the shoe business, marketing, business in general, etc. They often seem to be much more interested in stating their expertise than helpfully explaining how things work.

But what I have yet to see is anyone with any knowledge of the business explain WHY, oh WHY SHOE companies didn't or haven't come up with counter-Nike products over the course of YEARS?

And it's not like other products, where the rushed counter-product could be SHOWN, objectively, to be inferior to the competition. The world isn't certain exactly what advantage the shoes or spikes give, so why wouldn't these other companies have rushed out similar shoes in response? They might have been inferior, but certainly no one would know for sure. Moreover, since I don't think that Nike has a monopoly on cushy foam or plates, I completely don't understand why SHOE companies couldn't fairly easily come up with reasonable facsimiles?

Instead, it's years past Nike's new shoes/spikes, and you have companies STILL having to watch their sponsored athletes playing with magic markers. Bizarre.

interesting take wrote:

So basically the defense is that it doesn’t matter because the public doesn’t bother to pay any attention to what shoes the PROs are wearing.

WOW. So no need to sponsor pro runners. Sports marketing departments are proving that there is no need for them.

Companies that make competitive spikes need to advertise competitive spikes. Sponsoring top athletes is one way to do it. Companies that don't have competitive spikes and concentrate mostly on the citizen runner channel don't have as much pressure to have their pro team always wear there stuff to compete. They may get adequate bang for the buck with the pro team representing the brand for training, because that is the same use as most of their customers.

OldShoePuppy, are you paying attention? Seems like EVERYONE is noticing the Nike Dragonfly spikes, including competitors, fans, kids, and aspiring pros.

OldShoePuppy wrote:

The percentage of people who notice what brand shoe a runner is wearing is miniscule. As a Marketing/Promotions Director who contracts/fires teams of athletes each year, do you really want athletes to use the excuse" I was handicapped by my Brand's shoes" if they don't make the Olympic Team? Which is worse? I agree it is a problem, but in my opinion, the athlete's careers should come first.

Now what about when the ON or Hoka athlete competes at the Olympics in a USA Nike kit and Nike spikes?

fxhjb wrote:

beodnight wrote:

Agree with you. Cowards. But through in adidas as well as Tsegay and NAU have been wearing Nike as well.

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?

Y’all need to stop smoking meth and realize that some people are just more comfortable in certain spikes. I’ve personally tried adidas new balance and nikes. Nike has always fit better and felt better. It’s gonna boil down to personal preference. Not all 800m runners run in the victorys. Not all Adidas athletes run in the MDs. It all comes down to what works best for you. Especially in college where you owe it to NO ONE to wear certain spikes. I get having a school sponsor but refer to my original point for the reason it shouldn’t matter.

Smoke weed, talk sh!t like Lane Kiffin wrote:

Meh, only a couple dozen internet backwater message board geeks worry about what someone they don't even know is wearing for spikes in racing.

THIS.

To the OP saying that people watching the track and field trials may not notice it watching but "it will be brought to their attention"....I couldn't laugh harder at that false assertion.