https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...
Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day.
Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point.
[1]: https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-in...
But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.
I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.
PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100:
DELL — Dell Technologies
PANW — Palo Alto Networks
ANET — Arista Networks
SNDK — SanDiskIn a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand.
I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple.
Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
"Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
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.
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.
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.
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy I just did the numbers
If Nike ain’t have MJ they’d have nothing
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over jumpman
All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.
This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.
So I'm a brand loyalist for now..
It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)
They look and feel awesome.
But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.
If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!
Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.
I swear the people arguing for this are some of the most racist thinking people, at least the Maga crowd is up front with it.
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.
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.
This and Goodhart's law are the bane of pure data-driven decision making.
We’re about to see many more of the same thing except the “data” has been replaced with “ai output”
Nike specifically looks like the opposite of what you are asserting where the spreadsheet people take over. Here's the innovative kind of shoes that Nike is making that you are asserting is being killed in step 2: https://www.nike.com/t/jordan-trunner-o-s-mens-shoes-tC5xlGT...
This looks idiotic. I'm not buying it. And you want me to scroll through 700+ pairs of shoes where most look like that? Give me a break. This is what happens when "innovation" culture takes over without adults in the room.
Here's a Hoka shoe: https://www.hoka.com/en/us/mens-everyday-running-gear/clifto...
Here's an ON shoe: https://www.on.com/en-us/products/cloud-6-coast-3mf1003/mens...
Here's a New Balance shoe: https://www.newbalance.com/pd/574-core/ML574V3-40377.html?dw...
Maybe they should let the boring spreadsheet people take over?
"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.
nike thought they were the storefront. reality and history proved otherwise.
Man, I'm in such different circles than everyone. I've never heard of Hoka and I don't know any sneakerheads. Everyone I know is into Keens, Toms, or Sketchers.
Not sure I've seen much Hoka outside of trial running circles here yet.
I'm thinking about sneakers used for actually doing sport though.
More recently I think they've been adopted by the "active retiree" crowd? They're nice to walk in.
(I owned some of the original Cliftons myself. Did not love the flimsy tongue or cheap insoles that would slide around and crumple under your toes.)
Not that long ago, they were an oddity, around here.
Let's hope success doesn't spoil them.
I used to use Nikes, then something happened, and the exact same type that were comfortable, last year, are now giving me blisters.
Enshittification doesn't just affect tech.
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.
It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
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).
By comparison, Hoka is positioned as a runners shoe. They have a variety of models based on the type of running you need (daily, long run, race), provide road/trail variants (their Speedgoat is amazing trail shoe), have large toe boxes to give your forefoot/toes the space needed to spread out on impact, also room to grow from swelling.
I'm sure Nike don't want to walk back from their fashionista offerings, but there are lessons in here for sure - maybe they need sub-branding like Nike Road, Nike Trail, Nike Casual or Nike Performance and Nike Casual.
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.
In some ways that should be good news to them as clearly some untapped markets still
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.
* It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture, for example. Widely popular brands don't have such specific associations.
Nike has some quality products, but they also consistently released garbage products and stamped a swoosh on them.
So there's the squeeze: people who want quality can go to a brand that's actually known for quality and avoid the guessing game, people who want garbage can get cheaper garbage drop shipped from China.
Then the name and public listing remaining was basically a shell, and basically SPACed into the AI datacenter company with more funding.
The real question: How did they become the Lululemon of casual sneakers? Just like lots of women who don't do yoga and barely attend the gym, they cannot get enough Lululemon in their wardrobe. The same can be said for Hoka running shoes: All kinds of normies that barely exercise wear them anywhere and always.
There were rows and rows of shoes to try, and a salesman was helping me for a while, but after trying 3 pairs I just got the feeling that the store was a dumping ground for the odd styles and odd sizes, and having figured out which size fit me, I left all the shoes there, and only purchased a lanyard, which was at least $25.
Wendover did a good overview of Nike's strategic implosion a few months ago [1].
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.
> all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool
We all live in our own bubbles.
Their logo deliberately looks more like 'qn' or 'nq' than 'on'. I _had_ a pair and couldn't remember or figure who made it for a while.
they did lock up their domain name, which must have taken some doing.
That's an anecdote, not a bubble in my opinion. I have a counterexample where I have not worn any Hoka's but have seen/known of them. Have multiple pairs of On shoes.
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.
Even with another 5 years, I'm not sure they would have taken the market Hoka and On did.
no other shoe could carry my feet for miles with no outwardly visible branding
- Heel drop, as others have said, can destroy your Achilles if you go too low. Too high and you can exacerbate hip issues.
