Lets Discuss The Industry

[flintgrey]

Here's the press release from U of M about the adidas arrangement from 2007 - its an 8 year deal:
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Jul09_07/27.shtml

And btw - it was nice to see MSU eek out a win vs them tonight (my wife is a Spartan Alum)

 

[rko2004]

Thank you sir for this thread. I love NIKE but I like other brands too but everyone is so boring now. Adidas has a few out that are pretty nice but not great because of a few things on each shoe that throws things off.

 

[mp23]

I can't see Tennessee or Nebraska as ever being Nike for some reason. Granted that would be amazing, but that's almost like the German soccer team switching to Nike, which almost happened two years ago. I'm with you EBW, when I saw Felton and Marvin Williams coming out of UNC rocking adidas and Reebok I was like

Beasley surprised me too, with him rocking Jordans a lot. That's like Reggie Bush coming from SC and going to adidas. As I think the consensus is (granted this is a NIKE board), Nike is the undisputed leader with minor chinks in their armor but with the competition not really stepping up to the plate, it seems like they will have a stranglehold on it for awhile unless something dramatic happens.

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by MP23

I can't see Tennessee or Nebraska as ever being Nike for some reason. Granted that would be amazing, but that's almost like the German soccer team switching to Nike, which almost happened two years ago. I'm with you EBW, when I saw Felton and Marvin Williams coming out of UNC rocking adidas and Reebok I was like

Beasley surprised me too, with him rocking Jordans a lot. That's like Reggie Bush coming from SC and going to adidas. As I think the consensus is (granted this is a NIKE board), Nike is the undisputed leader with minor chinks in their armor but with the competition not really stepping up to the plate, it seems like they will have a stranglehold on it for awhile unless something dramatic happens.

The reason why you see players rocking Reebok,Adidas etc is because those companies actually pay the players money and give them alot of product. Nike pretty much just gives  most guys product and a relatively small Nike product allowance.
  

 

[duke4005]

Originally Posted by 3onPar5

Whats the over/under before Reebok is just swallowed up by adidas? Ill start the bidding at 5 years.

This thread is what most here should be - intelligent, no flaming, speaking minds about product (even though I happen to like some of the adidas and Reeboks coming out right now), and everyone just trying to come to conclusions about where this whole thing is headed.

That said, I don't see Reebok being swallowed up anytime soon. Head to your local fitness center and check out the women's classes (no perv) and see how many wear Reebok. They still have the whole aerobics/fitness group under their thumb around here, even more than Nike, which is what put them over the top in the mid- to late-80's in the first place. adidas gets no wear in that group, except clothing.
  

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by duke4005

Originally Posted by 3onPar5

Whats the over/under before Reebok is just swallowed up by adidas? Ill start the bidding at 5 years.

This thread is what most here should be - intelligent, no flaming, speaking minds about product (even though I happen to like some of the adidas and Reeboks coming out right now), and everyone just trying to come to conclusions about where this whole thing is headed.

That said, I don't see Reebok being swallowed up anytime soon. Head to your local fitness center and check out the women's classes (no perv) and see how many wear Reebok. They still have the whole aerobics/fitness group under their thumb around here, even more than Nike, which is what put them over the top in the mid- to late-80's in the first place. adidas gets no wear in that group, except clothing.
  

Honestly, if Reebok didn't drop the Easy Tone I wouldn't of heard any questions or seen anyone wearing Reebok's anywhere. Male or Female. I see tons more females who prefer Adidas over any brand. Men for the most part either love or hate Nike from my experiences. New Balance and Adidas get so much love.

