7 ms·

And Nike is currently valued at $270 billion. Where did reebok go wrong? What did Nike do right? Crazy how much more successful Nike was.

rabidonrails 5y ago
The Jordan brand itself is worth over 10B. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/michael-jordans-1-billion-nike-endorsement-is-the-biggest-bargain-in-sports/?sh=731ab8216136 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/mich...
paxys 5y ago
One word – branding.
- amelius 5y ago
  Did reebok make a mistake?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ardit33 5y ago
  no, it is product. Adidas soccer shoes have been underperforming because they honestly suck. Even their shirts are pretty bad compared to Nike's drifit. Their classical Samba and Copa mundial, are just too heavy for modern use, and their new fabric/material lightweight shoes are just not as good as Nike's. Nike has innovated material wise, while Adidas hasn't, and it just has only been catching up with inferior me to products.
antisthenes 5y ago
Well, Reebok was just an underperforming subsidiary of Adidas, a company that's currently worth ~$70bn. So I don't think it's fair to just compare the 2. What Nike did right, though, is fully embrace the influencer culture, I think. That, and actually having some cool and unique designs. Reebok always felt like "just another shoewear brand" and their clothing lines were completely generic and uninspired.
- majormajor 5y ago
  "Where did Reebok go wrong" goes back long before Adidas bought them in the first place. Nike had won that battle before many influencers were even born.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    Wasn't Reebok, "the physics behind the physiques" way back when?
  - antisthenes 5y ago
    Adidas bought them for more in 2005 than they sold them for today. Accounting for inflation, that's one hell of a discount. Which means that wherever they went wrong before 2005, Adidas didn't really do anything to stop them from a downward trajectory. > Nike had won that battle before many influencers were even born. I wish I had your superpower of determining causality going back 30 years. Must be a hoot.
ardit33 5y ago
Product.... Nike is just innovating all the other legacy product makers, Rebook, Puma, and even Adidas. Especially in the soccer gear department, Nike is just outcompeting them. Adidas, should have been first, since it is a European company, but they just slacked and their product line stagnated. They thought it was just a marketing problem, which it was not. Just changing their logo to something cooler, didn't make their products any better. I was an Adidas fan, since they were the 'product of the west', of all the kids that were born under communism. They, and together with Puma made the best soccer shoes and gear. But over time, Nike started innovating hard, and releasing better engineered soccer shoes, and wear. (their Drifit Nikefit shirts are great).
- kache_ 5y ago
  they're just shoes
  - nobrains 5y ago
    ... thought Reebok and Adidas.
  - crysin 5y ago
    Shoes that have lead to software being developed to purchase all available inventory as fast as possible. See exhibits A: https://www.nikeshoebot.com/ https://www.nikeshoebot.com/ B: https://ganeshbot.com/ https://ganeshbot.com/ C:https://cybersole.io/ https://cybersole.io/ And there's a lot more out there
  - ardit33 5y ago
    Top soccer cleats cost $250+. At that price point user expect some innovation (material wise), and not just simple sneakers. Nike has been outcompeting Adidas/Reebok/Puma and others. Ps. You can buy cheap soccer cleats at $40-50 price point. They are good just for casual users, but for semi-serious players, they just don't cut it as they tend to have inferior materials, and tend to be heavy and not good for people that want some edge. Especially if you are an older player (35+ yo), the lighter shoes make a huge difference.
beckman466 5y ago
> What did Nike do right? Luck and paying the right celebrities for endorsements? Also using sweatshops in the global south to extract superprofits [1]? More and more I'm starting see branding as a way for big companies to slowly condition people to relate emotionally to some spectacle [2] (e.g. an exciting celebrity spokesperson in an advert), distracting them from an often exploitative and unsustainable production process. How many people know about Rana Plaza? [3] It's exciting to see new initiatives like 'Fixing Fashion' though (Alicia Minnaard and Dave Hakkens)[4]. [1] https://anticonquista.com/2019/06/29/revolutionary-reads-review-the-wealth-of-some-nations-by-zak-cope/ https://anticonquista.com/2019/06/29/revolutionary-reads-rev... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle [3] https://youtu.be/OaGp5_Sfbss?t=31 https://youtu.be/OaGp5_Sfbss?t=31 [4] https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/52553/1/fixing-fashion-the-new-platform-teaching-you-how-to-repair-your-clothes https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/52553/1/fixing-... - short intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buWRaffBdNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buWRaffBdNM
irrational 5y ago
Nike is the innovation leader. They have actual scientists and engineers on staff. The other companies mainly wait to see what Nike comes up with and then copy it. Or they just forego performance all together and just make lifestyle products.
S_A_P 5y ago
1) I think that Nike is a brand that got endorsements right. Adidas was slow to jump on the big shoe deal and they have way fewer deals than Nike. 2) Adidas is a brand that I look to for more classic styles while Nike seems to always be pushing boundaries. Adidas did have a pretty good run with some modern takes(NMDs I liked a lot) but in general I dont like the new styles. Sometimes I like the new styles, but most of the time its just too much for me. 3) Nike was the first that Im aware of to do the user customized versions of their shoes. I think Adidas is doing it now, but IIRC it was less dynamic than Nike allowed. 4) Limited supplies- while this seems counterintuitive limiting the supply of the premium shoes encouraged the collectors to step in. Now instead of hoping the public accepts a $300 dollar sneaker, they jump out and buy as many as they can so they can list them on StockX.
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  Adidas passing on Jordan was clearly a dumb move.[0] [0]https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-wanted-sign-adidas-he-landed-nike-shoe-deal https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-wante...
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Their design, tech, and product was better. Even the name is cooler. Never once was influenced by… endorsements, haha.

