This is called The McNamara fallacy (if it can't be measured, it's not important).

This and Goodhart's law are the bane of pure data-driven decision making.

> Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data'

We’re about to see many more of the same thing except the “data” has been replaced with “ai output”

Step 2.5 is "Start harvesting value by cannibalizing your own products (keep price high, cut quality), since there is nothing competitive in the pipeline."

> Data wasn't the killer.

"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and yet people treats data as a crystal ball that can predict the future.

Data can help a company to decide what to do next week with little though and great results.

It cannot set a long-term strategy without a lot of interpretation, guessing and adaptability. That same very good short-term decision may have been the first step towards destruction.

or underestimating the value of partnerships.

nike thought they were the storefront. reality and history proved otherwise.

The book Incorruptible covers how to avoid that

Is it what happened at Nike? I did not folly it very much

Maybe that narrative and story is overly-simplistic, feel-good stuff for engineers who think they're smarter than they are and the explanations for why these companies fail can be rather nuanced and completely unrelated to whatever decision some database developer thinks they would make? Maybe you're seeing patterns because your brain which is set by default to recognize patterns is deceiving you?

Nike specifically looks like the opposite of what you are asserting where the spreadsheet people take over. Here's the innovative kind of shoes that Nike is making that you are asserting is being killed in step 2: https://www.nike.com/t/jordan-trunner-o-s-mens-shoes-tC5xlGT...

This looks idiotic. I'm not buying it. And you want me to scroll through 700+ pairs of shoes where most look like that? Give me a break. This is what happens when "innovation" culture takes over without adults in the room.

Here's a Hoka shoe: https://www.hoka.com/en/us/mens-everyday-running-gear/clifto...

Here's an ON shoe: https://www.on.com/en-us/products/cloud-6-coast-3mf1003/mens...

Here's a New Balance shoe: https://www.newbalance.com/pd/574-core/ML574V3-40377.html?dw...

Maybe they should let the boring spreadsheet people take over?

Hoka blew up in the running space, like, ten+ years ago. The first Cliftons were pretty novel for being extremely plush. Light-ish weight maxi shoes weren't really a thing before Hoka popularized them. Now every running shoe brand offers something in that space.

More recently I think they've been adopted by the "active retiree" crowd? They're nice to walk in.

(I owned some of the original Cliftons myself. Did not love the flimsy tongue or cheap insoles that would slide around and crumple under your toes.)

I'm a trail runner in Northern Europe. Hoka has been omnipresent there for the last few years, as has (traditionally) Salomon.

Not sure I've seen much Hoka outside of trial running circles here yet.

I'm thinking about sneakers used for actually doing sport though.

I'm from Spain and I mostly see Skechers, New Balance, Nike (doesn't seem to be doing that bad here?), ASICS, Adidas, Puma, Converse, Vans. Lately Salomon. I hadn't heard of Hoka before either, maybe we are behind the times.

I ran a half marathon this weekend. Maybe 70% of people, including myself, had Brooks. The rest were Hoka mostly Hoka and a mix of Nikes and Asics. I had never heard of Brooks until a few years ago when I googled best running shoes and went down a rabbit-hole that barely cared about Nike.

Hoka is everywhere amongst runners in Australia; it got noticeable marketshare very quickly. I think they actively do trial sessions with public running groups?

i think one can be in Sketchers but who is into Sketchers?

I can't tell if Hoka crossed the into fashion athleisure mainstream, there's a lot of fit people wearing them in cities, but can't tell if as fashion statement or back from run.

Hoka is great. I have several pairs. I tend to go through a couple of pairs a year.

Not that long ago, they were an oddity, around here.

Let's hope success doesn't spoil them.

I used to use Nikes, then something happened, and the exact same type that were comfortable, last year, are now giving me blisters.

Enshittification doesn't just affect tech.

Everyone I know wears shoes.

I too was like, who?

Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards.

It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.

The comments in the article about 'performance' are very real. When Nike was still in retail stores, 9/10 shoes were fashion sneakers and had nothing to do with athletics/running/performance.

By comparison, Hoka is positioned as a runners shoe. They have a variety of models based on the type of running you need (daily, long run, race), provide road/trail variants (their Speedgoat is amazing trail shoe), have large toe boxes to give your forefoot/toes the space needed to spread out on impact, also room to grow from swelling.

