This is not intended as a joke nor am I trolling for pro/anti Nike vitriol. This is a real question that some of you who are bigger fans than I and follow T+F more closely probably know the answer to.
What I have been able to observe is that nearly every HS runner wears Nike. Now, some have contracts, or maybe less formal deals since the athletes are usually under 18. Rupp pretty much 'had' to wear Nike even when he was not 'officially' sponsored by them and still in HS. Ditto Cain. Alana wears Mizuno. However, whenever I see a photo of a random HS race not they're very close to 100 percent Nike-shod. One exception was a pic of Erin Finn in Brooks.
This got me thinking. Nearly all runners with no contractual obligations, who actually pay for shoes, all wear the same brand. Kate Grace was the first Oiselle athlete I saw reasonably close-up pics of, and I think I saw Nikes. This is without an obligation to wear them nor likely any deal to get freebies.
Next I remember Meb signing on with Skechers and I'm talking way back, like his first race sans Nike sponsorship, I wasn't sure what he wore but folks online (I think maybe on LRC) were saying it looked like he was in Nike. Since then, of course, his sponsor has expanded and improved their line and team Skechers definetly wear their shoes.
This all made me think that Nike is what everyone out there really wants to be wearing (although not me or any of the other equally insignificant people I personally know and run with), and the only reason anyone wears anything else is bacause they're paid to. This would seem true if my belief that they have essentially no competition in the MS and HS market is true AND if pro runners who lack obligation to wear any particular brand follow suit. I'm talking racing shoes here, and mainly spikes.
Is this the case? Again, this is not a joke; I really am wondering. I don't get USN so I can't watch much track and I also don't have a setup that can pause and look closely at Leo's feet. By next season, Hoka will probably have spikes, but what's on his feet right now?
Do all Hoka and Oiselle sponsored runners race in Nikes?
Report Thread
-
-
Hoka now have spikes. The trend you've identified is that Nike drops runners & these former Nike athletes might then decide to continue wearing their shoes, prob as they have a bunch left over or it's what they're used to.
Nike shoes are horrible IMO. -
read this:
http://sallybergesen.tumblr.com/post/82929665147/why-23-more-years-of-nike-usatf-is-bad-for-our-sport
last paragraph in particular... -
I read Oiselle Sally's blog and realized I had read it before. Good points; LRC was making similar comments and far be it from me to disagree. All this is likely why the other big shoe companies are not as eager to break out the wallet and sponsor American runners. If you do spend a fortune snatching up A-list runners, they'll end up in events surrounded by Nike logos and swag even if your company, Nike's competitor, is sponsoring the athletes themselves.
I'm not sure answers my question, though; it DOES partially explain why Nike sponsorship is so ubiquitous - so much so that non-Nike athletes are reatively rare at the top level in the US.
My question, though is: Why do those NOT obligated or persuaded by money to wear Nike or any other brand seem to wear Nike anyway, even if they're paying for them. I think the second poster touched on it: a lot of these have a bunch around and/or are just used to them. They could be former-Nike-sponsored, as the poster accurately observed, or from a Nike-sponsored school. But wouldn't some of them just love asics, for example? Then when they score an Oiselle or UnderArmour (they could enter the fray) deal they'll wear asics.
I actually agree with 2nd poster about Nike shoes, but I don't wear spikes. As I've noticed 99 percent (no exaggeration, I don't think) of HS spike wearers are not sponsored by anyone and are in Nike, so maybe they are doing something right. -
Snoodrunner wrote:
Hoka now have spikes. The trend you've identified is that Nike drops runners & these former Nike athletes might then decide to continue wearing their shoes, prob as they have a bunch left over or it's what they're used to.
Nike shoes are horrible IMO.
I agree with you in that SOME Nike shoes are horrible, but they make so many models of shoes you can't say "Nike shoes are horrible IMO" and not sound like an idiot.
There are some Nike shoes I would never wear.
I can say the same about almost every other brand out there. I see interesting designs where I think the execution in materials sucks.
When I posted that I liked Hoka One One, and tried some out but felt they were one cycle away from getting their manufacturing where it needed to be...
