Whatever happened to the Enclave?

To Reebok the investment must not have been worth it especially when none of the Enclave made the Olympic team. Well except for Kenah.

Reebok was quick to jump in with big projects and pull the rug out when they weren't getting immediate results.

But you had to love those neon pink uniforms from the early 90's.

I think you owe Bryan Woodward an apology.

They had people on cross and other world championship teams. The problem was it wasn't selling shoes. Even the DC running stores were not stocking or selling Reebok shoes. The marketing dept at Reebok was cleared out and new people and ideas have been put in place. Iverson and Williams (tennis)must be the new strategy. Reebok is not a non-profit organization. If you were a stockholder in Reebok it would make sense to you. I doubt if the stockholders know who Kenah or Woodward is.

[quote]randymayes wrote:

The problem was it wasn't selling shoes.[quote]

If Reebok could manufacture a running shoe worth its weight in shit, maybe this wouldn't be the case. I feel bad for the athletes, who lost their sponsorship because of their sponsoring company's poor product and R&D ineptitude. Never met a Reebok rep who was happy with the job either.

Woops Sorry Woodward.

Obviously the sponsoring of teams was a marketing concept for these companies. But you have to ask do they really need any track clubs because you're right to state that the typical consumer (or shareholder) isn't going to know who even Bob Kennedy is. But a small nich segment will pay attention. I even bought a pair of Fila racing flats once only because I kept seeing all these fast Kenyans running for Fila. I would have never considered it before. So that was at least one $75.00 Fila sale they made they could attribute to their sponsoring of athletes.

But of course that situation isn't likely to end up being a big return for their investment.

I think mainly these big shoe companies are in such competition they do it mainly because that's what the other guy is doing. They like to see their name get any exposure they can. And the Olympic Track and Field trials are televised. People read Track and Field News and see the club names listed after the athletes.

Its got to be worth it to allot a little funding for clubs. But I don't know about the Enclave and how much they were getting/

While Kenah ran for the Enclave, he raced in Asics gear.

Brian

Well, Steve Holman retired...Rich Kenah retired and became an agent (and co-promoter of the Boston Indoor Games)...Matt Holthaus retired...Coach Frank Gagliano went out to Palto Alto to work with Lananna and Nike....who else?

The big picture is that the sports companies don't promote the athletes and the sport like they do for the other ones they sponsor. If Nike, etc gave 10% of the advertising they use in the NBA to T&F athletes and events the problems of recognition in our sport would not exist. Just throwing 40k to an athlete per year does nothing for the sport or the athlete. The basic premise of business is spend moeny to make money, but they cannot seem to make that jump with us. All the media jerks say that no one cares about T&F, so we don't cover it - well its a self-fulfilling prophecy then, as they are making damn sure that no one will care by refusing to give any play time.

The Reebok Enclave died because Reebok never fed it properly, yet expected it to grow into a viable program on its own.

Reebok (corp) has never had a cultural connection to the sport. The guy at the top probably has never run a step in his life, except to the fridge. The company constantly grinds thru marketing and top execs faster than Geb runs the 2 mile.....they can talk all they want about JW Foster (in the UK) and those connections to running, but the fact is they chase the buck and if it doesn't come right away they abandon it and go in another direction. Now they recycle folks from Nike and elsewhere (including bringing back the current guy who used to be at Reebok) to head up the running dept.

Compare that to Nike and Phil Knight's background as a runner (and a lot of the other top execs there) and you can see that on a personal level they are much better connected to the sport.....could be the simple explanation for their success vs others. Oh well....