 

[duke4005]

Only basketball I have seen from Reebok lately is on rec-level players at the local church gym that bought them form Academy or Sears just to have a basketball shoe, which is kind of sad, because I know where they used to be. When the DMX system came out, it really made most of the industry look at cushioning in a whole new way, as far as responsiveness was concerned. Nike had released Tensile Air and the first Zoom, but nothing like they have now, and adidas was on the Feet You Wear, which was no cuhioning tech but a system of response. Once Reebok made an "active" cushioning and showed how far it could go, I think Nike tweaked Zoom to where it is ow (at least close to it) and adidas had to show up with the adiprene. I still have no idea why DMX was abandoned. It worked and it actually looked cool on most shoes. I know Iverson WAS the basketball branch for so long, but it just seemed like they could never find the right mix of player/shoe/technology to market to the masses, like Nike did with the ealry Flight/Force campaign. I know they tried with the whole ATR/Baron, KMart, Franchise ads, but really, they just came off as corny and uninspired. I truly beleive they will NEVER be relevant, no matter what they produce, for the next 5-10 years, unless they lock up a MAJOR star and some younger players to form a new basketball branch.

 

[rockdeep]

I hate when I type something and then it doesnt post. So I waited all day to do it again:

I think Reebok needs to refocus its strategy and stay within Female performance to increase their footprint there and send their Basketball designers to Adi to have them shift their focus on Basketball if they REALLY want to be a player in that Market.

Im actually really surprised New Balance hasnt tried to make a bigger splash in Basketball because of their comfortable shoes. Maybe they are smart enough to keep their money in their pocket.

As far as Adi vs Nike. Adi is like that Father that gives you what you need. Nike is like that Grand Parent that gives you want you want. Completely different ways of treating their schools. Imagine one just throwing equipment and gear at you with options. On field and off.

Adi just doesnt sell like Nike does. Which is why Nike doesn't flinch when schools decide not to renew contracts. They'll be back.

 

[3onpar5]

Rock, are you saying that Reebok should become a female only company? Because I dont think that is a half bad idea. They (women) seem to be the ones that really take a shine to Reebok, most 18-40 yr old males would rather get some NIKE trainers or hoop shoes than be seen in a shoe that you can use a Sharpie on. Reebok could still have their retro line but I think a female focused company could streamline them and actually save them fading away forever. They will never compete with NIKE anyway so maybe go the female route and do that really well.

 

[crazy ebw]

I think Reebok knows who their core demographic is and they are definitely enjoying the success of the easytones. NFL apparell i'm sure is enough to keep them making money. Reebok has never been relevant to ME personally. Sure, I had a few Iverson shoes when he was THE Answer. I LOVED my Answer IV's. I think the only other shoe I went through mulitple pairs of and wore to the ground as much as those was the Jordan XVII.

I think people FEEL like they can be better/look cooler when they play or do sports wearing Nike's. I mean the average dude 18-25 is going to walk in a shoe store, go STRAIGHT to the Nike wall and pick out what he thinks looks the best and attach to that. I can't stand people like that. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Nike and Jordan Brand, but I really don't keep myself close-minded when it comes to what is comfortable to me in any given situation. If i'm working 8 hour shifts, you best believe i'm wearing some Adrenaline or Trances from Brooks. However, if i'm throwing on some shoes to go to the store and pickup some Chinese, the Vomero gets love.

That's how I am, and I WISH more people didn't glue to Nike as much as they did. It's hard because I rep Nike harder than any of my friends, but bash them harder than any of them at the same time. I'm weird like that.

Anybody have any numbers for different shoe categories? That itself shows you how dumb/simple consumers are when it comes to buying.

 

[tokes99]

I had a super long EPIC post addressing some of the things stated, when i realized it was a lil too much...if there is one thing that sums up the "state of the industry" its choice (too much or in a way maybe lack there of!), there is SO much to choose from that it really isn't enough to just create a well crafted/designed shoe, there NEEDS to be a story attached, a reason for being and in the absence of such i think people just go with the easy most acceptable choice. it is pretty obvious that the prevailing opinion is (& i realize this is NT) that the options are mostly background noise because everyone seems to think those brands not named nike aren't worth checking for...some of the analysis is pretty on point but by and large the reason people feel any type of way about a company is how it competes for your attention and how its message resonates with the consumer on a personal level..and right now companies not named nike aren't really competing for that attention in a very compelling way, some of it is the economics and some of it is just philosophical...i find it hilarious that everyone is constantly lambasting nike for uninspired product, lament for the competition to step up and in the same breath extol how great nike is, and how the competition should give up...priceless! i understand this is NikeTalk but really? especially in hoops where this is true:

"Adding up Nike, Converse and the Jordan business, Nike has a 93 percent share of the basketball shoe market, the largest take of any shoe business by one company. And finally, consider this. Michael Jordan is still Nike's best endorser by a mile. Powell says sales of the Jordan brand make up a larger percentage of the overall shoe business than they ever have. For every three pairs bought in this country, two of them (67 percent) are the Jordan brand. Nike has a 24 percent share, adidas has a 4 percent share and Converse has a 2.5 percent share."


it cannot be stressed enough that it is really up to the consumers (who can be as fickle & jaded as they are loyal), i believe phil knight has been quoted saying something akin to "nike is a marketing company that sells shoes" and thusly everything they create gets pushed as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that has over time built a certain relationship & equity with consumers...adidas has a fundamentally different approach, reebok has been by far the most adhd, converse has been the quiet mainstay, and1 the gritty newcomer; and each has had their time in the sun (if only momentarily). true enough nike has held on longer than most, not by accident mind you, but the world works in ebbs & flow so a few of these players will come up again when consumers decide that they want the alternative, this is all but certain; the question is will they sustain it? it is dubious to think a small upstart will really make waves in athletic footwear, simply because the cost to bring something QUALITY to market is so high to develop product (and seemingly becoming moreso), as KG would say ANYTHING IS POOOSSSIBLLEEEE but i'd put my money on li ning (because there an established footwear brand in asia) more so than UA, though under armor is being smart getting into running (it a larger, more fragmented, & relatively easier market to gain some credibility in) & x-training 1st and easing into basketball, they will be the better for it...

i wish i could take people through the process of creating product, it would make it so much easier for people to appreciate what goes into it...one thing that it is really tough to grasp on the outside looking in is how tough it is do something new, it is often expensive & risky, not only because you going out on a limb but also because you very well might alienate loyal customers. so even if one succeeds in creating something new, it isn't nearly as easy or enough to just be different, especially if it is something truly different, you have to explain why its different and hope that people understand & choose something different over what they are used to and already know. as something of an experiment, next time you go to a few of the champs, DSGs, FTLs, FNLs, FAs, & TSAs around your hoods, take note of the ratio of nikes to the other brands, notice of the brand & prices of those shoes at or above say $90 retail. because really those are the shoes that typically most representative of what brands want you to see, the aspirational high end product that influences how people think of the stuff at lower pricepoints. notice how many of the brands even have 1 shoe much less multiple shoes in that range...this is to point out that there are a lot of apples to oranges comparisons when it comes to what people think of certain brands, that may indeed be the reality of the market positions of the respective brands but it something to keep in mind. nike can afford to build & put out numerous shoes north of $100, and actually make money off of them or at least create enough interest that it creates opportunities at lower pricepoints, while MOST of the other brands typically have a difficult time even justifying 1...

sorry no cliff notes...

 

[duke4005]

Rock, you are absolutely on about the NB basketball shoes. I have two pair and everything about them screams quality and performance. However, I had to order both from on-line sites, because out of 5 New Balance stores in D/FW, NONE carried any basketball shoes. Why? Because they don't sell, according to the district manager. Know why they don't sell? No one can find them. Every time I wear a pair, I have at least 3 people ask me where I got them. But, for the devoted, they can't be beat.

I have long thought Reebok should focus on just women and drop all else, but when they got the NFL/NBA contracts, it became impossible. Now, with Iverson on the quick way out and adidas doing the NBA thing, it may be closer than we think.

