...and today they just gave the American CEO the boot!
So things are about to get really interesting, either radical changes to improve their running shoe series or fade it from existence, because there isn't really anything left, just heavy clunky trainers (the 451 is terrible).
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
As others have said, I feel like it's a combination of a few factors...and maybe I'm wrong here..
1. Lack of real innovation in their shoes.
2. Sales have been declining the last few years, not just this in 2018. 10 years ago, it seemed like every other pair of shoes worn by the "hobby jogger" in races were Asics
3. Went pretty heavy into the casual/lifestyle/trendy shoe segment with their whole throwback push.
4. Rise of Brooks and Saucony (better marketing?)
5. I'm not sure I even see them sold in my local running store(s).
What are you smoking?
I've been racing a lot and Asics is not even close to Nike's, especially among hobby joggers.
Casual/trendy shoe segment? Again Nike''s big time. Hoka's catching up.
It's a been a slow train wreck for some time now.
-They just fired US president, American and put a Japanese manager in place, not smart
-Being Japanese led they will never understand global market, Mizuno is in the same boat
-Big soft midsole's sell, not a Japanese idea for making performance running shoes, small market that doesn't grow.
-Loyal following in Japan, growth in China due to running boom there and comfort with an Asian brand
-Bad and expensive to Boston creative office, added overhead
- A fall from grace for what was once a great brand
c'mon wrote:
What are you smoking?
I've been racing a lot and Asics is not even close to Nike's, especially among hobby joggers.
Casual/trendy shoe segment? Again Nike''s big time. Hoka's catching up.
I think you missed the entire point of my post.
No surprise here and well deserved. They make heavy clunky uncomfortable shoes and charge ridiculous prices for them. Their apparel sizing is wildly inconsistent and most of it is the quality of what you'd buy at K-mart. I'll be glad when they go out of business.
tarckstar wrote:
Running shoe sales represent squat with these larger companies.
The problem Asics is facing is that they don't have a Boost/Yeezy, or a Roshe/Jordan, or whatever the other companies live on. Running shoes represent nothing, and track gear even less. The money is in shoes that "drop," and have the right silhouette. Asics has a retro line, but that's only going to go so far.
Brooks is doing just fine without have a Boost/Yeezy etc.
FWIW, I really like the Asics Blazingfast.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
As others have said, I feel like it's a combination of a few factors...and maybe I'm wrong here..
1. Lack of real innovation in their shoes.
2. Sales have been declining the last few years, not just this in 2018. 10 years ago, it seemed like every other pair of shoes worn by the "hobby jogger" in races were Asics
3. Went pretty heavy into the casual/lifestyle/trendy shoe segment with their whole throwback push.
4. Rise of Brooks and Saucony (better marketing?)
5. I'm not sure I even see them sold in my local running store(s).
This, especially #1.
In 2009 when the Kinvara came out, I told an Asics rep they needed to come out with a line of low heel-to-toe lift shoes. The Kinvara was a significant step forward in shoe design, in my opinion, but now Asics still has only 10mm drop shoes, except in their racing flats, to the best of my knowledge.
Today, almost every brand has multiple models of 4-6mm drop shoes... Nike, Saucony, Brooks, New Balance, Newton, ON, Hoka, and so on.
Today, many brands have a low drop and a "rocker sole" popularized by Hoka.
I must be the exception that proves the rule, I've been running in Asics GT 1000 7 the last 6 months, I'm light, relatively quick (29 10k/64 half) and I need a little stability This shoe is cheap ($100 but widely available for $75), relatively light at around 300g, it's also incredibly durable, I got about 800 miles on my first pair and the still feel ok. Before this shoe I had tried Nike Structure (awful lopsided shoe that gave me horrendous heel and foot pain, like a brick), Mizuno inspire (ok but pretty clunky and with a very firm heel, gave me hip issues), Brook Ravenna, ok but pretty stiff and not very durable, Hoka Cavu (gave me a foot injury after 3 runs that I had never had before because they don't bend!) etc.... These shoes have been the light at the end of a tunnel of looking for a workhorse shoe for about 3 years.
On the back of these I bought a pair of DS trainers, a little slappy but good for treadmill workouts, Tartherzeal which is a great lightweight (sub 6oz and better than Takumi's) racer and a couple of scheap pairs of lyteracer TS which I really like, they remind me of the pre boost adios.