rabidonrails 5y ago

The Jordan brand itself is worth over 10B. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/michael-jordans-1-billion-nike-endorsement-is-the-biggest-bargain-in-sports/?sh=731ab8216136 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/mich...

paxys 5y ago

One word – branding.

amelius 5y ago
Did reebok make a mistake?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ardit33 5y ago
no, it is product. Adidas soccer shoes have been underperforming because they honestly suck. Even their shirts are pretty bad compared to Nike's drifit. Their classical Samba and Copa mundial, are just too heavy for modern use, and their new fabric/material lightweight shoes are just not as good as Nike's. Nike has innovated material wise, while Adidas hasn't, and it just has only been catching up with inferior me to products.

antisthenes 5y ago

Well, Reebok was just an underperforming subsidiary of Adidas, a company that's currently worth ~$70bn. So I don't think it's fair to just compare the 2. What Nike did right, though, is fully embrace the influencer culture, I think. That, and actually having some cool and unique designs. Reebok always felt like "just another shoewear brand" and their clothing lines were completely generic and uninspired.

majormajor 5y ago
"Where did Reebok go wrong" goes back long before Adidas bought them in the first place. Nike had won that battle before many influencers were even born.
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  Wasn't Reebok, "the physics behind the physiques" way back when?
- antisthenes 5y ago
  Adidas bought them for more in 2005 than they sold them for today. Accounting for inflation, that's one hell of a discount. Which means that wherever they went wrong before 2005, Adidas didn't really do anything to stop them from a downward trajectory. > Nike had won that battle before many influencers were even born. I wish I had your superpower of determining causality going back 30 years. Must be a hoot.

ardit33 5y ago

Product.... Nike is just innovating all the other legacy product makers, Rebook, Puma, and even Adidas. Especially in the soccer gear department, Nike is just outcompeting them. Adidas, should have been first, since it is a European company, but they just slacked and their product line stagnated. They thought it was just a marketing problem, which it was not. Just changing their logo to something cooler, didn't make their products any better. I was an Adidas fan, since they were the 'product of the west', of all the kids that were born under communism. They, and together with Puma made the best soccer shoes and gear. But over time, Nike started innovating hard, and releasing better engineered soccer shoes, and wear. (their Drifit Nikefit shirts are great).

kache_ 5y ago
they're just shoes
- nobrains 5y ago
  ... thought Reebok and Adidas.
- crysin 5y ago
  Shoes that have lead to software being developed to purchase all available inventory as fast as possible. See exhibits A: https://www.nikeshoebot.com/ https://www.nikeshoebot.com/ B: https://ganeshbot.com/ https://ganeshbot.com/ C:https://cybersole.io/ https://cybersole.io/ And there's a lot more out there
- ardit33 5y ago
  Top soccer cleats cost $250+. At that price point user expect some innovation (material wise), and not just simple sneakers. Nike has been outcompeting Adidas/Reebok/Puma and others. Ps. You can buy cheap soccer cleats at $40-50 price point. They are good just for casual users, but for semi-serious players, they just don't cut it as they tend to have inferior materials, and tend to be heavy and not good for people that want some edge. Especially if you are an older player (35+ yo), the lighter shoes make a huge difference.

beckman466 5y ago

> What did Nike do right? Luck and paying the right celebrities for endorsements? Also using sweatshops in the global south to extract superprofits [1]? More and more I'm starting see branding as a way for big companies to slowly condition people to relate emotionally to some spectacle [2] (e.g. an exciting celebrity spokesperson in an advert), distracting them from an often exploitative and unsustainable production process. How many people know about Rana Plaza? [3] It's exciting to see new initiatives like 'Fixing Fashion' though (Alicia Minnaard and Dave Hakkens)[4]. [1] https://anticonquista.com/2019/06/29/revolutionary-reads-review-the-wealth-of-some-nations-by-zak-cope/ https://anticonquista.com/2019/06/29/revolutionary-reads-rev... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle [3] https://youtu.be/OaGp5_Sfbss?t=31 https://youtu.be/OaGp5_Sfbss?t=31 [4] https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/52553/1/fixing-fashion-the-new-platform-teaching-you-how-to-repair-your-clothes https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/52553/1/fixing-... - short intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buWRaffBdNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buWRaffBdNM

irrational 5y ago

Nike is the innovation leader. They have actual scientists and engineers on staff. The other companies mainly wait to see what Nike comes up with and then copy it. Or they just forego performance all together and just make lifestyle products.

S_A_P 5y ago

1) I think that Nike is a brand that got endorsements right. Adidas was slow to jump on the big shoe deal and they have way fewer deals than Nike. 2) Adidas is a brand that I look to for more classic styles while Nike seems to always be pushing boundaries. Adidas did have a pretty good run with some modern takes(NMDs I liked a lot) but in general I dont like the new styles. Sometimes I like the new styles, but most of the time its just too much for me. 3) Nike was the first that Im aware of to do the user customized versions of their shoes. I think Adidas is doing it now, but IIRC it was less dynamic than Nike allowed. 4) Limited supplies- while this seems counterintuitive limiting the supply of the premium shoes encouraged the collectors to step in. Now instead of hoping the public accepts a $300 dollar sneaker, they jump out and buy as many as they can so they can list them on StockX.

anonAndOn 5y ago
Adidas passing on Jordan was clearly a dumb move.[0] [0]https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-wanted-sign-adidas-he-landed-nike-shoe-deal https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-wante...

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Their design, tech, and product was better. Even the name is cooler. Never once was influenced by… endorsements, haha.