Crazy, I am the same way about Nike. I only wore Nike all through my mid-late 90's glory days, as there was nothing on the market as innovative (I still remember the Air Max CW coming out and how cool visible forefoot air seemed) or just plain cool looking as that era's Nikes. But lately I have given adidas a BIG chunk of my money. Maybe as I have gotten older, I see how the performance of a shoe affects my body more than the looks, and adidas just feels better to me on most. Or maybe it is because I am not cool anymore, so I don't need the latest $150+ sigs. But I still look at that Nike wall first, to see what looks good, and very few shoes out look as good as Nikes, and regardless of our Reviews here or on ISS, or what science proves in Air compared to adiprene to DMX to Gel, looks are the first thing most consumers goes by. And nothing in the athletic world has the "cool factor" of a good-looking pair of Nikes. So, for now, they are still on top, although I may have to wait on my cool factor to catch up to wear most of them.

 

[corporatejp]

Nice thread, it was needed.

Lot's of great input.

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by tokes99

UA, though under armor is being smart getting into running (it a larger, more fragmented, & relatively easier market to gain some credibility in)

Gaining ground in the running market is VERY tough. Most people who buy basketball shoes go off of what they can get for their personal preference. Most people who buy running shoes go based off of other people's suggestions because they know so little about the brands. Word of mouth is very strong with runners. Runners are very stubborn too about what they wear once they get fitted and a tech running store recommends them a pair of shoes. Some people are open-minded when it comes to different brands and keeping up with the running technology (which is evolving more often than other genres IMO) but not all people. I personally don't HATE my UA Illusion's, but i'm not in love with them in the least bit either. UA coming into the running game was kind of exciting at first, but now it just seems forced. From what i've heard, they sold HORRIBLY, but I don't have specific numbers to back that up at all.

I used to be a UA clothing junkie, but I seriously prefer NikeFit collection more. It feels a lot smoother IMO. My McDavid Thudd set works AMAZING at wicking moisture while being comfortable. Definitely my favorite compression stuff that I own.

Another thing i'm huge on is socks. To tons of people, socks are socks. The Nike Elite basketball socks are amazzzzing IMO. The stripe down the back adds just that little touch of flare and style that makes Nike stand out and I love it. Smaller brands like Feetures and Balega are awesome too, if you guys have never tried them I highly recommend them. I prefer thinner socks, so if you like a thicker sock you wouldn't like them. I can't STAND NBA socks. They're too thick and heavy for my preference. I wanna try the Attack Athletic toe socks i've seen in Eastbay. Like I said, socks are socks to 99% of people, but i'm weird.

 

[tokes99]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Originally Posted by tokes99

UA, though under armor is being smart getting into running (it a larger, more fragmented, & relatively easier market to gain some credibility in)

Gaining ground in the running market is VERY tough. Most people who buy basketball shoes go off of what they can get for their personal preference. Most people who buy running shoes go based off of other people's suggestions because they know so little about the brands. Word of mouth is very strong with runners. Runners are very stubborn too about what they wear once they get fitted and a tech running store recommends them a pair of shoes. Some people are open-minded when it comes to different brands and keeping up with the running technology (which is evolving more often than other genres IMO) but not all people. I personally don't HATE my UA Illusion's, but i'm not in love with them in the least bit either. UA coming into the running game was kind of exciting at first, but now it just seems forced. From what i've heard, they sold HORRIBLY, but I don't have specific numbers to back that up at all.

no doubt. i just meant if they're going to be a performance footwear brand, having running shoes in the stable are a must...legitimate is probably the word i needed to use, x-trainers while the most obvious link up are maybe too niche. i agree runners tend to be MUCH more informed about what they put on their feet, there are various sources to get multiple different reviews/viewpoints on existing & new running shoes and not to mention there are many retailers & sources that do a great job of educating beginning/novice runners...if there was something like this for basketball, it could be the great equalizer...

 

[mp23]

I think in comparison to UA's compression line, Nike has done quite a good job of keeping up in its apparel lines. Obviously the compression line of UA is highly respected and worn a lot, but so is Nike's Pro. But here is the thing, Nike's sportswear, running, and cross-training clothing does a lot better than UA. Nike makes more money by putting out a lot more quality lines, like sweatpants, hoodies, lightweight jackets, etc. You see a lot of people also wearing Nike running apparel casually because of how comfortable it is. The only UA apparel I've ever seen wear is the compression shirts. I still have yet to see a person with a UA runner and I agree with EBW, running is an incredibly difficult market to break into because of the serious runners you have. As everyone knows, almost 70% of people that buy basketball shoes is just for looks and will never see a court in their life. However, running shoes are bought a lot more for their intended use, especially since the upper-end ones from Asics, New Balance, Brooks, and Nike are much more expensive than any other category because of the level of technology and research put into it.