I personally don't see asics to being much different to many other brands. New Balance have seen a lot pf innovation in the last few years but I think their shoes are getting worse, so many models, so many competing models, I don't know what is what, and why have almost all their shoes lost a heel counter? Brooks have had no new racers for about 2-3 years, Mizuno offer very few models (I like the Emperor), but the big boys, Nike.... have you run in a react shoe? These are for gym goers surely, not a shoe for running, way too soft, unstable, poor durability. Adidas, I just can't get away with their line of trainers, the racers are good but the last affects my feet.
I think part of the problem is that Asics were seen as a performance brand making performance product, they were always associated with the elite. Like lots of other brands they have gone down this 'Asics frontrunners', fatties the size of a sofa getting free kit and running 90 minute 10ks, that does not create an aspirational brand.
This industry is just a cycle, pre boost Adidas were just about dead in the water... once the vaporfly is banned Nike will be pedalling the same old crap they have for decades, phylon midsole with air bags. the pegasus has barely changed in 20 years apart from aesthetics.
bull crap baby wrote:
I must be the exception that proves the rule, I've been running in Asics GT 1000 7 the last 6 months, I'm light, relatively quick (29 10k/64 half) and I need a little stability This shoe is cheap ($100 but widely available for $75), relatively light at around 300g, it's also incredibly durable, I got about 800 miles on my first pair and the still feel ok. Before this shoe I had tried Nike Structure (awful lopsided shoe that gave me horrendous heel and foot pain, like a brick), Mizuno inspire (ok but pretty clunky and with a very firm heel, gave me hip issues), Brook Ravenna, ok but pretty stiff and not very durable, Hoka Cavu (gave me a foot injury after 3 runs that I had never had before because they don't bend!) etc.... These shoes have been the light at the end of a tunnel of looking for a workhorse shoe for about 3 years.
On the back of these I bought a pair of DS trainers, a little slappy but good for treadmill workouts, Tartherzeal which is a great lightweight (sub 6oz and better than Takumi's) racer and a couple of scheap pairs of lyteracer TS which I really like, they remind me of the pre boost adios.
I personally don't see asics to being much different to many other brands. New Balance have seen a lot pf innovation in the last few years but I think their shoes are getting worse, so many models, so many competing models, I don't know what is what, and why have almost all their shoes lost a heel counter? Brooks have had no new racers for about 2-3 years, Mizuno offer very few models (I like the Emperor), but the big boys, Nike.... have you run in a react shoe? These are for gym goers surely, not a shoe for running, way too soft, unstable, poor durability. Adidas, I just can't get away with their line of trainers, the racers are good but the last affects my feet.
I think part of the problem is that Asics were seen as a performance brand making performance product, they were always associated with the elite. Like lots of other brands they have gone down this 'Asics frontrunners', fatties the size of a sofa getting free kit and running 90 minute 10ks, that does not create an aspirational brand.
This industry is just a cycle, pre boost Adidas were just about dead in the water... once the vaporfly is banned Nike will be pedalling the same old crap they have for decades, phylon midsole with air bags. the pegasus has barely changed in 20 years apart from aesthetics.
The 1000 is actually a solid shoe and their beat support shoe. The DS Trainer is far too slappy. They're shoes are just plain hard underfoot and the ride isn't smooth. The first dynaflyte was a good shoe and they immediately ruined it. Since then the flytefoam has just been hard in nearly every model they make. The Hyperspeed and DS racer need a comeback in some form.
Adidas went hard and heavy into the more casual/lifestyle shoes by signing celebrities to rep them. The "boost"material helped, but you still don't see them selling a lot of running shoes to people who actually run. People wear them because it's trendy.
A lot of Nike's running shoes are the same way. They sell a ton of "running" shoes, but you really don't see a lot of people running in them. (Sorry, but the "elite" level runners don't account for much in the way of sales).
bring back the hyperspeed wrote:
Uh oh, ASICS got its butt kicked in sales last year.
I guess we're never getting a hyperspeed 8, also not sure what it means for sponsored athletes.
$180 million worldwide loss in 2018 with slow sales in USA and Japan.
Their stock lost 6% yesterday.
Can't find an english version of this article yet:
Sales in China grew sharply, but the sluggish sales of running shoes in the United States and Japan hurt and failed to compensate. Proceeding with the disposal and sales of inventory mainly in the United States also pressed down profits, operating profit fell 46% to 10.5 billion yen.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASFL13HLW_T10C19A2000000/
Thank god...maybe they'll stop making those flat, slappy, fat, and happy shoes
Jesus I've been on letsrun too long look at all those typos lol
c'mon wrote:
[quote]MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
As others have said, I feel like it's a combination of a few factors...and maybe I'm wrong here..
