Hansons - ZAP - McMillan et al have created a false market

Yet, we have a Larry the Cable guy ad at the top of this page!!!!!

Another one bites the dust wrote:

The McMillan group, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists.

Can anyone verify this? What is the group's status? Is it still possible to get support through the group for post-college running?

Looking at their website and twitter it doesn't look like they have been publicizing anything since the spring.

It does seem like it's gone missing. Greg had a few good athletes, but it seems like in the last year he's devoting more time to his other businesses, like his new book. I'd be curious as well.

In response to the greater question, I think that you have three levels

1. Nike level: World class athletes, highest visibility. Whether or not it directly influences shoe sales (Galen runs in this model, thus I should run in this) or indirectly (Galen runs in Nike, therefore Nike shoes are good even if I need an Air Pegasus) or only referentially (I don't run in Nikes even though I am a runner, but my daughter plays soccer and because I am indifferent about which shoes are best for her, I'll think good things about Nike because I know they support my sport at a high level). Bottom line: I'm sure it works.

2. Brooks/Hanson: This drives traffic to stores. It works. On the margin, a serious runner that has access to an elite program, even casually, will pay extra. Let's not forget that for 95% (or more) of hobby runners, running shoes are a commodity that they could probably get for $70 bucks at the local Dick's or Sports Authority, but they go to a fancier place and drop $140 on an overkill shoe, plus orthotics, socks, etc. That's totally unnecessary for the 3x a week 10 minute milers, but I'm going to be that's a big part of the appeal.

3. NJNYTC, Zap, McMillan (when it existed). 90% charity model to support near-elite post-college athletes chasing their dream. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, but no one is getting rich. Best case scenario is some publicity around National-class winners and Olympic qualifiers.

I tried to tell the Hanson's that this Canaday character was an a-hole and would cost them business. One of the Hanson brothers actually sided with this Sage person, defended him and his horrible work ethic and lack of knowledge, and asked me not to shop in his store anymore if I couldn't get along with this type of attitude Mr. Canaday showed. I bet he wishes he never did that now. I told you that guy was a loser, and apparently he never appreciated what he was given. Hopefully, things are better for them for their sake now that they've rid themselves of this type of "employee". Maybe I can start shopping there and sending my clients in again.

Sage,

I have 2 questions about the Hansons program.

1. Is it mandatory to live in the houses that they provide or is it a choice?

I thought that it was just a perk for the new guys but not mandatory.

If it is just a perk then it seems really weird to complain about something that is not mandatory and just being given to you.

2. Same question about employment in the stores. Is it mandatory or is it just a better gig than anything else? If there are better jobs then why not take them instead of complaining about how you were treated?

I must be missing something but it seems like you are complaining about things that were being given to you and that you accepted??

piss off "a local chiropractor".

just because you couldn't hack it or whatever other problem you have is no reason to get all butt hurt and slander him.

actually, you know what, why don't you say a bit more? maybe a libel suit would work out.

S. Canaday wrote:

Their return on investment really paid off for them (both live in million dollar houses I'd say) and the whole project was a smart move on their part.

Did they move? Neither of them live in million dollar houses.

So far in this thread we've learned that 1) the Hanson's group is lining the pockets of millionaires, but 2) the Nike Oregon Project is a "90% charity" model.

Things you would never guess if not for LetsRun...

lulz wrote:

Sure, as it is, the incremental advantage of having 1 more athlete or name is very small, but that is because they already have the presence. If their presence was dropped, so would their brand, and quite rapidly I might add.

You're on the right track - right now, the second-tier guys like Will Leer, Andrew Bumbalough, etc probably don't affect the sales much at all, but the benefit of having them is that one of them might break out onto the next level and make them a LOT of money. I.e., the "venture capital" model.

I find it interesting that none of the current (or former) athletes chime in with positive and supportive comments about these groups. Surely there are a few out there (between McMillan, Hanson, and Zap there must be over 100) that read this message board and could give us some insight?

Why is it? wrote:

I find it interesting that none of the current (or former) athletes chime in with positive and supportive comments about these groups. Surely there are a few out there (between McMillan, Hanson, and Zap there must be over 100) that read this message board and could give us some insight?

Did you not see Sage's post?

Why is it? wrote:

I find it interesting that none of the current (or former) athletes chime in with positive and supportive comments about these groups. Surely there are a few out there (between McMillan, Hanson, and Zap there must be over 100) that read this message board and could give us some insight?

Because people who post under real names on this board will be attacked by anonymous posters and accused of god-knows-what. It has happened time and again and people have learned that there is nothing in it for them to participate in the discussion.

lulz wrote:

I find it hilarious that people say people like Rupp/Ritz/etc. don't influence shoe sales. If Nike decided to completely drop all of their funding of anyone involved in track and field or running, another competing firm would undoubtedly pick it up and gain market share by being able to advertise that the best runners wear their shoes. Sure, as it is, the incremental advantage of having 1 more athlete or name is very small, but that is because they already have the presence. If their presence was dropped, so would their brand, and quite rapidly I might add.

This is particularly true with a company like Reebok, which doesn't enjoy the same brand stature as Nike or Brooks. ZAP and Bobby Mack are about the only names I can think of associated with Reebok. So if they didn't have those runners, people probably wouldn't think of Reebok for running shoes any more at all. So, my guess is that their sponsored elites have a lot to do with whatever running shoe sales Reebok has.

I believe I said "positive". I didn't see a whole lot of positive in Sage's post.

doesn't that answer your question right there? There's little positive to be said or contributed on this thread about the groups. There's a reason places like those have, for the most part, revolving doors.