 

[cwk]

I was a teenager in the 80's when adidas (global powerhouse) was gradually overtaken by NIKE (small upstart).  I think Brand Jordan is the adidas of our time; complacent and bloated.  Releasing uninspired fusions and hybrids is lazy and unoriginal - the brand is just a caricature of its former self.  A competitor with the right mix of product and marketing could steal market share and beat Brand Jordan, but it will take a revolution today just like it did back then.  I don't think any other company has attempted to seriously position themselves that way in over a decade.  Reebok and adidas seem satisfied with putting out low-to-mid pricepoint shoes with dated technology and safe colorways for the masses.  Under Armor's basketball footwear looks like rehashed And 1 designs (for obvious reasons).  I would like nothing better than for Brand Jordan to be challenged and step up, but it hasn't happened yet. 

 

[3onpar5]

As was stated earlier I really think UA started just slapping a UA on everything they could...I mean really golf bags?? They did not take their time and grow the brand the right way IMO. They had a great inroad in football. THey should have parlayed that into trainers and cleats, which they did. But they created no buzz for the second wave. They said heres our trainers and cleats...now heres our running shoes...heres our basketball shoes. Whoa Whoa Whoa slow down. Their styles were also hard to tell apart. Which was the first trainer and which was the second? Or have they put out a second. People could not look forward to it because they (UA) said we got runners now.

I also think UA got to heavy into the "steroid freak look" Every commercial had just crazy muscled out guys on it. It was OK to make a splash, but ya gotta tone that down a little and get some other stuff going. Also I gotta be honest one thing that turned me off to them was the commercial when two football teams were playing, the UA team and the "giants" that were decked in Oregon colors. It was obvious they were targeting NIKE. Thats fine that they called them out, but why would you want to mention another brand in your ad? Seems like you would want to make people forget them not remind people of them. Of course at that time UA was rolling and they probably got a little cocky, but I think that woke the sleeping monster and NIKE said you wanna play...ok.

So I think UA should scale back...yes scale back get back to roots and really dominate the training category then move on, they are becoming to fragmented.

 

[crazy ebw]

Tokes, you definitely made a good point.

If people cared about their performance basketball shoes and were actually able to get valid, unbiased information and could then decide on their shoes the basketball genre would be totally different. The big basketball brands are pretty self-explanitory so people don't need that advice like they do with running shoes. Those brands aren't as familiar to the average joe. It's kind of unfair to the other brands by how stacked Nike has the basketball game on lock. When I say Nike, I mean Nike/JB of course. It's impossible to find a retailer who stocks brands outside of Nike/Adidas for their customer to make an ultimate decision based on pricepoint and style.

Obviously it doesn't make sense to the retailer to carry such brands, but like said before, they don't sell because people can't find them. With your running shoes, you can catch Brooks, Mizuno, Nike, Adidas, Asics, Saucony and maybe some other brands if they're a tech store. It's easy to inform the customer and provide them stuff they don't necessarily want but NEED to know when making their decision with a variety of brands available to them. That's why I feel that Running is the best genre for customers to give legit feedback for.

Of course Nike is going to get the most customer feedback (good or bad) when it's basically the only brand available to them. I'd still go with Nike ALL DAY for basketball, but I would love to see more options available to customers at retail stores and actually be able to help people make decisions based off what FEELS the best to them, not what looks the best.

 

[rockdeep]

I agree.

UA should probably pull out of Basketball until their Designs improve ten fold and then use their Schools as their test bed. Focus on Trainers and kicks that enhance the performance for the off field off court athlete. I'd get more into it... but I got an email that folks are reading and appreciating this thread from several different companies.