The denizens of LRC saw fit to delete that post, WTF? -
Some Nike shoes that i've tried are horrible, IMO.
-
Do you expect Hoka sponsored runners to wear spikes that only debuted 5 days ago?
-
If I remember correctly, when going through training, that Saucony is the top seller of spikes. Nike is second.
Working at a running store, I can tell you that this seems to be true. I sell through close, if not more than, twice as many Saucony spikes than Nike. Mostly the Endorphins. Most kids say the Nikes, though they looks cool, are too narrow and the Saucony fit better.
My store works closely with a handful of teams of 50+ athletes as well as many athletes that come through from almost every school in the area.
This is my experience. -
Yes, the Hoka guys know what they are doing. But the fact is that all the companies that try to make excellent shoes do. The trick is to find the model that works for you, not the brand. The search is not simple. You have to spend the time to try on many shoes to find the right one.
Tom -
Work at a shoe store wrote:
If I remember correctly, when going through training, that Saucony is the top seller of spikes. Nike is second.
Working at a running store, I can tell you that this seems to be true. I sell through close, if not more than, twice as many Saucony spikes than Nike. Mostly the Endorphins. Most kids say the Nikes, though they looks cool, are too narrow and the Saucony fit better.
My store works closely with a handful of teams of 50+ athletes as well as many athletes that come through from almost every school in the area.
This is my experience.
I've worked at two different stores in two different cities about an hour and a half from each other. I don't get to see hard numbers, but anecdotally we sell all the brands we carry pretty evenly across years (some years some brands better than others, there is an ebb and flow).
I would be curious to see hard numbers on spikes sold, by company, per year, and see who has what market share. -
Your examples would be so much more compelling if they didn't involve athletes that were previously sponsored by Nike.
For example, let's say you had an athlete that was formerly sponsored by Adidas and then his contract runs out or he switches to a brand that is new in the game, like Hoka.
If the former Adidas athlete then wears Nike while unattached, your point would be stronger. -
dude go back to your running store and keep your salesman propaganda to yourself. I just buy the cheapest minimal neutral shoes I can find online at liquidation prices. companies trying to get 160 for a pair of trainers LOLOL
Derderian wrote:
Yes, the Hoka guys know what they are doing. But the fact is that all the companies that try to make excellent shoes do. The trick is to find the model that works for you, not the brand. The search is not simple. You have to spend the time to try on many shoes to find the right one.
Tom -
Looking at the Oiselle ladies pictures on Twitter and Instagram, shoe brand seems to vary from person to person, but I'm mainly seeing Saucony.
Kate Grace did have a pair of Oiselle spikes at World Relays - http://instagram.com/p/oWzR3XpFwF/ -
Winged Goddess? wrote:
My question, though is: Why do those NOT obligated or persuaded by money to wear Nike or any other brand seem to wear Nike anyway, even if they're paying for them. I think the second poster touched on it: a lot of these have a bunch around and/or are just used to them. They could be former-Nike-sponsored, as the poster accurately observed, or from a Nike-sponsored school. But wouldn't some of them just love asics, for example? Then when they score an Oiselle or UnderArmour (they could enter the fray) deal they'll wear asics.
It wouldn't surprise me that a lot of runners, once they are used to a specific brand, keep to that brand. Maybe it's superstition; maybe it is the apprehension of having a different shoe brand fit differently.
I float around between Nike, Asics, and Newton, but that often has to do with what is on sale. I have had "meh" experiences with Saucony (admittedly, not the spikes), New Balance, Mizuno and stayed away ever since. -
OP here
I'm glad some of you have helped to solve the mystery that exists in my mind but maybe not in all of yours, being more savvy and informed than I!
What I WASN'T saying was "Nike rules; it's all I wear. If I were a pro and could only score a NB deal, I'd grudgingly wear them whenever a camera was around. Otherwise Nike all the way."
I don't really like Nike myself, but then again I've never really worn spikes so I know squat about this from personal experience. I just though I'd been seeing a disproportionate number of Nikes in pics and was genuinely wondering what they're wearing out there. Never wanted to start a pro/anti Nike war here.