- Big feet? If your manufacturer doesn’t offer wide versions, you’re going to have a bad time. You still might if they only expand the upper without actually widening the lower (Nike pulls this shit).
- Running on weird, slick surfaces? Better hope you have strong grip and traction (they’re not all equal by any stretch)
- Running in a hot climate? Better hope for a breathable shoe or your blisters will wreck you.
- Need stability elements? Or a carbon plate? Better hope you bought a stability shoe! Also keep in mind that there is research that those things can wreck your foot health long-term.
- Ugh, I’m so confused, I’ll just get the most popular running shoe out there, the Nike Pegasus! Well, you might be in for a nasty surprise when you learn that it’s the only modern shoe that still contains literal airbags. Step on bark chips the wrong way and your shoe might pop!
And that’s all before you get started on colorways. The idea that shoes are all equally good for everyone is as outdated as the idea that you can swap two people’s Chipotle orders and no one will notice.
- Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike"
- So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women
- The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer
- They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly with other brands
0 - https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111
There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut
Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.
For a non-US company, maybe give Asics (Japanese brand) a look? They never really fit me right personally, but I know they are popular amongst runners.
And just to clarify - I don't think any of the brands above sell proper "wide toe box" shoes that I mentioned above. Xero and Altra are the best known brands (both US-based) in this category I think. There are also some really inexpensive options from Chinese companies on Amazon that I think are actually worth a look - Whitin seems to be the most popular on Amazon in the US, but I see the same shoes sold under different brand names. These shoes tend to be really light weight and comfortable for casual use or working out, but they just don't have enough cushion where I would want to run long distances in them.
Oh and Skechers sells some wide toe shoes as well - not as roomy in the toe box as the brands above, but still super comfy. But again, not something I would recommend for running.
This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
Running shoe tech is not some kind of secret thing. Any shoe manufacturer can buy a pair of any other shoes and cut it open and copy it. The only shoes that have anything special in them are the ones with the carbon fiber spring plate, and those are highly specialized and only last for a few races anyway, not for me as a casual runner in his 40s.
I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.
> revenue down 2%
That means almost nothing, right? Some fluctuation must be expected. The Stock also looks like it really benefited from a Corona boost that is now cooling off.
Can someone with more insight explain why everyone is screaming?
> Beyond the stock market gambling aspect
Google tells me:
> Nike Annual Revenue Breakdown
> Fiscal Year 2026: $46.40 billion (+0.19% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2025: $46.31 billion (-9.84% YoY)
> Fiscal Year 2024: $51.36 billion (+0.28% YoY)
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.
I think they should make a range of climbing shoes to reinforce credibility on this market. Adidas has 5.10 and some pretty serious climbers (Janja Garnbret!) on their books. The competition (LaSportiva, Scarpa) is ripe for disruption.
I can't find any press release about it. And the Constituents section lists only 10 of them, so I can't check who is there. I even checked the PDFs with methodology but couldn't find the list there.
I even tried to limit the search on Google to spglobal.com domain and I can see this in the result preview: "Constituents. Top 10 Constituents by Index Weight. Full Constituents List. Constituent. Symbol. Sector*. Sector Breakdown." But when I click it, Full Constituents List is nowhere on the page.
What's going on? Am I missing something obvious?
https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina...
>Sept 21, 2026 S&P 100 Deletion NIKE NKE Consumer Discretionary
I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot?
Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on.
It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
Priced out the demand IMO too early.
But also, people only have 2 feet.
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.
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.
i can remember a few instances about 5 years ago when I was really interested in a nike shoe "drop", but didnt win in the shoe lottery to purchase the show. the result? i just stopped looking at Nikes completely.
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.
- does not know who “jordan” is
- called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
Yikes this sounds like corporate bingo card nonsense.
The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell.
But this is armchair speculation.
They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.
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 always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return.
Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape.
I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for.
A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.
Would you care to share the brand name, for posterity?
I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.
it sure wasnt to pay the children who make them
Crazy how successful he has been off of just that simple approach. It's something that drives me nuts about a lot of current product design strategies. Yes, sure. You can occasionally have a Steve Jobs style product visionary who delivers something that people never imagined
But for most of us I think we'd see a lot more success just talking to customers and delivering what they ask for, instead of filtering thier thoughts through a "product owner" who winds up having us build something else
My experience with a lot of current product direction advice is along the lines of "don't just give them what they ask for, because they don't know what they want. You have to figure out what they want and deliver that instead". I think this is a really stupid approach. If you are talking to people who "don't know what they want", then you have to find different people to talk to. In my experience the best ideas come from people who know exactly what they want.
