Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 398 posts

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#61

Post by dpark »

omnimus wrote: post #52
harshalizee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

On shoes are also very ugly. I don't think they have a single pair that has any style. I would love to try them but it looks like shoes for retirees.

> it looks like shoes for retirees

This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#62

Post by bushwart »

fakedang wrote: post #8

Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers. 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.

Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#63

Post by nadermx »

tancop wrote: post #58
bawolff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out. why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?

Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.

For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#64

Post by mamonster »

nemothekid wrote: post #11

Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. 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. Wh…

>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about.

In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level.

Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner they end up using the treadmill and getting advice from the guy, and a lot of the time it they end up getting Hokas.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#65

Post by WalterBright »

bawolff wrote: post #18
epsteingpt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out. why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?

It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#66

Post by WalterBright »

fakedang wrote: post #8

Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers. 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.

I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#67

Post by mahrain »

mamonster wrote: post #64
nemothekid wrote: post #11

Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. 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. Wh…

>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level. Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner t…

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.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#68

Post by cadamsdotcom »

YZF wrote: post #38
cadamsdotcom wrote: post #15

Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet.. 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.

That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.

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.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#69

Post by nomorewords »

branko_d wrote: post #51

Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials. This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the…

This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#70

Post by globular-toast »

mamonster wrote: post #64
nemothekid wrote: post #11

Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. 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. Wh…

>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. In Switzerland, every decent sports store now has a whole treadmill with some sort of gait analysis thing and a dedicated guy that is going to pick a shoe for you based on that + your running level. Anecdotal evidence, but 80% of the time I see someone buying running shoes in Ochsner t…

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.

Post reply on HN