Comments on: Brooks PureProject – Marketing Gone Awry

By: Greg Strosaker

Greg Strosaker — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Great analysis Pete, it strikes me that Brooks is facing the typical corporate dilemma of trying to be all things to all people, and it comes across in the mixed messages they are giving in their marketing and public comments on the PureProject launch. This is a common problem for companies that perceive themselves as leaders in an industry, as they get hung up in the cannibalization risk involved in launching something radically new. They also seem to be struggling with a bit of channel conflict, not wanting to criticize specialty shoe stores while at the same time needing to do so in order to promote PureProject.
In taking such an approach, they leave themselves vulnerable to true innovators without the baggage of history and incumbency, or to traditional competitors who are quicker to see the opportunity such a market shift presents and embrace it more fully, with true passion for their new offerings (like Saucony appears to be doing, per Woody's comment).
That being said, I would love to get my hands on the PureConnect and give them a spin. I may compare them and the Kinvaras the next time I try out running shoes.

By: Charles Therriault

Charles Therriault — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Woody.

There are going to be other brands that are lowering their heel heights too, but way to go Saucony for being the first. That is awesome.

I think it will be a big success for the movement when 12mm is no longer the norm.

Also I hope these shoes are as good as one guest posted below. I have always been happy with Brooks products. My first shoe when I got into this whole minimalist running thing was the Launch and I loved it for a long time until I got used to a lower heel height by wearing racing flats. I also recommend brooks shorts for any one that is out there. They are just awesome and designed to the T.

By: Zak Branigan

Zak Branigan — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Pete Larson.

You know, Pete...I never thought about it like that. The "sitting on data that shows that standard shoes fare worse than these new
ones" is a truly valid point. Hmm. I wish it were simpler. I am glad I found this style of running and this approach to my favorite hobby, but I wish it was like this for everyone. I am turning into a seriously skeptical person. I enjoy many aspects of the Brooks approach to things, and I am very glad that they are coming out with these shoes. I think I will leave my own involvement at that and hope that time and the truth win out in the end.

By: Sam Winebaum

Sam Winebaum — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It is a heap of marketing for sure but kind of old school. Not going to the grass roots, such as the audience and author of this and other blogs first for input and by seeding this line and then generating word of mouth buzz is a mistake in my view.

This said let's look a little closer at Brooks. See this January press release:
http://www.businesswire.com/ne...]
Some highlights:
#1 market share in speciality running.
Brooks Adrenaline, a stability shoe, is the top selling shoe in speciality
Sales increased 19% in 2010
Vendor of the Year for Independent Running Retailer Assoc
Now here is a good one: Brooks is owned by Berskshire Hathaway.

So, what is this all about? They know that the trend is towards more minimal. Running in general is booming. Retail wall space is increasingly at a premium with all the new minimal or at least more natural running brands fighting for space (VFF, Altra, Hoka, Merrell, Newton, etc...) and Brooks has plenty of overlapping models. So, they simplify and come up with a "system" of Float and Feel leading to more minimal which they hope consumers will understand and retailers can embrace and sell (Inov-8 took the lead on this approach). Retailers are likely struggling with folks new to running wanting to go VFF and the like without prep or progression and thus may embrace a Brooks "prescription". Brooks and retailers also need to maintain through the promise of technologies the typical running shoe pricing and margins. Fewer SKU's mean manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and also a chance to maintain or acquire shelf space and keep their growth going.
IPO or spin out in their future given the Berkshire Hathaway connection? The IDEO participation, the Float and Feel theme, the rationalization of the line with new tech, etc... are the types of efforts one often sees in the run up to such events as new technologies, market research, line rationalizations looks good to investors.
This is a very well organized "product launch" by the business school book. The shoes may be great. I would love to try them. They seem to have forgotten social media and early adopters in their launch mix and when they do participate (the CEO anyway) seems to have literally put foot in mouth.
www.samwinebaum.blogspot.com

By: Denny

Denny — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I can understand the drive to get new runners and market towards them - it may be possible to make more money off of a bunch of startup runners who stop than one may off of lifetime runners. I don't know the economics of it (and it kind of scares me to try to ponder). That being said, they're sending incredibly mixed signals.

Great, great post Pete.

By: Zak Branigan

Zak Branigan — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Who knows…good article, Pete. But I must say that we can’t expect every shoe company to just ditch their entire line of traditional shoes just because the benefits of minimal/barefoot are starting to gain traction. It took years for shoes to go from tiny track spikes to abominations like the Brooks Beast. My guess is that these awkward years are a phase too, and that it will take years to make minimal the norm. Of course, many Americans always seem to want to buy their way into fitness and hobbies. Look at golf…is a new $1200 set of irons REALLY going to make you a better player? In other words, shoe companies will always be shoe companies and they are all trying to out-market one another by having all those “features” that you just have to have. I don’t fancy the awkward contradiction in what Jim Weber says and what this product statement clearly is, but what the hell…we get more choice, and this is better than the alternative of having no options. In fact, I don’t really give a damn about all this marketing stuff. If some designers at Brooks were able to get this line made because of the new “market” for minimal shoes, they may very well have done it in defiance on Mr. Weber, who personally may not agree with the philosophy, for all we know. I have to do this at my job (urban planner) all the time. I ave client communities whose right-wing elected officials would not give me the time of day if I asked them to put in new rules that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions; but if I ask them to do the same thing and show them on a spreadsheet that it will save them money….well, they let me do it. Could be the same thing here. You can picture the pure runners at Brooks crying out for this, but the brass saying it is a fad. Then the marketing folks get involved and say “hey, we can totally cash in on this, look!” and BOOM, they get the green light. To me, options = a great thing. And if it can come from Brooks, whom I support (especially from an environmental perspective), all the better. I think going more minimal across the board is the right thing for the running shoe community to do, but keep in mind that it may make (at least initially) running a more intimidating sport for people to get into (cushioned shoes can feel great in the store, right? Imagine if you went to a store as an overweight person who never ran and all you has to choose from were ultra-minimal shoes…until you learned to run they would hurt…options and transitional shoes like the New Balance Minimus line and some of these Brooks shoes are, to me, necessary and desirable)…and therefore we have to respect that Rome was not built in a day.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to briderdt.

It's not bad, in fact I think the fact that they are making this move is
positive. Just trying to keep the focus on getting good and accurate
information out there. If this discussion helps publicize what I feel is a
positive direction in the Brooks shoe line, than that's a good thing.
Anything that can make more people aware that there are more options out
there than what we typically find at a store is good.

As for Saucony, I suspect that going from 12 to 8mm won't cause problems for
most runners. I never had issues until I went to 4mm or less, and really it
was only ever bad when I went completely flat (forefoot striking is the
biggest trigger for calf soreness for me, probably due to eccentric
contraction and greater triggering of the stretch shortening cycle). Gradual
decrease in heel height is the right approach, dropping the whole line to
4mm overnight on the other hand would be a big mistake.

Pete

By: Runningcool

Runningcool — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If shoe companies admit that their high heel designs cause injury would they not be setting themselves up for being taken to court by injured runners?

By: Zak Branigan

Zak Branigan — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Woody.

You are right, Woody. Thanks for calling me out...It's funny, too. That was the first running shoe I was sold when I started running. I was overweight, unhealthy, and my wife was recently diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer. And we had a 3-month old. And my wife lost her job. All in the span of a few weeks.

I had no control over anything in my life at the time, and looking back, I took no control over my running, either. I bought into the brick-shoe pronation control paradigm and spent every step hurting myself constantly, and thinking it was MY fault. Another year of running in orthotics and control shoes and all that, and I was still hurting ALLthe time. It is a miracle I stayed with it. If I had known at the time what I know now, that I can literally and figuratively take "control" of my running by bucking the marketing system and freeing my feet, it would have been one of the only parts of my life I would have had control over. I started this journey about 6 months ago in true earnest, and today I pride myself on this. I can see why to many it is more than a shoe, it is a movement.

By: briderdt

briderdt — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I wrote about this bruhaha in my blog, but in spite of the circus surrounding the science behind the shoes (or lack thereof), they're entering into an area that they've been criticized for ignoring. How is that bad? Regardless of their motivations, it's giving the "more minimal" market more choices.

Also, I have to wonder about Saucony's move... What's going to happen to all the wearers of the "traditional line" when they buy a new 2012 pair of the same model, now that the heel height is 4mm lower? Yup, calf pain. The number of runners that pay attention to heel drop is extremely small. I see it on BeginnerTriathlete all the time -- the person goes from a 12mm (or more) heel drop shoe to something much less, then blames the shoes when they get calf or achilles pain.

Lastly, any advertising exec will say there's no such thing as bad publicity. We're all giving them advertising that they couldn't buy...

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Bottom line is this line of shoes is amazing, I’ve tried them on and am very impressed – who cares about the marketing aspect… the kinvara was marketed as a high cushion minimalist shoe, which is an oxymoron, but is a very successful shoe. The ultimate goal is money for every shoe manufacturer, and if when striving to make money they make an amazing product, I’ll take it.

By: Woody

Woody — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Pete Larson.

I completely agree.