I'm sure Nike don't want to walk back from their fashionista offerings, but there are lessons in here for sure - maybe they need sub-branding like Nike Road, Nike Trail, Nike Casual or Nike Performance and Nike Casual.

Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions.

In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes.

Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.

Shoes salespeople wield huge influence over buying decisions, especially if they come off as authoritative.

My son works in a running shoe store that also does gait analysis and they default every new runner into something stable-neutral like a Brooks Ghost, Saucony Ride, or NB 880. They never default with Nike or Adidas because, although both brands make some excellent running shoe models, neither have anything that's in the same category (if Nike had a shoe that was a mix between the Structure & Pegasus, that would be id. If Adidas had something like the SL2 but with a little more structure, that would, too.). The problem with both Nike & Adidas is that they cater to a million different niche audiences, and while both have some amazing running shoe options at the top end (e.g. Vomero Plus for cushioned daily, Alphafly / Streakfly / Vaporfly for racing, etc) their shoes targeting casual runners doing 2-5mi slow runs a couple days a week are lacking. Yes, you could go with a Pegasus, and many do, but although that's a general purpose stable-neutral running shoe, there are way better options from other brands (including Hoka & On, but also Brooks, NB, Saucony, Asics, Topo, Altra, Mizuno, and more).

Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand.

Can’t speak for worldwide, but in the US Nike decided to aim for exclusivity and basically pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.

In my opinion, in US, they became more fashion than athletic. Without realizing athletic is a huge fashion trend. The talk of hoka and on taking share, is true, but it’s also an extension of the fashion trend for something new/fresh/unique/authentic in the athletic category. Apparel has seen similar shifts, newer entrants like Alo and Vuori have put Lululemon and other more established brands on their heals.

It is, they never changed their retail strategy (1-2 showcase stores per state + rebel & JD) here

In the US, Nike/Adidas were #1 and #2. Thats all I meant - I haven't seen any change in Adidas, if anything they are even more popular now and are probably the #1 sneaker brand I see in San Francisco. The Samba is incredibly popular, it's as salient to me as the "air force 1" used to be.

AFAIK, Adidas has been more niche* in the US, which makes sense given its German origin. I'm German and I don't recall a time when Adidas wasn't either #1 or #2 here. Kanye West barely registered.

* It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture, for example. Widely popular brands don't have such specific associations.

Hoka has a fairly unusual corporate history. They were founded in 2009 in Annecy, France. (Yeah, read that twice. No hate on Annecy, but that is a mega brand being started from a tiny French city!) Then in 2013, they were acquired by California-based Deckers Brands which is also the owner of UGG and Teva.

The real question: How did they become the Lululemon of casual sneakers? Just like lots of women who don't do yoga and barely attend the gym, they cannot get enough Lululemon in their wardrobe. The same can be said for Hoka running shoes: All kinds of normies that barely exercise wear them anywhere and always.

I saw this too. It felt like where corporate would showcase their shoes to a potential corporate merger or acquisition. Real shoe stores have huge inventory across dozens of specific shoes.

There is a retail shopping mall here; it is not an outlet mall, but a Nike Store opened up and it feels like an outlet. It was bustling with a lot of people milling around. There were bags available at the front, which I thought were durable totes for sale, but turned out that they were shopping bags to hold your pre-purchase items?

There were rows and rows of shoes to try, and a salesman was helping me for a while, but after trying 3 pairs I just got the feeling that the store was a dumping ground for the odd styles and odd sizes, and having figured out which size fit me, I left all the shoes there, and only purchased a lanyard, which was at least $25.

Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status.

Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out.

    > all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool

They also hiked their prices on things like Jordan’s until they’re in a new price category $200+ and against really quite high quality shoes

New Balance were Dad shoes 10 years ago but somehow they are now fashionable in the UK (also Asics).

I'd literally never heard of Hoka or On in my life though before this thread and they do not look fashionable

Never heard of Hoka either, so I asked my wife just now: “oh yes, I have a pair.”

Most races I've participated in or spectated at in the last few years you'd see Hoka on at least half the runners' feet.

Interesting! Hoka is extremely popular in my circles. They make excellent running shoes for beginners and decent running shoes for more serious athletes. They're also very popular among folks like service workers and nurses who are on their feet all day. I was very sad to find that they don't fit my feet well.