The job of product should be to find those people and ask them, not to talk to the wrong people and guess at what they "really want"
“If you can’t measure it, we still know it’s important, we’re not idiots, McNamara was imprecisely defined in its common form”
Yet at the same time,
“If you can measure it, you can convince enough people it’s the only thing that’s important and then overfit to it”
Same. The original Nike Free's were amazing. When mine wore out I bought another pair and they were terrible. I kept trying different versions and none were like the originals. They were heavier, uncomfortable, and not nearly as flexible as the originals.
Probably, they certainly do in the UK
The other one I have noticed is work boots. With a complex market interaction. Real work boots are expensive, built to survive in an adverse environment. However people crave something with substance. So there is a large customer base buying them for fashion. The manufacturer notices this and start to reduce quality(no need to build them so well if the customer won't notice) and you end up with an expensive boot that sucks. The (much smaller) real customer base, the workers, do start noticing and slowly start moving to a different brand, the fashion customers eventually pick up on this and follow. the whole process can take decades.
This is really a thing?
people
I've never been one for fashion, but I thought their tech was awesome. But I can't really think of anything noteworthy since the mid 2010s or so. Their Vaporfly shoes may be a big deal to competitive distance runners, but not really to your average Joe.
So that's my take - they stopped innovating, and other brands caught up and surpassed them.
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.
Neither Hoka, Asics, New Balance, et al. make truly wide toe box shoes.
Better than nothing - sure. Though after wearing Altras, feet health is much better and you can feel how all other shoes feel tight, even my widest Hokas are tight in comparison.
My biggest complaints though with Altras:
- They offer only zero drop (or near zero drop) shoes;
- Their QC to price ratio is atrocious (stitches failing, heel fabric gone to shreds 2-3 times faster than other brands, sole is so soft that it goes to shreds or wears out 2 times faster than others);
Problem for me is that I wouldn't even consider buying them if they wouldn't be the only shoe brand that I can access that has truly wide toe box and is not "barefoot shoe".
So you take your customer base from a lot of folks to a small number of folks. It's totally fine and cool to build more niche products (we need more niche products and cottage industries) but if Nike's goal is to stay in the S&P 100 this strategy won't work. Customer base is way too small (and outside of the influencers) and has too few dollars to spend.
I have transitioned myself to wearing only some kind of good quality running shoes, perhaps a decade before this became so fashionable, because I cared much more about my comfort than about the opinions that others might have about what I am wearing.
So I was surprised when everybody else appeared to have done the same thing, eventually.
BTW, Nike Pegasus is what I wear all the time :D
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.
For running errands maybe.
Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. Fashion and sports shoes don't replace each other. The sales of sport shoes just created a new market, they didn't cannibalize the rest of the sales. That must have been self-inflicted.
They run in their new shoes, then switch them over to casual use as the cushioning starts to go.
And if you're a really keen runner, you'll have different shoes for each type of training (track, tempo, long and slow) and racing (track, XC, trail, mid distance, half to full marathon). So you end up with a constant flow of "worn but not worn out" shoes. Which you wear when not running...
Yeah, I can go and buy a pair of black Nikes in any shop today. But even though they make lots of variety, they never seem to make it in enough volume that I can buy it. I'm not interested in being a collector - I just want shoes that aren't black, white or grey.
So I shoes from companies that don't have as much weird hype around them.
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.
On shoes look like shoes for retirees right now. Teenagers don't wear On shoes.
I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting.
I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too.
And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.
> And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next.
This has led to fashion boutiques carrying the non-collab Salomons as the demand has diversified. So people are exposed to the brand and have access to it at a variety of kinds of shops, not only at running outlets.
Trail running is highly dependent on the type of trails around you. I'm in the bay area and almost everything here is dry, dusty and hard. You can generally get by with structured road running shoes if you want to, and don't need much support beyond that. I would not recommend the same thing to east coast trail runners, or most northern Europeans.
I was looking at Nike ACG stuff recently, but the colourways in AU are black (clodhopper!), neon blue, white with khaki, camo, or an odd light brown. And on the side it spells out "All Conditions Gear" like you're an idiot who can't remember what your shoes are for.
I was having ankle pain and had one of these gait analyses and also had inward pointing knees and got some shoes to correct it - and it helped loads! Much less knee pain and my ankle feels lessy achey too.
So don’t trust all sales people - especially if feel fine already. But if you have an issue it really can help.
Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
The Swiss brand On on the other hand seems to be everywhere all over Europe now and I am surprised you haven't seen them in Spain yet.
The 35+ runners in my city mostly wear Hoka and OC, NB is mostly a mom/dad brand and Nike and Adidas is mostly worn by teens (Forum style), 25+ women (Gazelle, Samba, Superstar) and older demograhic who doesn't run but perform stand up type of work (the foam models).