1. Lack of real innovation in their shoes.
2. Sales have been declining the last few years, not just this in 2018. 10 years ago, it seemed like every other pair of shoes worn by the "hobby jogger" in races were Asics
3. Went pretty heavy into the casual/lifestyle/trendy shoe segment with their whole throwback push.
4. Rise of Brooks and Saucony (better marketing?)
5. I'm not sure I even see them sold in my local running store(s).
What are you smoking?
/quote]
You should ask this to yourself.
Old Man Runner wrote:
Adidas went hard and heavy into the more casual/lifestyle shoes by signing celebrities to rep them. The "boost"material helped, but you still don't see them selling a lot of running shoes to people who actually run. People wear them because it's trendy.
A lot of Nike's running shoes are the same way. They sell a ton of "running" shoes, but you really don't see a lot of people running in them. (Sorry, but the "elite" level runners don't account for much in the way of sales).
What you aren't seeing a lot of people running in Adidas or Nike's? ? What ARE you seeing a lot of people running in??
bull crap baby wrote:
I must be the exception that proves the rule, I've been running in Asics GT 1000 7 the last 6 months, I'm light, relatively quick (29 10k/64 half) and I need a little stability This shoe is cheap ($100 but widely available for $75), relatively light at around 300g
wait are you also racing in 300gram shoes?
because if you are dropping a 29 10K in those, you are going to be amazed when you try a 200gram shoe
(11 ounces vs 7 ounces)
every three ounces off your shoes is 1% performance improvement, for reals if all other things are equal
this is why the hyperspeeds are so fantastic, it's almost like a track flat for the road
elites can do full marathons in them but I find a half is about my limit before things start to hurt
I see far more people running in Hoka, Brooks and Saucony...especially in what LetsRunners consider the "hobby jogger" category, which let's face it, is a h*ll of a lot bigger market than the elite level. Seriously, go to any 5k, 10, half or full. Once you get past the faster people, tell me what you see on people's feet. You'll have some 4% peeps in there, but an overwhelming majority will be one of the three brands I listed.
bull crap baby wrote:
I must be the exception that proves the rule, I've been running in Asics GT 1000 7 the last 6 months, I'm light, relatively quick (29 10k/64 half) and I need a little stability This shoe is cheap ($100 but widely available for $75), relatively light at around 300g, it's also incredibly durable, I got about 800 miles on my first pair and the still feel ok. Before this shoe I had tried Nike Structure (awful lopsided shoe that gave me horrendous heel and foot pain, like a brick), Mizuno inspire (ok but pretty clunky and with a very firm heel, gave me hip issues), Brook Ravenna, ok but pretty stiff and not very durable, Hoka Cavu (gave me a foot injury after 3 runs that I had never had before because they don't bend!) etc.... These shoes have been the light at the end of a tunnel of looking for a workhorse shoe for about 3 years.
On the back of these I bought a pair of DS trainers, a little slappy but good for treadmill workouts, Tartherzeal which is a great lightweight (sub 6oz and better than Takumi's) racer and a couple of scheap pairs of lyteracer TS which I really like, they remind me of the pre boost adios.
I personally don't see asics to being much different to many other brands. New Balance have seen a lot pf innovation in the last few years but I think their shoes are getting worse, so many models, so many competing models, I don't know what is what, and why have almost all their shoes lost a heel counter? Brooks have had no new racers for about 2-3 years, Mizuno offer very few models (I like the Emperor), but the big boys, Nike.... have you run in a react shoe? These are for gym goers surely, not a shoe for running, way too soft, unstable, poor durability. Adidas, I just can't get away with their line of trainers, the racers are good but the last affects my feet.
I think part of the problem is that Asics were seen as a performance brand making performance product, they were always associated with the elite. Like lots of other brands they have gone down this 'Asics frontrunners', fatties the size of a sofa getting free kit and running 90 minute 10ks, that does not create an aspirational brand.
This industry is just a cycle, pre boost Adidas were just about dead in the water... once the vaporfly is banned Nike will be pedalling the same old crap they have for decades, phylon midsole with air bags. the pegasus has barely changed in 20 years apart from aesthetics.
That's good for you that you found your 'shoe', glad to hear it.
