Cosmetics are fine wrote:
I actually prefer the looks of Brooks and New Balance over all other brands. However, Brooks CEO has lost my business with the "not a sport" comment. I believe he owes the running community an apology.
+1
Cosmetics are fine wrote:
I actually prefer the looks of Brooks and New Balance over all other brands. However, Brooks CEO has lost my business with the "not a sport" comment. I believe he owes the running community an apology.
+1
If you guys read the article, their position, while I think has its flaws, is valid.
95% of people who run do it for one of several reasons:
1. stay in "shape"
2. get in shape (because the doctor said so)
3. social media
4. looks (which is probably tied to above)
No one actually runs to their best given their available time and talent. Only us LRC'ers talk about plans, training, etc. They just care about the likes.
Take a look at your local 5Ks. There has been a lot of complaining recently about how uncompetitive they are. The first question I see about a local 5K is "are there medals for everyone"? A lot of beginning runners want to run a marathon as their "FIRST RACE". And since I'm in Florida, I gotta mention this, since we have the Disney Running weekend, so many people are literally doing the goofy or dumbo challenge or something to run a combination of multiple races in a few days only to say they've done it. Many of us here would focus on one race and get our best time. Bah participation trophies all around!
Jeremy R wrote:
95% of people who run do it for one of several reasons:
We all read the article, and you haven't added anything new here. Brooks' stated position is essentially to ignore the other 5%. It's terrible.
Who do you think those 95%'er hobbyists talk to about shoes? Chances are they know a 5%'er. Just think how many times you get casual joggers asking you.
Hey Brooks, if you're reading this... I am an avid Launch guy who has been running since '78. My go-to shoe since series #1. Launch is the reason I left Nike, adidas, and Asics behind. Keep it going please. Thank you.
http://www.brooksrunning.com/dw/image/v2/aaev_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-BrooksCatalog/default/dw04511475/images/ProductImages/110278/110278_430_l_WR.jpg?sw=900No one actually. When I'm asked what I'm training for, I usually say 5K, and the "casual jogger" would be, I'm training for XX marathon... and he just ran a 30 min 5K, so yeah, they are completely disinterested because you are not a "real" runner like they are. I don't think they care about those who take it more seriously. Like I said, it's about the likes. You did a marathon! Yay! Here's my medal. 5 hour marathons are an accomplishment to them.
As for reading the article, I know most LRC'ers don't like to read lol. I wasn't trying to add anything but more understanding why Brooks is deciding to do what they are deciding to do.
The only household name is Usain Bolt (and maybe Shalane?). And he has since retired. At least in the US, running competitively from local to national level is dwindling
Jeremy R wrote:
No one actually. When I'm asked what I'm training for, I usually say 5K, and the "casual jogger" would be, I'm training for XX marathon... and he just ran a 30 min 5K, so yeah, they are completely disinterested because you are not a "real" runner like they are. I don't think they care about those who take it more seriously. Like I said, it's about the likes. You did a marathon! Yay! Here's my medal. 5 hour marathons are an accomplishment to them.
Painting casual joggers like this sounds like you might be in Brooks' board room.
Brooks just discontinued their I.D. Elite program which sponsored 100 elite runners that weren't fast enough to be pros, but fast enough win most road races and several were Olympic Trials Qualifiers. That certainly aligns with the move away from competitive runners and trying to get the joggers out there. The article has the CEO bragging about how many runners at the Olympic Trials were in Brooks, yet that was almost 100% due to the I.D. Elite program, which they just axed. Clearly, there won't be many in Brooks at the next Olympic Trials. My guess is most non-sponsored qualifiers will be in Nike Vaporflys.
Perhaps the new branding message is really just a play on reaching a new consumer demographic of those who run albeit minimally for other reasons like weight loss, health / stress relief etc. While this group does not have the same love of the sport as do the competitive runner, hobby jogger or everyday out for 2-4 miles type, they have found an activity which supersedes the exercise bike, swimming, etc. and they receive more physical and psychological benefits from.
Brooks makes plenty of shoes for those who may not 'love running' but will wear for mall walking, hiking and casual wear. From here those who are already in this 1-5 miles per week may find interest or desire to increase their actual run time and now move from the 'Not A Runner' to 'Running Happy'
You're reading way to much into the messaging.
Runnerboy1 wrote:
You're reading way to much into the messaging.
Disagree. The messaging is backed by dollars which are being funneled away from the sport (YES DAMMIT THE SPORT). Bye bye Brooks ID. Beasts and Hansons are next. Replaced by $1 "sponsorships" to nobodies for nothing.
But it's true though. I've never had any LRC type conversations with the average runner. From a business standpoint, if their analysis has shown this, then I can't really fault their business strategy. A company is there to make money. I think what many of us LRC'ers are upset about is that it appears they are forgetting about the more serious runner, with which Brooks may not really care about since we are not the "money makers"
Side comment- I'm an Altra/Saucony guy
I’ll go you one better: bring back the T3 (blk/yel); simple, no frills - worked like a charm for me
Earlier in my career I was a McKinsey-type business strategy consultant. Based on a quick reading of the article, and admitting exactly to exactly familiarity with the running industry, I'd bet the overall premise of Brook's strategy is sound. I probably wouldn't have telegraphed the pivot so clearly in the media, but I'm no PR expert.
