Is it Unethical to Run in Nike Products? Which Major Running Company is the Most Ethical?

SadButTrue wrote:

Social justice warriors, your little $500 per year you don't spend at Nike is not noticed. Get over yourselves.

I think pretty much everyone recognizes that. It's not a matter of trying to force Nike to be different than they are with that $500. It's more an issue of where you'd rather see your $500 go. Why would you give it to a company you don't like when it can go to one you do?

HRE wrote:

I think pretty much everyone recognizes that. It's not a matter of trying to force Nike to be different than they are with that $500. It's more an issue of where you'd rather see your $500 go. Why would you give it to a company you don't like when it can go to one you do?

I mean, that's the classic question, right? As a consumer, what do you do when a company you don't like makes a good product? It's not as simple as shopping on brand image.

Unfortunately even New Balance only assemble or manufacture some parts of the shoes in the U.S. and use that to say the shoes are made in America. Not worse than any other brand, probably better, but really a marketing move honestly. I don't know for a fact that they don't make their running shoes in sweatshops, and I would probably have to assume they do.

They have some shoes that are labeled as 100% made in America and cost a whole lot more than their standard line, which is pretty telling.

Now we're talking! How about I refuse to talk to anybody wearing anything from them and shame them to death, and you make sure to never visit Vietnam, and for good measure, let's just start the barefoot running trend up again.

ethical puritan wrote:

KipBrooksRunner wrote:

And as this thread shows, people talk about Nike utilizing child labor and sweat shops because Nike makes it easy to hate on them. We WANT to hate them. And it shows in market shares and LetsRun forums alike.

.

I don't really care about the sweatshops per se. Any ban on allowing their trans gender sweatshop workers use the girls bathroom is what I have an issue with. I am imposing a personal ban not to travel to countries where Nike has sweatshops.

agip wrote:

source?

I would be very surprised if that is true in any way, since Nike has around 58% of the running market, according to this cite from 2015. . Which may or may not include clothes.

"According to data from research firm NPD Group, Nike's share of the North American running business declined 0.2% to 57.9% through May of this year, while Under Armour's market share has risen to 3.5%, from 2.8% in 2014. Adidas' share in running has also surged, going to 4.8% year to date from 3.4% last year. "

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13197557/1/nike-is-losing-share-in-one-key-market-it-used-to-dominate.html

Sorry, should have been more specific, but I'm referring to performance/specialty running, essentially anything $100 up. That article, while a pretty good read, is talking mostly about the lower segment, because there's a lot of quantity and money there. A lot of the shoes are found in Walmart, Kmart kind of department stores for that price bracket, and then Nike exclusively leaves running specialty stores to carry their line designed for running, like the Pegasus, Zoom Streak, Flyknit lunar etc.

And it's in this section that Brooks owns the space. Partly because they have a really good relationship with Fleet Feet Sports, and offer very good pricing, easy special orders and quick service, but also because they really know the customer when designing the product and positioning it. In fact, your article even mentions that they're partly losing the sub-100 space which is likely due to the competition from other brands.

And get this, Asics is #2 in the space, leaving Nike at #3. Then a long way off, it's New balance in 4th, Saucony in 5th, and Adidas and Mizuno follow, although Adidas might be stronger within the last year or two. I'm sorry but I don't have a source for it, although I work in a running store and have for a while, and the store owner is pretty open to talking about the industry and is very involved. I'd be happy to talk a bit more about it too, and sorry for the consecutive replies here.

You're talking run specialty. As in running stores. So brooks sells the most at just running stores. Brooks puts way more money and focus into run specialty. You probably see the brooks rep much more often than the Nike right? Making you pull brooks more often for fits etc. I know how it works. Overall though, in the US and world, Nike by a landslide. Ask your boss, he'll tell you I'm right. Running store owners love Brooks, New Balance, Mizuno, Saucony etc but typically not so much Nike and Adidas. It's because Nike and adidas do not have to cater to them in any way.

So much ignorance in this thread it's comical.

First of all, regarding Brooks. They are number 1 in RSG, not as an aggregate and especially not global. Nike's market share of running doesn't compare.

As for the message I responded to, glad to see someone who understands the bigger picture. As for "sweatshops", do yourself a favor and actually open a book and quit obtaining your information from misleading or dated sources (the internet). Nike's pay overseas is actually higher than the majority of other brands in the industry that you are too naive to believe.

Now I understand why so many people vote for Bernie.

Nike is the absolute best and dedicated to greatness no matter what.

I personally like that in an apparel and shoe company.

I value greatness over ethics and more people should not be afraid to say they feel the same.

Ethical means political, don't confuse that with professional. Professional is whatever it takes.

Are human rights just a political issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_nD4teAGFg

KipBrooksRunner wrote:

And it's in this section that Brooks owns the space. Partly because they have a really good relationship with Fleet Feet Sports

I would say the Fleet Feet relationship is very very important to Brooks. Brooks and Superfeet also have a very close relationship, and Fleet Feet and Superfeet have a very, very close relationship. Brooks has also tapped into the hobbyjogger/Runnersworld market really well. I would guess that if you were to assess market share of brands among all run specialty customers, then assess market share among the subset of those customers who are frequent users of social media, and I would bet that is where Brooks shines.

Yes, Human Rights is a political issue.

That was easy.

Nike was in the news again today, this time in connection with a bribery probe.

Hola Senor wrote:

Yes, Human Rights is a political issue.

That was easy.

You didn't read the question right.

I own stock in Nike and it's done phenomenally well over the last 15 years. But I train in Brooks and new balance

Rephrase the question then.

However, I do believe I read it correctly.

nutritinist wrote:

Rephrase the question then.

However, I do believe I read it correctly.

No, you didn't.

Nothing against Schumacher but this comment aged terribly. Salazar was if not directly violating doping laws, actively pushing those boundaries as far as possible. He was always known to use questionable medication methods for athletic improvement and overtraining himself and his athletes.

Honestly, Salazar was seen as very shady in practice long before official news hit and the project is no kaput. I agree just assuming Nike athletes are the only athletes with doping issues is foolhardy and arguably insane.

But, the argument here is whether it is Unethical to run in Nike shoes. And athletes doping is honestly very minor to me compared with some sweatshop labor practices. From most my reading it appears Nike just doesn't vet their contractors that make their sportswear, this is likely for profit reasons but its still a bad policy with real consequences.

Other shoe companies are making an effort to at least make sure the contractors they work with give their employees some sort of livable work environment. Which is all anyone is really asking for hear. Don't just go for the lowest bid, make sure those folks making your activewear are at least not doing so while having to huff toxic chemicals or are not forced to work crazy amounts of OT.

ethical puritan wrote:

KipBrooksRunner wrote:

And as this thread shows, people talk about Nike utilizing child labor and sweat shops because Nike makes it easy to hate on them. We WANT to hate them. And it shows in market shares and LetsRun forums alike.

.

I don't really care about the sweatshops per se. Any ban on allowing their trans gender sweatshop workers use the girls bathroom is what I have an issue with. I am imposing a personal ban not to travel to countries where Nike has sweatshops.

Corporations are included when Jesus returns to earth to judge the world. All the running shoe and product and media companies engage in cheating, politics and usury. What are the consequences? The people are too stupid and greedy to care and of course pass it on generation by generation. Your pastors don’t even know what economic cheating is nor are they economists. Heck our economists are phonies too.