Great write-up from Richard Kuchinsky … was just discussing this view on Nike the other day
Nike's down? They have runners spending $300 on shoes that won't benefit them. They single-handedly created the "Super Shoe" category. I wouldn't count them out. On my long run this past weekend, I saw at least 5 runners using a pair of the latest Alphafly 3 that probably shouldn't have. They were running very slow paces at which the shoes don't really work, and were probably not running very far. They were likely new runners convinced that "super shoes" are needed. They spent 3x what they probably needed for shoes that will wear out 2x faster. How's that not good business for Nike? I'm not saying that Nike running is doing everything right. Beyond top models, Nike is lacking in the depth and breadth needed to keep the brand in a runner's complete rotation. They still don't offer a good super trainer (The Zoom Fly range has sucked for the last 3 generations) or a super-stack max cushioned long run model. Early reviews of the totally new Peg are "meh". Still, 15 years ago Nike wasn't in the conversation with real runners. Despite other brands in the run adjacent conversation with marshmallowy white lifestyle shoes for the cool kids, runners still know and want Nike. I haven't received a design brief in 5 years that doesn't mention the Alphafly or Vaporfly as a benchmark. --- I’m the owner of The Directive Collective footwear design consultancy. We make great footwear, not just great sketches. #design #footwear #footweardesign #running #nike
Global Footwear Designer & Performance Running Expert
2wThanks for the share.