A 5min 'best running shoes' session would mention both Hokas, ON's etc.

That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.

Today, you're one of the lucky 10000![1]

For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/

YMMV but Hoka Bondi is the most comfortable pair of sneakers I've ever had in my life. I'm not going back to Nike. Haven't heard/seen much of them until this year too though.

On's commitment to avoiding search clicks goes beyond their name.

Their logo deliberately looks more like 'qn' or 'nq' than 'on'. I _had_ a pair and couldn't remember or figure who made it for a while.

they did lock up their domain name, which must have taken some doing.

yea but so comfortable :(

no other shoe could carry my feet for miles with no outwardly visible branding

For every shop that exists in the real world to sell shit to women you have to remember there's an offshore sports betting portal on the world wide web to relieve men of their disposable income.

To visit the mens clothing section of brands like Zara or H&M at a mall you often have to walk through the women’s section on the first floor, then go up an escalator, then walk through the top floor’s second women's section to find the men’s section hidden away on the other half.

According to a Nielsen report, women control 70-80% of consumer spending and are responsible for a growing share of discretionary spending (expected to be 75% by 2029). Everybody is simply going to where the money is. https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2024/shapi...

Also how is Pizza Hut male coded?

When was this different? The 'traditional masculine' man doesn't shop - his wife shops for him.

How is pizza hut male coded?

Why Pizza Hut?

>I fail to see how trying to attract more women alienated men

It's less about Nike making decisions that men don't like and more about Nike spreading themselves too thin.

Just think about Nike as a company: the products they actually sell are generic, barely mid-tier clothes and athletic gear. Their actual product is their brand. That's why all of their products prominently display their iconic logo and everyone and their grandma knows their slogan is "Just do it."

A brand is only as valuable as the awareness of the brand. So every dollar that Nike spends on marketing is incredibly important for driving their bottom line. If you split those marketing dollars in an attempt to reach a new audience, you're necessarily spending less of those marketing dollars on the existing audience that found your brand valuable. So, in trying to attract more women, Nike ended up attracting less men.

The question, really, is how important is this dynamic. Apparently, it's pretty important. I don't think Nike made a blunder in attempting to expand their audience. I'm willing to bet that they started seeing some writing on the walls which suggested not doing anything was going to be bad enough that taking the risk to spread themselves thin was appropriate. But at the end of the day, I think modern consumerism moves too fast and is so much less concentrated than it was in the past (when Nike dominated) that they just couldn't keep everything together as effectively as they needed to.

“We tried to sell things to women” as the basis for alienating… men? It does sound like a nonsensical take on this. Nike has many flaws, but selling to women isn’t one of them.

Nowadays, it seems that catering to any audience other than 1) white 2) male is "culture war".

Good luck trying to argue that with people nowadays. Culture war mentality is perfect for wishful thinking, and it's hard to avoid falling into the trap.

Google, Apple, Facebook, etc, had their woke phase with tremendously growth, and nobody says "get woke, go broke" when they made billions. What about Twitter losing all its users because of Musk? Most of the people in my social circle who said that are still using Twitter nowadays. And if you dare to say that they are drinking the Kool-Aid, you are "not following politics close enough"

For actually running (as opposed to just casual use), Nike was never actually my first choice. I used Brooks in the past, and recently Hoka - both of which I think are great shoes. Unfortunately both are US based.

For a non-US company, maybe give Asics (Japanese brand) a look? They never really fit me right personally, but I know they are popular amongst runners.

And just to clarify - I don't think any of the brands above sell proper "wide toe box" shoes that I mentioned above. Xero and Altra are the best known brands (both US-based) in this category I think. There are also some really inexpensive options from Chinese companies on Amazon that I think are actually worth a look - Whitin seems to be the most popular on Amazon in the US, but I see the same shoes sold under different brand names. These shoes tend to be really light weight and comfortable for casual use or working out, but they just don't have enough cushion where I would want to run long distances in them.

Oh and Skechers sells some wide toe shoes as well - not as roomy in the toe box as the brands above, but still super comfy. But again, not something I would recommend for running.

Not OP but I bought a pair of wide-toe trainers from Altra and I love them. They are the least ugly, properly wide shoes I have bought yet (and I've worn a good few).

