4 ms·

Sneakerbots killed it for everyone. Priced out the demand IMO too early. But also, people only have 2 feet.

andsoitis 20d ago
> But also, people only have 2 feet. 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.
- what 20d ago
  Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
  - MiroslavPokorny 20d ago
    Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
  - deleted 20d ago
    [deleted]
- morkalork 20d ago
  Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
  - ikr678 20d ago
    Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.
ronsor 20d ago
> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone 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.
- epsteingpt 20d ago
  Slightly different take IMO. 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.
  - bawolff 20d ago
    >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. 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?
    - tancop 20d ago
      Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
      - nadermx 20d ago
        For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
    - WalterBright 20d ago
      It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
  - HWR_14 20d ago
    If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.
    - 20d ago
bdangubic 20d ago
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete - does not know who “jordan” is - called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season

> But also, people only have 2 feet. 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.

what 20d ago
Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
- MiroslavPokorny 20d ago
  Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
- deleted 20d ago
  [deleted]
morkalork 20d ago
Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
- ikr678 20d ago
  Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.

ronsor 20d ago

> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone 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.

epsteingpt 20d ago
Slightly different take IMO. 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.
- bawolff 20d ago
  >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. 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?
  - tancop 20d ago
    Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
    - nadermx 20d ago
      For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
  - WalterBright 20d ago
    It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
- HWR_14 20d ago
  If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.
  - 20d ago

bdangubic 20d ago

not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete - does not know who “jordan” is - called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season