Nike need not fiddle with the Pegasus apart from aesthetics... on the whole it's a winner & that's why it still ships loads.
Pegasus has suited me for the last decade and in all honesty, probably for the next 10 years too.
When brands start fiddling with their offerings, see the punters rise up in anger...
No, most brands continue with 8mm+ on their best models. The days of zero drop and 4mm drop are coming to an end after the Vaporfly 4% research proved out 10mm as a much more efficient and leg saving/energy saving drop for elite level racing. That's why Salomon has slowly been adjusting their line to 8mm and moving out of 4mm for some of their daily trainers. HOKA has had push back from some elite runners to not offer everything in 4mm, but not as bad with the rocker and thick midsoles. Everyone is aware that something like a Clayton, etc., is terrible to run fast in. Asics, which I've been wearing on and off for a while now, simply failed to innovate. I agree that their ride is now "flat" and dated. Still works for me, but it could be better. I trust this is cyclical and they will be back in 3-5 years as #2 brand or so. Even Brooks will fall in due time.
fisky wrote:
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
As others have said, I feel like it's a combination of a few factors...and maybe I'm wrong here..
1. Lack of real innovation in their shoes.
2. Sales have been declining the last few years, not just this in 2018. 10 years ago, it seemed like every other pair of shoes worn by the "hobby jogger" in races were Asics
3. Went pretty heavy into the casual/lifestyle/trendy shoe segment with their whole throwback push.
4. Rise of Brooks and Saucony (better marketing?)
5. I'm not sure I even see them sold in my local running store(s).
This, especially #1.
In 2009 when the Kinvara came out, I told an Asics rep they needed to come out with a line of low heel-to-toe lift shoes. The Kinvara was a significant step forward in shoe design, in my opinion, but now Asics still has only 10mm drop shoes, except in their racing flats, to the best of my knowledge.
Today, almost every brand has multiple models of 4-6mm drop shoes... Nike, Saucony, Brooks, New Balance, Newton, ON, Hoka, and so on.
Today, many brands have a low drop and a "rocker sole" popularized by Hoka.
bull crap baby wrote:
I must be the exception that proves the rule, I've been running in Asics GT 1000 7 the last 6 months, I'm light, relatively quick (29 10k/64 half) and I need a little stability This shoe is cheap ($100 but widely available for $75), relatively light at around 300g, it's also incredibly durable, I got about 800 miles on my first pair and the still feel ok. Before this shoe I had tried Nike Structure (awful lopsided shoe that gave me horrendous heel and foot pain, like a brick), Mizuno inspire (ok but pretty clunky and with a very firm heel, gave me hip issues), Brook Ravenna, ok but pretty stiff and not very durable, Hoka Cavu (gave me a foot injury after 3 runs that I had never had before because they don't bend!) etc.... These shoes have been the light at the end of a tunnel of looking for a workhorse shoe for about 3 years.
On the back of these I bought a pair of DS trainers, a little slappy but good for treadmill workouts, Tartherzeal which is a great lightweight (sub 6oz and better than Takumi's) racer and a couple of scheap pairs of lyteracer TS which I really like, they remind me of the pre boost adios.
I personally don't see asics to being much different to many other brands. New Balance have seen a lot pf innovation in the last few years but I think their shoes are getting worse, so many models, so many competing models, I don't know what is what, and why have almost all their shoes lost a heel counter? Brooks have had no new racers for about 2-3 years, Mizuno offer very few models (I like the Emperor), but the big boys, Nike.... have you run in a react shoe? These are for gym goers surely, not a shoe for running, way too soft, unstable, poor durability. Adidas, I just can't get away with their line of trainers, the racers are good but the last affects my feet.
I think part of the problem is that Asics were seen as a performance brand making performance product, they were always associated with the elite. Like lots of other brands they have gone down this 'Asics frontrunners', fatties the size of a sofa getting free kit and running 90 minute 10ks, that does not create an aspirational brand.
This industry is just a cycle, pre boost Adidas were just about dead in the water... once the vaporfly is banned Nike will be pedalling the same old crap they have for decades, phylon midsole with air bags. the pegasus has barely changed in 20 years apart from aesthetics.
I doubt the Vaporfly would ever be banned.
As for the pegasus, if they work, why should they change? This is what I hate about New Balance. They ruin great models with so-called updates like the Zante.
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
NY Times: Treadmill desks might really be worth it. Does anyone use one?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion