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

261–270 of 405 posts

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

#261

Post by sidewndr46 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #232
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…

I went to one of Nike's flagship store in a major global city in a major retail street a few years ago. It was like a nightclub with very few shoes on a couple of walls and a couple on a pedestal. It was impossible to actually shop there. It was more akin to a branding showcase than an actual store.

I saw this too. It felt like where corporate would showcase their shoes to a potential corporate merger or acquisition. Real shoe stores have huge inventory across dozens of specific shoes.

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

#262

Post by jarym »

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 protected the company somehow largely intact.

Data wasn't the killer. Stupidity, greed and shortsightedness in roughly equal parts usually are.

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

#263

Post by motoxpro »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #168
darkwater wrote: post #108

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.

Probably went something like - we need infinite growth to appease the stock market morons - we can’t raise prices any more for our shoes - what if we cut out the middlemen retail stores and disintermediated to save money - we will be digital native, COVID is here, the world is digital - RIP.

Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.

Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.

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

#264

Post by DoneWithAllThat »

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…

Hoka is big in the running market but that’s basically all. Same with New Balance. I think where Hoka got lucky was with the explosion of popularity of running and Nike failing to understand their need to offer a fashion running product not just a performance running product. Hoka did and reaped massive rewards as a result.

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

#265

Post by ericmay »

jahller wrote: post #88
freetime2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status. Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out.

it's really interesting how Nikes style of shoes became unfashionable in the past 5-6 years. is it their focus on basketball and fitness shoes?

I’m not quite sure but Nike really blew up back in the day with a focus on basketball via the Nike Jordan/Air Force One.

More recently I just don’t understand their product line up. If I click on Men’s in the US there are over 700 shoes. How do I even pick? Hello, earth to Nike. Nike is a Greek god. Maybe lean in to that a bit more?

Who is buying turds like this? https://www.nike.com/t/ava-edge-mens-shoes-8EA9wWpq/IM1973-0... [cherry-picked example but id say half their shoes follow this awful design pattern]

Oh I get it “Inspired by the geometry of modern cities” they’re confused about good design and taking a hint from other dead brands like Hugo Boss or Burberry Outlet or maybe even Armani Exchange!

That’s why richfluencers are buying ON and Hoka and Vuroi and Lululemon still.

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

#266

Post by fodkodrasz »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #155
fodkodrasz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.

> Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements. By "advertisements", I am sure you mean traditional adverts like TV, print media, and billboards. They were blowing up on social media thanks to paid influencers.

You are right. Looks like I'm this old.

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

#268

Post by kasey_junk »

globular-toast wrote: post #70
mamonster wrote: post #64

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…

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 ye…

Nike famously built there business on the back of the running trend of the late 70s and early 80s. It’s headquartered where it’s headquartered because of its association with a monster collegiate running program.

Before that they were known specifically for their innovation in serious running shoes.

If anything it’s that they abandoned that which caused their current downswing.

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

#269

Post by Frieren »

jarym wrote: post #262
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…

> Data wasn't the killer.

"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and yet people treats data as a crystal ball that can predict the future.

Data can help a company to decide what to do next week with little though and great results.

It cannot set a long-term strategy without a lot of interpretation, guessing and adaptability. That same very good short-term decision may have been the first step towards destruction.

Post reply on HN