With NIKE's NFL Deal...Does This Signal The End For Reebok??

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by 3onPar5

This is just so frustrating. You cannot have a decent conversation on here anymore. Mods lock this up. Nat is just turning it into something it is not supposed to be. I was just wondering if people thought this would be a blow to Reebok. THen Nat starts with "People let a shoe company run their lives" Whatever man...seems like you let an internet message board run your life...

Or maybe you want to post that research from Australlia that "Air Cell Shoes" cause more injury than non-air cell shoes...anyway...


LOCK IT UP

You mean an actual discussion with differing opinions?

Okay, I see what's really going on here.

[table][tr][td][/td][td][/td][/tr][/table]

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by 3onPar5

This is just so frustrating. You cannot have a decent conversation on here anymore. Mods lock this up. Nat is just turning it into something it is not supposed to be. I was just wondering if people thought this would be a blow to Reebok. THen Nat starts with "People let a shoe company run their lives" Whatever man...seems like you let an internet message board run your life...

Or maybe you want to post that research from Australlia that "Air Cell Shoes" cause more injury than non-air cell shoes...anyway...


LOCK IT UP

You mean an actual discussion with differing opinions?

Okay, I see what's really going on here.

[table][tr][td][/td][td][/td][/tr][/table]

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

A company does not need a league endorsment deal, in order to exist. What league does Asics sponsor? How about New Balance? Reebok has enough of a following outside of NIKETALK, in order to do well in business.

Do you guys ever look at anyone, or anything, that does not include a swoosh? Lemme hip you to something, if you did, you may find something quite refreshing!

the difference being that New Balance and Asics weren't recently purchased by a previous competitor.

i work for a hard drive company that purchased another one of our competitors in 2006. we kept their name a live for several years in an attempt to gain that market share.
we have recently killed that name and no longer make any drives with their logo on it. it was a strategic move to gain market share.

this reebok thing feels the same.

little by little, you'll see the vector disappear until it's all 3 stripes.

So I guess the same can be said for Converse then, correct?

there is NO sneaker more iconic then chuck taylors....c'mon guy

reebok will be around, but their retro demand PALES in comparison to nikes....as by how well documented da nike catalog is VS reeboks...

According to who?

Icons are subjected to their respective era. But why are you bringing up retro demand?

because retro sneakers is where da MAJORITY of da sneaker industry makes their paper at...so if Reebok has a POOR demand for retros what makes you

think people are gonna CARE about their current line up?

Nike became Number 1 BECAUSE of technological breakthroughs from air soles, they have a extensive history with air maxs, air force, air jordan, foamposites, blah blah blah...

what was adidas and reebok doing when nike kept coming out with hits in da 90's that their STILL bank rolling from? zzzzz...exactly 

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

A company does not need a league endorsment deal, in order to exist. What league does Asics sponsor? How about New Balance? Reebok has enough of a following outside of NIKETALK, in order to do well in business.

Do you guys ever look at anyone, or anything, that does not include a swoosh? Lemme hip you to something, if you did, you may find something quite refreshing!

the difference being that New Balance and Asics weren't recently purchased by a previous competitor.

i work for a hard drive company that purchased another one of our competitors in 2006. we kept their name a live for several years in an attempt to gain that market share.
we have recently killed that name and no longer make any drives with their logo on it. it was a strategic move to gain market share.

this reebok thing feels the same.

little by little, you'll see the vector disappear until it's all 3 stripes.

So I guess the same can be said for Converse then, correct?

there is NO sneaker more iconic then chuck taylors....c'mon guy

reebok will be around, but their retro demand PALES in comparison to nikes....as by how well documented da nike catalog is VS reeboks...

According to who?

Icons are subjected to their respective era. But why are you bringing up retro demand?

because retro sneakers is where da MAJORITY of da sneaker industry makes their paper at...so if Reebok has a POOR demand for retros what makes you

think people are gonna CARE about their current line up?

Nike became Number 1 BECAUSE of technological breakthroughs from air soles, they have a extensive history with air maxs, air force, air jordan, foamposites, blah blah blah...

what was adidas and reebok doing when nike kept coming out with hits in da 90's that their STILL bank rolling from? zzzzz...exactly 

 

[airjordan jb23]

Reebok has some things lined up for them to help them last... They won't be done yet.

 

[airjordan jb23]

Reebok has some things lined up for them to help them last... They won't be done yet.

 

[upandcoming32]

Reebok is doing very well with their new Zigtech and toning shoes, and dont forget they have John Wall...Reebok is weak (compared to Nike) but it isnt the end

 

[upandcoming32]

Reebok is doing very well with their new Zigtech and toning shoes, and dont forget they have John Wall...Reebok is weak (compared to Nike) but it isnt the end

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

 

[nat turner]

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.




1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

 

[nat turner]

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.




1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

A company does not need a league endorsment deal, in order to exist. What league does Asics sponsor? How about New Balance? Reebok has enough of a following outside of NIKETALK, in order to do well in business.

Do you guys ever look at anyone, or anything, that does not include a swoosh? Lemme hip you to something, if you did, you may find something quite refreshing!

the difference being that New Balance and Asics weren't recently purchased by a previous competitor.

i work for a hard drive company that purchased another one of our competitors in 2006. we kept their name a live for several years in an attempt to gain that market share.
we have recently killed that name and no longer make any drives with their logo on it. it was a strategic move to gain market share.

this reebok thing feels the same.

little by little, you'll see the vector disappear until it's all 3 stripes.

So I guess the same can be said for Converse then, correct?

there is NO sneaker more iconic then chuck taylors....c'mon guy

reebok will be around, but their retro demand PALES in comparison to nikes....as by how well documented da nike catalog is VS reeboks...

According to who?

Icons are subjected to their respective era. But why are you bringing up retro demand?

because retro sneakers is where da MAJORITY of da sneaker industry makes their paper at...

Source?

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

A company does not need a league endorsment deal, in order to exist. What league does Asics sponsor? How about New Balance? Reebok has enough of a following outside of NIKETALK, in order to do well in business.

Do you guys ever look at anyone, or anything, that does not include a swoosh? Lemme hip you to something, if you did, you may find something quite refreshing!

the difference being that New Balance and Asics weren't recently purchased by a previous competitor.

i work for a hard drive company that purchased another one of our competitors in 2006. we kept their name a live for several years in an attempt to gain that market share.
we have recently killed that name and no longer make any drives with their logo on it. it was a strategic move to gain market share.

this reebok thing feels the same.

little by little, you'll see the vector disappear until it's all 3 stripes.

So I guess the same can be said for Converse then, correct?

there is NO sneaker more iconic then chuck taylors....c'mon guy

reebok will be around, but their retro demand PALES in comparison to nikes....as by how well documented da nike catalog is VS reeboks...

According to who?

Icons are subjected to their respective era. But why are you bringing up retro demand?

because retro sneakers is where da MAJORITY of da sneaker industry makes their paper at...

Source?

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

no, it's exactly my original assertation. i said, you're comparing apples to oranges...and you still are.

ok, so what's Reebok's iconic shoe?

look, i have never once made any personal attacks or said anything about you. let's keep this clean.


  

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

no, it's exactly my original assertation. i said, you're comparing apples to oranges...and you still are.

ok, so what's Reebok's iconic shoe?

look, i have never once made any personal attacks or said anything about you. let's keep this clean.


  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

no, it's exactly my original assertation. i said, you're comparing apples to oranges...and you still are.

ok, so what's Reebok's iconic shoe?

look, i have never once made any personal attacks or said anything about you. let's keep this clean.


  

osubass1 wrote:

you're, again, comparing apples to oranges.

Converse has an iconic shoe that existed long before Nike purchased them.

what's reebok's iconic shoe that has been popular since the 60's?




Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

osubass1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


Comparing the Basketball lines, who shows more promise? Converse or Reebok? 
Fitness, Converse or Reebok?
Clothing line, Converse or Reebok?

Don't forget, Reeboks running line is far better received than that of even Nikes running line.....does Converse even have a running line? 

So as far as the sub brands are concerned......Reebok>>>>>>>>>>>>Converse

this is exactly the point i was making.

you're trying to compare Volkswagons to Cadillacs. they don't play in the same space.

yes, they are both shoe companies, but the similarities end there. they don't market to the same people, they don't compete in the same categories.

in any case, the question is not in comparing companies, the question is, will reebok be around for the long haul?

i would be very, very, very surprised if reebok is still a viable option in 5-7 years.

1. That was not the basis for your original assertion. You claimed icon status for a Converse product, as if Reebok does not have their own iconic product to point to.
2. Then for your last point, stick to your day job. Being a securities analyst is not in your future! Reebok has greater potential for growth due to their new headliner John Wall, then acceptance by the running community, and then the female apparel/fitness footwear population, which is HUGE, remember them?

Reebok will be just fine. 

no, it's exactly my original assertation. i said, you're comparing apples to oranges...and you still are.

ok, so what's Reebok's iconic shoe?

look, i have never once made any personal attacks or said anything about you. let's keep this clean.


  

osubass1 wrote:

you're, again, comparing apples to oranges.

Converse has an iconic shoe that existed long before Nike purchased them.

what's reebok's iconic shoe that has been popular since the 60's?




Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

ok, cool.

you can't have a grown up discussion.

sorry to have wasted your time.
  

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

ok, cool.

you can't have a grown up discussion.

sorry to have wasted your time.
  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

ok, cool.

you can't have a grown up discussion.

sorry to have wasted your time.
  

Can't accept being wrong, 'eh?

How "grown up" is that?  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

ok, cool.

you can't have a grown up discussion.

sorry to have wasted your time.
  

Can't accept being wrong, 'eh?

How "grown up" is that?  

 

[the undisputable king]

Reebok should be around for the long run. Losing the NFL license can be seen as a decision to focus on another market (i.e. the toning market). All I see all day are reeboks at the gym. The Women easytones are all over the place and the Zig line is really popular. They might not have the most flashy or hip looking shoes, but they are around. As for "iconic" reebok shoes, the pump has been mentioned. They also have the Club C and the Classic Nylon (along the lines of the Converse All-Star), which they continue to produce.

 

[the undisputable king]

Reebok should be around for the long run. Losing the NFL license can be seen as a decision to focus on another market (i.e. the toning market). All I see all day are reeboks at the gym. The Women easytones are all over the place and the Zig line is really popular. They might not have the most flashy or hip looking shoes, but they are around. As for "iconic" reebok shoes, the pump has been mentioned. They also have the Club C and the Classic Nylon (along the lines of the Converse All-Star), which they continue to produce.

 

[osubass1]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Clearly your point was that Reebok had no "iconic" shoe to point to. 

Ever hear of the Reebok pump? For women, their aerobic shoe line were quite, then still are very popular. 

Personal attack?

ok, cool.

you can't have a grown up discussion.

sorry to have wasted your time.
  

Can't accept being wrong, 'eh?

How "grown up" is that?  

there's no right or wrong here...i don't understand how i'm wrong about anything, as you're not wrong.

i'm asking legitimate questions, because i don't follow reebok. i don't know anything about them.
  
i also fail to see how an unproven, untested rookie is going to be the savior of a marginal brand.