On the other hand, a bad logo can leave a brand open to ridicule, and in some cases can even lead to stores refusing to carry their shoes. Such was the case with the brand Gravity Defyer. A few years ago I would often see web ads for Gravity Defyer shoes, and had to chuckle at the fact that they had what appeared to be a sperm logo on the sides:

I suspect that wearing a shoe with a sperm on the side is an effective form of contraception.

The shoes feature springs in the heel, as well as trampolines and stabilizers, and were often featured in the Skymall Catalogue (Skymall was a retailer whose catalogue was found in seat pockets of airplanes in the US – they are now out of business). You might think that the logo was intended to represent something else (maybe a tadpole?), but according to this article on Business Insider, the choice of a sperm logo was indeed intentional:

"Our logo is deliberate. Our customers feel like they are getting the beginning of a new life when they try our shoes," said Alexander Elnekaveh, CEO of Gravity Defyer. "We are not embarrassed by it."

Well, apparently times have changed, and not even the addition of multiple sperm was enough to prevent an inevitable logo change:

Nothing inspires speed like a race to conceive new life! And I wonder if there is any relation between the 3-sperm logo and the fact that this was “Revision 3.69”?

I’m not sure exactly when it happened, but Gravity Defyer now has a new logo, and sperm are no longer splashed on the sides of their shoes:

My initial reaction is that the logo looks a bit like the Om symbol – maybe they’re going after the yoga crowd?:

It’s definitely an improvement, though the bar was set pretty low by whoever decided to put reproductive cells on the earlier shoes.

Let this be a lesson to all marketers and shoe designers – though a great shoe may make you feel newly alive, celebrating that feeling with sperm is never a good idea.

Shortly after the study was released, Vivobarefoot put up a blog entry on their website stating that the Harvard study “proves” that “barefoot is best.” Here’s how they put it:

“While VIVOBAREFOOT has been a believer in “Barefoot is Best” since 2003, there is now scientific proof. Harvard Professor Daniel Lieberman has released his latest ground breaking research: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study. The research shows runners with a rearfoot strike have almost twice the rate of injury than those who forefoot strike, a characteristic found in skilled barefoot runners.”

Accompanying the blog entry was the following graphic:

Last week I got an email from Vivobarefoot asking if they could use some of my footage from the NYC Barefoot Run for a piece they are putting together. I responded that I was fine with that as anything I put on YouTube is free and open to public use and sharing, but cautioned that their interpretation of the Harvard study was incorrect. I’m writing this post in part to make my feelings clear that if indeed my video shows up in a marketing piece that misrepresents the results of a study, I want my position on the subject to be known.

Now, I understand the link Vivobarefoot is trying to make here, but I also feel that intellectual honesty needs to come into play. The Harvard study did not look at barefoot running in any way! It looked at college cross country runners wearing shoes and running in their typical form. It did not look at recreational runners who are considering changing form from a heel strike to a forefoot strike, which is what most people running in a Vivobarefoot shoe would be attempting to do. These are very different situations, and the types of injuries likely to be experience by these different populations might be quite different. What’s more, Vivobarefoot sells shoes, they don’t make their money off of barefoot running.

Maybe it’s just the scientist in me that gets irked whenever anybody claims that a scientific study “proves” something. I’ve laid into other shoe companies for disingenuous marketing (e.g., most recently Brooks), and feel it’s important to hold a similar standard for any company making such claims. And I’ll add that I’m actually regular wearer of Vivobarefoot shoes, as is my 6 year old daughter – I like their products and have worn Vivobarefoot Aquas to work more than any other shoe over the past year. But, the shoes can stand for themselves without this sort of marketing approach.

I’ll also add that the Harvard study was a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about form and footwear, but it needs to be interpreted and applied within the limits of the specific question that it sought to address. That question was whether shod habitual forefoot strikers on a college cross country team exhibit more or fewer injuries than shod heel strikers. Let’s not extend our application of the results too far beyond that.

Given that this is political season and I live in New Hampshire, I’ll end by saying that when Vivobarefoot claims that the Harvard study proves that barefoot is best, I respond by saying that despite my own fairly strong minimalist leanings, I cannot approve this message.