I did the same, used to be a Nike guy. Switched to a zero drop, wide toe box Altra, and have stayed with them since. (Topo is another competitor in the same space)

I don't know any non-US brands but echoing that I've only bought Altras for the past five or so years because of the large toe-box size and reasonable looks.

Surprisingly if you're into marathons, the On Cloudboom Strike 2 is unusually roomy in the toebox for a big sports brand.

I still sometimes wear my decade-old Nike Free RNs held together with little more than spoiled hopes, dreams, and shoe goo.

They still sell nike free shoes, I can get them in outlets. I agree they are less of a focus than years ago

Not sure if I’ve always been too rough with my should, but last year I needed to get more shoes as I was particularly active hiking and fishing that summer.

I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for.

A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.

>30%+ of the price of a Nike product

it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them

I think he might be talking about Camper Shoes. I have two pairs that are at least 6 years old, but they are not made for running, and, they are also not as comfortable for walking as many of the famous brands. One was made in Cambodia (Peu) and the other one in Vietnam (Drift).

Cetti.

Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.

I had the same experience with a pair of Nike Zoomfly Air. Bought in 2020, and they'd fallen apart by 2024 with extremely light use thanks to COVID and WfH. It was quite disappointing given the cost, and they had been quite comfortable shoes. Lately, I wear Brooks.

I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes.

Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/

I agree with this.

I think they should make a range of climbing shoes to reinforce credibility on this market. Adidas has 5.10 and some pretty serious climbers (Janja Garnbret!) on their books. The competition (LaSportiva, Scarpa) is ripe for disruption.

The JF190 trail runners feel just like Pegasus to me, I haven't tried the road version of the same but it's basically the cheapest shoe in the store. The first time I tried it, I almost couldn't bring myself to buy it, I felt like it was too good to be true for the price.

I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.

yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality.

The price of any individual stock though is mostly determined by hype. Revenue and concrete performance plays a part but hype is very much a driving factor and hype is fickle.

From what I understand, their moat was the exclusive contract with Michael Jordan - it was a novel marketing at the time. I guess the novelty eventually wore off and other basketballers are not as skilled at selling shoes as Jordan.

I know this does not really contribute to the discussion and I have nothing against you or what you've said, but man am I sick of reading the word moat in this context.

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.

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.

yes, but people will only pay up to a certain price for a sneaker if they are not collectors and only consumers. and as we now see, a shoe business is not running that well, if it mainly caters to resellers and collectors.

i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.

Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.

Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?

i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough.

Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on.

It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.

Some people were also collecting Jordan’s and everything else under the Sun with their stimulus

Difficult to have it be the same factor considering the majority of Nike production is in Vietnam, and the majority of the Chinese manufacturing is in China. But even if yes those are still not the same shoes.

They could swap in quality cushioning without changing the silhouette. They used the term “protro” when they did this to upgrade Kobe sneakers and people loved it. I assume the reason they don’t with dunks is because the margins on selling 1980s tech is insane.

But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.

I actually used two things:

1 - the search function on the S&P Global site: https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&...

For me, right now the latest result is from Feb 27, 2026

2 - Google search with this query: `site:spglobal.com Nike`

Even when I limited the search results to the last month, the only page that shows for me is https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en but I'm not sure why - it doesn't have anything to do with it.

I see now your link, thanks. I have no idea why it's not indexed in the site's own search or why it's skipped for me in Google. Interestingly, I just checked the same query on Bing and it's there, but not in the top.

Did you find a page that lists all the companies on S&P 100 in a simple table?

lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe

A normal well adjusted person would be embarrassed to wear any advertising.

I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.

Honestly, I suspect most people will have no idea about these ads. I know I don’t.

Wouldn't the fact that a Black man was their most popular face throughout their successful period negate the idea that it has anything to do with wokeness? I wish people as obtuse as you would take the time to pause and think every once in a while.

Except all the other brands replacing it are woke too.

[dead]

We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.

Ah. I see we are going around the autocratic circle. Past and present!

In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.

But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.

So I'm a brand loyalist for now..

It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)

> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.

Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.

I did, but it was because I'd had my expectations raised by Saucony's products (see my peer comment for more info)

There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.

Sure that happens. But in this case the quality was there - the uppers and attachment to the soles was top notch.

They look and feel awesome.

But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.

Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...

Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.

It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.