stop saying things you dont know wrote:
Layoffs do not mean a company is going down
It does speak to the financial health of a company. Check LinkedIn to see the impacted parties. You'll see they probably should not have gotten into footwear and stood for that sash aesthetic, which can get dated pretty quickly.
Tracksmith should really push into triathlon. Seems like a perfect fit for them.
They probably need to sponsor a good spokesperson.
I think they’re trying to get bought by a bigger company. Shrink to grow situation. Narrow strategic focus, improve the financial situation, lay out a straight forward plan, get acquired, founders go home with money and likely get to continue running the brand from within the acquiring company for a few years. There are dozens of niche activewear brands and very few have been able to survive on their own (Vuori). The downside for Tracksmith is they are limited to running which is a highly concentrated and technical market dominated by Nike, Adidas, etc. , they need to find a way to build rapport with the general fitness/wellness community eventually. That said, I’m kind of an idiot so who knows.
stephengnoza wrote:
They probably need to sponsor a good spokesperson.
That is a seriously good idea
spiderman98 wrote:
Matt's "Chasing" series back in the day set the table for Flotrack. I enjoyed a lot of his stuff.
No joke - I was on a team featured during that series and Matt came over and did a "cribs" video of my house (full of XC guys obviously). Matt was great guy and it was fun to be a part of his project.
I have been casually following Tracksmith, and I like what they are trying to do with their business model. I find it interesting that they have started making shoes now. I don't see how they can compete with the big established shoe companies (Adidas, Nike, NB, ASICS, etc.) in either performance shoes or fashion/lifestyle shoes (most running shoe sales).
Buff wrote:
Not sure about layoffs, but I know they’re cash starved and noticed they cut back on their selections and inventory.
They are in a weird middle ground of between regular brands and luxury brands. They don't get the economies of scale of regular brands, and they don't get the margins of luxury brands.
I appreciate the attempt to round out into a complete brand with the shoe offering, but thats a tough and expensive market to break into and at $200 price point, its a small market for them. The shoe also didn't distinguish itself from other shoes on the market other than its comfortable and looks good. When Hoka launched, they debuted a shoe that wasn't like anything else in the market.
They have to streamline their options, optimize marketing to lower customer acquisition costs, and probably make a decision if they want to lean luxury or not.
doubt it wrote:
No way they'll make it unless they lower their prices to reflect their labor costs. $55 for a t-shirt, $138 for a sweatshirt, $60 for running shorts???
Nowadays these are prices at Nike outlets, and look how they're doing.
The shoe looks like Pegasus sole with a casual shoe upper. Not sure what they were really thinking with that. It looks like a much better casual shoe than a running shoe.
The play volume 2 wrote:
I think they’re trying to get bought by a bigger company. Shrink to grow situation. Narrow strategic focus, improve the financial situation, lay out a straight forward plan, get acquired, founders go home with money and likely get to continue running the brand from within the acquiring company for a few years. There are dozens of niche activewear brands and very few have been able to survive on their own (Vuori). The downside for Tracksmith is they are limited to running which is a highly concentrated and technical market dominated by Nike, Adidas, etc. , they need to find a way to build rapport with the general fitness/wellness community eventually. That said, I’m kind of an idiot so who knows.
Honestly, they could do great as a more luxury line of gear as part of a larger brand. Sort of like how Nike "owns" Jordan.
Most overrated running apparel brand
bad strat wrote:
They have a lot of athletes going to Worlds, but is anyone going to buy an expensive tracksmith shirt because Cravont Charleston won the 100m and Rudy Winkler won the hammer?
No. Hell no. Their business model is idiotic.
Then why should any brand sponsor athletes?
To be fair, On was a sort of niche brand until OAC came along. Now they're legit.
Maybe its bought by a parent company (Wolverine) and stays as a standalone brand but can grab synergies out of their brands. A few ideas:
Saucony - brings shoe tech to Tracksmith with one of the top marathoning shoes on the market. Tracksmith brings the stylish clothes and athletes.
Sperry - preppy style, could collab on some of the lifestyle clothes tracksmith pushes
Merrell- tracksmith released some trail running stuff in the past
stephengnoza wrote:
They probably need to sponsor a good spokesperson.
laughing so hard knowing who you are lmao
I have quite a bit of their stuff and really like it. I think their quality is outstanding and worth the price.
I do wonder how the combination of going into footwear and opening to additional physical locations is working out for them.
their designs / color schemes suck tho brah
Ummmmm wrote:
Most overrated running apparel brand
Overrated? Their apparel is high quality, holds up extremely well, and looks really nice. I don't get how it's overrated.
Their apparel is ugly. Also, how often do you have to replace a running shirt? I have running shirts from 10+ years ago that I still wear and are still comfortable, with no holes.
Booooooo wrote:
The shoe looks like Pegasus sole with a casual shoe upper. Not sure what they were really thinking with that. It looks like a much better casual shoe than a running shoe.
I think the idea with the shoe is to sell something that wears out...high quality running apparel will last 10 years so repeat customers are rare...but a shoe lasts only 3-6 months then you have to come back for more.
As for styling, that's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many think it's a good shoe.