Star and snood, thanks for weighing in. I think some folks take a while to find something new they like or just stay with what they already know. Excellent point.
The shoe store guys definetly got me thinking. It seems as though whenever I see a pic of a HS startingline they're exclusively Nike-shod. Store people have told me that local schools are the entire spike market and no one else buys them. I know for trainers I see a lot of Brooks, asics, everything out on the trails but didn't know what was going on spike-wise. You guys set me staight: Thanks... -
This thread is a great example of how effective Nike marketing is.
They sponsor so many athletes that you get bombarded with seeing Nike everywhere.
And people buying shoes are often under the impression that Nike must be the shoe to buy for running. -
What I was hoping to see - and bambam was going there - was for you superfans to come on board and say:
Kate: wore XXX maybe because she went to XXX college and that's what they have. Now has Oiselle logo on a pair of XX
Lauren: wears XX probably since she used to be sponsored by them.
Oiselle lady #5: wears XX
Meb: yeah that first race he had XX
Hartmann: unattached but in XX lately. Probably because of XXX or actually really likes them.
Leo: was in XXX now they have.their own spikes.
Other Hoka guy: etc. Etc
I'm just not as dialed in fan media wise as some of you. I couldn"t even open the Instagram pics reffered to above.
Thanks to allN especially bam! -
Until very recently, Nike was the only company really pushing the envelope in terms of spike development. Even in the late 90s, Nike had the Jasari (permanent pins, 4.5 oz) when all the other brands were over 6 oz. Each Olympic cycle Nike has consistently sought to improve their spikes, making them lighter, more comfortable, more durable, etc. Until 2010 or 2012, I'm not sure any other brand was trying to match them. Did Saucony or New Balance or Brooks even have "upper-level" TRACK spikes 6-8 years ago?
Moreover, those companies either weren't sponsoring elite runners or weren't making their elite runners' spikes availabel for sale. So, if your favorite athlete ran for a non-Nike company to begin with, chances were the spike they wore either wasnt as technologically advanced or wasnt available to you.
Now Saucony, New Balance, and Brooks are in the game, so to speak, and all have such upper-level spikes. And now you are starting to see them gain traction at the high school level, specifically Saucony. But it's an uphill battle. For years, Nike was it. And high schoolers, typically, are brand/quality conscious so want to have the best when they can. If they've been looking at Eastbay catalogues or watching their faster teammates or watching their favorite runners, they've seen (and wanted) Nike spikes.
I remember watching a district meet in the late 90s when every kid had Eldorets. All 16 kids, who were all sub-4:25. So for most high school kids to be running in Victories or Mambas or whatever now doesnt seem too far fetched. The other companies gave Nike this rope to play with over the past 10+ years and Nike has taken it... -
I compete in Colorado quite a bit, I won't say names but there are 2 athletes in this state who have never run for NIKE yet I have seen them in Nikes at a few races. hmm
-
Hey Winged Goddess,
No, not all of the Oiselle/Hoka/etc athletes wear Nike. Kate Grace, for example, wears Saucony (including the Oiselle branded pair she wore recently). Some wear New Balance, some ASICS, etc. However, looking to completely unsponsored athletes (high school), Nike does indeed currently have the overwhelming majority of market share (over 50%), followed by Saucony, Brooks, and ASICS.
Track and field is a promotional business for Nike - they aren't making money here, so much as using it as a vehicle for marketing in a grassroots and hopefully authentic way. True for most brands - it's just that Nike has the deep pockets to not only provide the value to consumers and retailers, but then also back it up with the USATF sponsorship/elite athlete roster to boot. Nike being price competitive (high perceived value to the consumer combined with relatively low prices) and offering competitive margin to the retailers (so they buy more inventory in their brand) is a part of the equation. Retailers have the incentive to take an inventory position with the brands that offer them the most (both via margin, terms, inventory balancing, marketing support, etc). That's why it's difficult to find spikes from other brands that may have amazing spikes, but good luck finding that anywhere other than online. So when the coach takes the team to the local running store for a "spike night," chances are the kids are going home with Nike or Saucony because that's what the store had in stock.