I don't run. Most of my shoes are Adidas, but I like my Nikes better after I got two pairs, altough I dislike their branding. Most of my Adidas sneakers (Gazelle and Samba) are too narrow, the Terex have lost their outsoles, the Night joggers are fine, but the amount of foam and sponge annoys me and I have another pair with a very thick outsole which are also annoying. The skater Adidas versions (Tyshawn) are great, along with the Etnies shoes and the bike specific FiveTen brand (also Adidas). For outdoor activities I use Columbia aporoach shoes and Garmont 3/4 boots. I've injured both of my ankles with a pair of Black Diamond approach shoes because they're too narrow. When I want a bit more confort while walking, I take my Mizuno Wave Rider although their lining broke after less than a week and they're no go if it's too hot outside. They also get rocks in the outsole and are notoriously hard to clean if you accidentally step in sticky stuff.
You mention a handful of specific shoe models but none of them are running shoes (not even the "Night Jogger").
For my daily shoes, I have been wearing cushioned running shoes for the past ~10 years. For my daily trainers, I currently wear On Cloud Eclipse. For workout shoes I alternate between NB SC Trainer and On Cloudmonster Hyper. For trail running, Topo Vista or Inov-8 G280 (now called Trailyfly). For racing, NB SC Elite.
I also have a pair of Sambas for fashion; they're too narrow for anything else. I do light hiking in approach shoes (La Sportiva TX4 -- I ADORE these, to the point I bought their waterproof mid-height version for more extreme hiking), too!
(I am a runner, my son is a high school runner and works in a running shoe store. I'm deeper into the running shoe market than most.)
On & HOKA both have huge marketing towards "new" runners in the UK. And HOKA especially have made a point of marketing to women, in contrast to many traditional sportswear brands - with the rapid increase in numbers of women participating in sports, that's been a big part of their success.
> I exercise regularly and got Hoka Clifton 10s for running and daily walking and they are hands-down the best shoes I have had for that purpose.
You could have provided more context to avoid that.
Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
If you take exports / inflation there is a trend downward starting in 2024 [2] but 2025 is Trumps 2nd term so it's kinda been increased exports since then. Maybe at a retail level there's less demand for US but not in aggregate.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
[2]: You have to edit graph by hand to do `a/b` after adding inflation as `b`- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXP0015
Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.
I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!
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.
but it went how most mere mortals would expect ...
Karl "Speedgoat" Meltzer broke the Appalachian Trail record in them, and whoever was doing marketing then really blew a big bubble with that result.
Trad brands didn't stand a chance against that sole and backstory.
https://thewalkahead.com/2016/09/21/karl-meltzer-crushes-at-...
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/run/clown-shoe-th...
I do a lot of mountain and trail running here in Norway, and I've exclusively used Hoka Speedgoats for the last five years. Their performance is excellent.
(Just walking around any Norwegian town, it seems like the majority of trainers are Hokas.)
I was at a small restaurant last week. Was chatting with the two owners. All three of us were wearing Hoka Bondi.
I am an ex-runner (hip issues). Wore Asics gel kayano for 30 years. Now I'm a Hoka man.
A doctor employed by Google? A document you maintain and the AI autocomplete recommended Hoka? Something else?
I wonder if this is a market signal to short Hoka; old people wearing them will be dead in <10 years, and no young person will be caught dead wearing them because it's an old person shoe. What is the Instagram of shoes?
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?
I call them clown shoes. Unfortunately, they are everywhere.
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
Most comfortable shoes ever? Maybe not. But probably top 5-10 in my lifetime.
The human body really was never supposed to go over 50 but modern medicine finds a way.
Taking off your socks/shoes(tie/untie) without sitting down: hard for most in their 20/30s. Very hard with out bending over.
Pants are what gets hard when you get older, if you can't put on/off pants without sitting down I'd advise some basic training and/or doctor to help.
*assumes otherwise healthy person with no disabilities. I'm not a doctor, this is my own opinion.
As I get older I'm beginning to align with this.
When you're younger you think everything is going to be great until you die from a short illness at the average age of 79. Wrong. In my cohort of friends, notable age-related degradation started appearing in our late-30s/early 40s, even in the fit ones who stayed active.
The projections are not looking good…
I love cycling, and a run can be refreshing, but I don't really have any desire to swim - much less an open water swim. But triathlons seem to be a pretty effective path to longevity, so it may be something I need to force myself to take up. That and weight training.
They are a bit worn, so a year or two I bought a new pair which are absolutely horrible to wear for any extended amount of time.
Been looking for a good replacement ever since, while my old ones are slowly wearing away. Plastic pieces chipping off the heel every week.