34 pointsby andsoitisan hour ago9 comments
  • nemothekid32 minutes ago
    Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.

    About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere.

    While Hoka probably executed extremely well, I imagine it was an incredibly lucky position Hoka found themselves in when all those retailers had to replace Nike with something. Maybe even allbirds would be in a better position today had they launched 3-4 years later.

    Edit: I just looked it up and it seems both Hoka and On were founded before Allbirds. Seems allbirds imploded (~2021), just as Nike was ceding all their retail space (also around 2021). Had they had another year, maybe they wouldn't have had to pivot into an AI datacenter company.

  • sh-run19 minutes ago
    As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with.

    Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.

  • gcanyon5 minutes ago
    I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
  • epsteingptan hour ago
    Sneakerbots killed it for everyone.

    Priced out the demand IMO too early.

    But also, people only have 2 feet.

    • ronsoran hour ago
      > Sneakerbots killed it for everyone

      Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.

      • bawolff2 minutes ago
        Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.
      • epsteingpt31 minutes ago
        Slightly different take IMO.

        There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.

        If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.

        • bawolff4 minutes ago
          >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.

          But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out.

          why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?

    • andsoitisan hour ago
      > But also, people only have 2 feet.

      There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.

      • morkalork29 minutes ago
        Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
      • whatan hour ago
        Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
        • MiroslavPokorny37 minutes ago
          Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
        • 33 minutes ago
          undefined
  • cadamsdotcom25 minutes ago
    Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet..

    Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone.

    Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund.

    Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.

  • Alien1Being32 minutes ago
    They are welcome to make stuff that nobody wants. Weird designs, made poorly and disintegrating in months.

    But then the share price drops.

    ie: the market capitalisation drops.

    They then have to pay more money to borrow.

    Fewer investors are interested in giving them money.

    The business spirals into irrelevance like Ken Olsen's Digital Equipment Corporation.

    Restructuring happens

    Employees lose jobs.

    Restructuring happens again and again and again.

    Employees lose jobs, more jobs and still more jobs.

    Unpaid suppliers go bankrupt.

    Finally they shut down and become an irrelevance like Nike, 777 Partners, DEC, BioXcel Therapeutics, Lycos, First Brands Group, Yahoo.

  • fakedang35 minutes ago
    Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers.

    And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.

  • VirusNewbiean hour ago
    I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status.

    But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices.

    All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.

  • morkalork28 minutes ago
    I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry