34 points andsoitis 1 hour ago 17 comments
epsteingpt 1 hour ago | parent
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
andsoitis 59 minutes ago | parent
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.
morkalork 29 minutes ago | parent
ronsor 48 minutes ago | parent
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.
epsteingpt 31 minutes ago | parent
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.
VirusNewbie 46 minutes ago | parent
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.
fakedang 34 minutes ago | parent
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.
Alien1Being 31 minutes ago | parent
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.
nemothekid 31 minutes ago | parent
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.
morkalork 27 minutes ago | parent
cadamsdotcom 24 minutes ago | parent
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.
sh-run 18 minutes ago | parent
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.
gcanyon 5 minutes ago | parent