All comments are well thought out and appreciated. I like them because they are just not whats wrong with certain companies but what could be done to improve them in different ways. I myself am only touching on several things like Training and Basket ball with a touch of Basketball but you guys are going all in and teaching me stuff i.e. how runners are. Thats huge.

Sometimes.. understanding one segment can help you with another footwear segment category.

 

[the12the22the32the4]

I remember the last Under Armour vs. Nike thread when Rock alluded to his feeling that moving to UA "might" be a good move for Lebron and then he and I went on a whole big back and forth that shut the thread down because people were too lazy to keep up. Ah, memories.

I'll try to keep my thoughts less specific (don't want to get another of "those" messages) this time:

1. A few pages back someone said that the UA stock price would go down and that would then be the time for Nike to buy them.

NOW is the time for Nike to buy them. For two reasons:

A. There is still as much pressure as there has ever been from the UA board of directors to sell, but boards are always a fickle bunch and if the good 4th quarter that UA had gets coupled with a better than expected 1st quarter, Nike might not even get to make their play and the board will sit tight. This is Nike's best chance to eliminate UA - is it a costly move in the short term? Yes, absolutely it is and it would be a highly unpopular move to Nike shareholders. But Nike could still toss a relatively small premium at UA stockholders and the board would jump on it Kris Kross style and that makes it much more attractive in the long term because...

B. Under Armour has made tremendous in roads in the teenage/high school age demographic, as well as women. They are running the same game on Nike that Nike ran on Reebok back in the late 80's/early 90's - get the kids, and the parents and everyone else will follow. UA is the "cool" brand right now; I see it on seven year olds playing teeball and on 30 something mothers who have no business jogging in nothing but a sports bra and UA tight pants, but do it because their daughters do.

UA has apparel on lock right now; their shoes are abysmal, but they can afford to play in that arena solely on the virtue of catering to the female market who wants the same top, pants, and shoes for the jaunt around the block. UA footwear is not performance footwear, but it doesn't need to be as long as they sell the rest of the outfit. Is that good for us shoeheads and athletes? No. Is it good for the bottom line? You bet your backside it is.

Nike still has the sales lead at the end of the day in all markets and will for the next few years at least, but it only took from 1987 to 1990 for Nike to essentially KO Reebok based almost solely on the charisma of Michael Jordan and brilliant marketing campaigns; if UA can get a few more big name spokespeople, Under Armour could do the same to Nike. I'm not saying it's "likely" but if I'm Phil, Mark, Phyllis and the rest of the gang, I'm worried enough about UA that I buy them out now and be done with it.

Basically, UA is like the new kid at school who seems kind of cool and "dangerous" to the prom queen girlfriend of the "Nike" all state linebacker prom king. Is UA truly a threat to take Nike's lady? Maybe; probably not; but when you're the "king" you still stuff the new guy in a locker every day just to make sure he doesn't get any bright ideas about taking the queen to the movies on Friday night.

2. Reebok, Adidas, everybody else.

No need to hammer home the point everyone else has already made. The rest of the market is what it is - perpetually in second through tenth place and lacking in innovation. Adidas needs a hit like Whitney Houston needs a hit.

I liked what someone said earlier about Reebok becoming the new Starter, I think that would be in their best interests, but I don't see it happening. The Reebok brand will sell a lot better at Wal-Mart than it will at D!ck's Sporting Goods; just look at Starter in Wal-Mart and Converse at Target. It's sad that Reebok has gotten to that point, but it would be one of their best options to go the big box store route; they are already in Meijer (as well as some Adidas lines), get an exclusive deal with one of the other nationwide retailers and take what you can get.

3. Nike is on top. We know it, they know it, everyone knows it. They are the innovators, they have the endorsers, and they do what they do very well. They just need to make sure to not let it slip away, and UA looks like the only potential challenger to the throne.

Simple solution (in theory).

In practice, well, that just involves a big check, which is hard to write.

But, it would be even harder to wish they had written that check when it's too late.

 

[kg21]

At this point, I wouldn't put a UA footwear product on my foot unless it was a sock.

For basetball, I stick with Nike.