For all of Phil Knight's and Nike's ties to the sport, they effectively killed the club system that used to exist strongly in the U.S.

what club system is that? there was never a club 'system' here.

a true club system like exists in europe would produce much better runners and over time would produce the local media support needed

it is our insistence on keeping 'school' sports alive that will eventually kill the minor sports here

get track and XC out of HS and College and into the hands of locally developed clubs and in 10 years you have a powerhouse nation

Prior to the rise and disappearance of AW, there was a defacto system of numerous clubs which served to support local runners, both those who were established and those who were just out of college and were up-and-coming. NYAC (which is a mere shadow of its former self), LA TC, Colorado TC, Florida TC (same as with NYAC, but much worse), Houston TFC, Irish American AC, Finnish American AC, Millrose AA (all three from WAY back), BAA, GBTC (same as with NYAC, not as bad as Florida TC), University of Chicago TC, Pacific Coast Club, etc. Nowadays it's just a handful: Farm Team, Hansons, Invaders, Wisconsin Runner, Team Eugene, and one or two others who actually field teams at club nationals and send runners to the NC/OT meet, and most if not all of them have come along in only the last 5-10 years.

Not that your final point and conclusion do not make absolute sense.

You forgot: Nike Boston, which was every bit as strong as AW; Reebok RC; Sport David; Club Northwest; Nike Portland; Asics Tiger TC; Team Etonic; Oregon International TC; Eugene TC; Reebok Aggies; etc. I think economics had more to do with the demise of many of those clubs, though AW's cherry-picking of top runners from other clubs surely had a defeating impact on other, earlier clubs.

Jerry Turner wrote:

" I think economics had more to do with the demise of many of those clubs, though AW's cherry-picking of top runners from other clubs surely had a defeating impact on other, earlier clubs"

As Jerry says, it is pure economics, but I think it is more from the runners' side, not necissarily the shoe companies. How many 14:20 types give up running to enter the "real world" straight out of school?

adi -

I agree that the beginning of the demise of the club system more or less coincided with the establishment of AW by Nike. However, Nike also more or less created the "business" of running (in the USA). Mind you I do not think they did/do it for the benefit of the athletes, but rather they (and plenty others) viewed the athletes as a marketing tool to spread the word about their (Nike's) business. I do credit Nike with taking (some) of the money out of the back room/back pockets of the ruling bureaucrats and put it in the hands of the athletes. They also took some of the under the table payments to athletes above board and stimulated the endorsement climate for more than just a handful of athletes.

For many years adidas, puma, and others would make sizable back room payments to select athletes to wear their products. Nike's approach shed light on that practice and created the type of climate that now exists. Unfortunately, Nike's greatest (economic) successes came in the sport of basketball and thus their business focus broadened away from running. IMHO they (Nike) continue to "support" the sport of running primarily because of the cultural connection I mentioned in my earlier posting. Reebok, however is still trying to make a profit from the running business and does not have the cultural committment to the sport...thus the demise of the Enclave.

As soon as the folks at Reebok realize that there is not a lot of money to be made in running products they will let it withered away and move on to the Allen Iverson's of the world.

Personally, I would love to see the development of a true club system in the USA for (at least) distance running. It's been my belief for a long time that the scholastic/collegiate system in our country hurts the sport far more than it helps....at least in terms of long term development of talent and interest. But that should be discussed in another thread.

The Enclave would still be in existence if it wasn't for the greed of Coach Gags. I don't know if Peanut Harms will admit it today but I heard from his lips that Coach Gags wanted more $$ at a time when more money wasn't available and gave Reebok an ultimatum. He then shopped the Enclave around and there were on takers. Coach Gags then went back to Reebok to try to get back the existing deal. Reebok who did not like the tactics of Gags said no thanks.

Insider, why do you have it in for Gags? So "Coach Gags wanted more $$ at a time when more money wasn't available." That's one of the weaker lines of argument that I have seen in a while. Do you have some sort of inside scoop on Reebok and their cash flow situation? They seem to have plenty of money to pay Iverson to wear their shoes. Money being available has nothing to do with it. Not wanting to allocate money to track and field is the real issue.

There is a reason why you don't see people wearing Reeboks. It is because the shoes are crap. Pros don't wear them and neither do everyday runners. And the reason why everyday/recreational runners don't wear them is not because they don't see a lot of pros wearing them. You don't see a lot of pros wearing New Balance or Asics, yet they are still extremely popular.