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

311–320 of 393 posts

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

#311

Post by darkwater »

motoxpro wrote: post #256
darkwater wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great and funny to have access to the internal presentation about why they needed to pursue that and all the benefits. That kind of business decks are always so plastered with wishful thinking that really makes me wonder how business people can keep deceiving themselves like that in every single company they work.

They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable. I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment…

I'm not saying that I could do better but just curious about this specific case. I mean, I know that in the web bubble most of us thought that what COVID-19 brought was there to stay forever (shift to mostly online, 100% white collar remote work etc) but from a corporation like Nike which should have a different point of view, I would expect a different line of reasoning as well.

And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.

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

#312

Post by eitally »

mamonster wrote: post #63
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…

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).

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

#313

Post by eitally »

probably_wrong wrote: post #150
wjnc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.) Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and stre…

The explanation I got from my doctor was that one shouldn't fix posture problems by raising the inner part of the insoles a random amount because all that achieves is making you run "weird", putting pressure in the wrong part of the articulation and damaging the ligaments that keep the knee in place. The actual solution involved muscle development exercises, ripping out the insoles of those shoes to achieve a flat ba…

Conventional wisdom among running coaches and orthopedists these days is that the most important thing is to run comfortably, and that just because something looks "weird" doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. Yes, it may be inefficient, but it probably isn't hurting the runner, either.

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

#314

Post by eitally »

mahrain wrote: post #66
mamonster wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's just a bad salesperson.

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

#315

Post by BobAliceInATree »

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…

Allbirds didn't really "pivot" into an AI datacenter. They sold off their shoe business at firesale to another company, which will still make & sell the shoes.

Then the name and public listing remaining was basically a shell, and basically SPACed into the AI datacenter company with more funding.

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

#316

Post by eitally »

monomania wrote: post #86
mahrain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue.

I recommend Doctors of Running (website & podcast). They're a group of running PTs and each of them has different needs & preference. One in particular likes less cushioned and more structured shoes. There are ample options out there.

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

#317

Post by dzonga »

jarym wrote: post #259
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…

We keep reading different variations of the same story over and over - different companies and industries but make the same fatal mistakes. 1) Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data' 2) Kill the innovation because they can’t put a $ value on it 3) Rake in a few years of fast profits and soak in glory 4) Company implodes, CEO rides into the sunset, board that should have…

or underestimating the value of partnerships.

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

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

#318

Post by hyperlinerapp »

kenjackson wrote: post #251
spiderice wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.

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

Maybe if you were hiding under a rock.

Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.

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

#319

Post by WarmWash »

jarym wrote: post #259
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…

We keep reading different variations of the same story over and over - different companies and industries but make the same fatal mistakes. 1) Let the 'spreadsheet people' take over, every decision is now allegedly based on 'data' 2) Kill the innovation because they can’t put a $ value on it 3) Rake in a few years of fast profits and soak in glory 4) Company implodes, CEO rides into the sunset, board that should have…

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."

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

#320

Post by nemothekid »

weinzierl wrote: post #181
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…

"In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere." You mention Adidas as if they were in the same boat with Nike. While Adidas suffered from the Kanye West disaster this was a one time blunder and they rebound quickly. in Europe I see On on the rise too, but Adidas is omnipresent.

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.
Post reply on HN