For running, I have two pairs of Asics, Nimbus 9s and Kinetic 1s. Asics specializes in running shoes and has different models for all types of feet and runners. Nike just puts out generic running shoes at different price points. Why not buy a shoe that is specialized for the activity?

As far as apparel, I wear Nike, JB, and UA. I think UA is right there with Nike in terms of apparel. I'm distancing myself further and further from JB. I don't care for the baggy look anymore. I want something fitted and functional, not something that's going to hold me down or restrict my movement.

 

[manglor]

Isn't Peak the brand that Phil Jackson just blamed for Ron Artest getting injured and possibly missing games from Plantar Fas.. something? Calling them "boat shoes" and saying he warned Artest not to wear them even before he was hurt.

Not a good look for that brand.

Lately it seems as far as casual wear goes I see more people rocking pumas then anything else.

 

[mp23]

I'm loving the analogy that 122232 made in which the new kid is looking to take down the prom king's queen. Nike should act on that now because as he mentioned, UA IS the new, hot brand on the streets and are marking a great in-roads with kids. You get them young to like your product, the more that they will stay loyal. This whole move of starting a "Starter" type brand for Reebok seems more and more like a good idea. It's not like their pricing is anything premium so that would seem to be a good fit at a large retailer like a Wal-Mart. I just hope someone steps their game up because nobody likes a monopoly in which the form of Nike is taking because that's bad for business. If no one is making you get better, than the more complacent you will be. Luckily for us, Nike seems to still churn out the innovations (even though some people call them gimmicks and I can understand their points; aka Shox, Flyire) and doesn't want to rest on its laurels. We can only hope they continue to do that.

 

[duke4005]

The challenge aspect, where an upstart pushes innovation in the larger company, is exactly why I always rooted for And1. They seemed to have the attitude and marketing to challenge Nike in the basketball market, maybe not on a bottom line but in consumers eyes. However, they had no business foresight and no vision, so they end up on the cutting room floor also. I can remember right when the 2nd mixtape came out, the one that you got for free for trying on the Mad Game, And1 was huge with the Tai Chi and TooChillin', because they were different in a good way. They were on the right track with Harmonix, and I believe had Nike worried with the number of NBA players they had on roster. Granted, KG and Starbury were the only big names (I can think of), but they went after some up-and-coming names like MArion and Ben Wallace to build a younger stable, while Nike was still after the Pippens and Paytons, established stars who maybe didn't ahve the street appeal. Great plan, bad execution, whether from bad product or the newness wearing off, I don't know (and the Streetball appeal dying out).

Under Armour, I don't know about Basketball. Most of their stuff looks like basketball geared for football players. You know the guys in the gym who come in to play ball just for cardio? Exactly. They definitely need to re-vamp the whole weightlifter as ball player ads I have seen lately, or go after Maggette to endorse the product. And I see alot of their runners in the gyms here in Fort Worth, and not because they are on clearance. Mostly in weight rooms where the ex-football players want UA because that is what football players wear. But I have been tempted to buy a pair from Marshalls since they are on sale for $28 (right beside a FSR of Jordan 2009 for $50).

Adidas killed Nike in the under $100 basketball market for the last few years, I think most of us can agree on. It seems their shoes at that price point offer more in the ways of materials, function, and looks, and regardless of what we on this board look for, which is the latest WORKING technology and innovation, Joe Consumer wants bland, boring, black-and-white shoes that will last and feel good out of the box. They care not for outriggers, flywire, lunar, etc. They want tech they can see, like Shox (one reason for the huge popularity of Shox runners in the market regardless of performance) and a3, and adidas brought a3 to the under $100 market rather easily. This is still where Reebok seems to be a hit too. Go to Academy and watch the average consumer try on shoes. This is where Nike still needs to improve, and I think this is one reason the shoes such as Sharkley and the like are priced at $85.

That said, the latest Tech I am anxiously awaiting is the Super-series from adidas. With the all-star editions already buzzing the internet, and with how large the game will be in Jerryworld, they have an excellent chance to push out new tech at the $100 price point and make an ad campaign to reach the consumers.