The that the addressable non-enthusiast market is much, much larger the core enthusiast base is not something that is unique to running. The automotive market - where I do have some experience - is similar. Car enthusiast are generally looking for light weight, relatively spartan, high-performance coupes with manual transmissions. However, Lotus (who makes light, fast, manual coupes almost exclusively) has been bankrupt multiple times in the past decade. Meanwhile, Porsche sells 4 or 5 times as many Cayennes and Macans as they do 911s. Heavy, technology laden SUVs/CUVs with high ride heights and automatic transmissions - exactly the opposite of what enthusiasts ask for - are the volume sellers and growth drivers.
The key things Brooks will have to evaluate in determining how big of a risk alienating their core enthusiast customer base are:
1) Does the core enthusiasts base influence the purchase behavior of the addressable non-enthusiast market to a meaningful degree? If this is the case then in makes sense to retain at least some focus on the enthusiast customer. This is why BMW for instance, with it's Ultimate Driving Machine brand value, continues to offer manual transmissions on a lot of its models.
2) Is the margin profile of the core enthusiast base dis-proportionally rich relative to that of the addressable non-enthusiast market ? Said another way, are enthusiasts willing to pay significantly higher prices than non-enthusiasts for the same level of product performance? Again, if this is the case then there is again a case for continuing to serve enthusiasts. This is why Porsche continues to invest in development of its specialty GT series cars (GT2 911, GT3 911, and GT4 Cayman) despite there low sales volumes - fat unit level contribution margins.
If specialty running stores (which are largely staffed by serious runners) are Brooks primary distribution channel, then the answer to 1) may be, "yes". However, given the likely prevalence of online sales in this space (I admit I don't have real data here), then perhaps not. Given my personal observations that the "serious" runner community is composed largely of tightwads, I strongly suspect the answer to 2) is, "no". Based on this quick and dirty arm chair quarterback analysis, I'd think Brooks has little to lose by shifting its focus from serious runners to "hobby joggers" and non-runners.
Getting Old wrote:
1) Does the core enthusiasts base influence the purchase behavior of the addressable non-enthusiast market to a meaningful degree? If this is the case then in makes sense to retain at least some focus on the enthusiast customer.
Good analysis. In the interest of the sport, all running store employees should de-emphasize Brooks shoes in order to influence Brooks' strategy.
Replaced by $1 "sponsorships" to nobodies for nothing.
But aren't they telling these nobodies that they aren't even runners now?
@NickSymmonds
Brooks is a great company. They used to be the Run Happy company, they seem to have lost that in the last couple years.
@aaronpmccray
Replying to @NickSymmonds
What's your opinion on this move Brooks is looking to make?
Hey everyone look at me wrote:
@NickSymmonds
Brooks is a great company. They used to be the Run Happy company, they seem to have lost that in the last couple years.
@aaronpmccray
Replying to @NickSymmonds
What's your opinion on this move Brooks is looking to make?
Let me get this timeline correct. After Brooks made the decision to no longer pay Nick he feels that they lost their way. Yeah right. And Nike was great 5 years ago too. They then did not renew Nicks contract and they became bad for the sport. Got it Nick. We all understand.
Nick was a bad investment and people that bought his load of crap that once worked for Brooks are no longer there. That is sad.
I hear ya wrote:
The Hansons will be dropped. Everything that resembles being competitive will be dropped. Danny Mackey will be homeless in 2 years. The PR Meet is next to be gone.
Really? Do you know how long their contract with Brooks is? Think again Padre'.
Dirtpoor wrote:
I’ll go you one better: bring back the T3 (blk/yel); simple, no frills - worked like a charm for me
Yeah, I emailed them about the T series in general and they told me to just buy the Hyperion.
dad bod wrote:
Buffahol wrote:
Warren Buffett, the same man who says stay away from bitcoin, owns Brooks through Berkshire
Letsrun says bitcoin is a better investment though
Buffett told Brooks, "Just make the brand stronger" when he bought them, right?
Here's how Brooks is doing the opposite:
1) They sell primarily through specialty running stores
2) Specialty running store sales people are almost exclusively serious runners
3) Recent actions by Brooks are upsetting serious runners
4) Serious runners are soured to the Brooks product and are more likely to recommend something else
I worked at a specialty store through college. I sold A LOT of Brooks shoes. But if I worked in a shoe store today, I would be steering folks away from them.
1. all speciality brands sell in specialty running stores
2. nothing we don't already know, not Brooks specific
3. nobody cares what they do with athletes outside a few geeks that follow the sport
4. not really only a handful of geeks
They will never get to a $ billion, why?
-Running market has shrunk
-Running retail has shrunk
-Big box sports store have shrunk were you do volume sales
-They already have online sales in every channel
-They already have saturated international distribution ( remember this brand is a mature brand)
Every time Warren Buffett buys a company in my area, it gets consolidated and all the local workers lose their jobs. Looks like the "elite" runners are the ones who lost their job here.