Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Sales of minimalist running shoes continue to decline

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, May 31, 2013.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    These two quite telling:
    In every time period (quarter or month) this yr we seeing the same: further increases in motion control and further decreases in minimalist shoes
     
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The rise and fall of the minimalist running shoe
     
  3. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    SOS is never crisp about what they are trying to say. If US sales were $400 million in 2012, does that mean projected full year sales in 2013 will be $348 million? Are they talking about the change in sales or market share? Are they mixing and confusing the two concepts?

    What would the $400 million in 2012 be if they included the hands down best selling minimal shoe, the Nike Free. Since sales of the the Nike Free have been increasing, is it enough to show an increasing sales trend in minimal shoes from 2012 to 2013? Maybe with sales of $700 million in 2012 growing to a projected $900 million in 2013? No way to tell since SOS has taken the liberty to omit the biggest selling shoe from their analysis then they mix sales trends with market share. What exactly are they saying?

    Unless SOS can provide a simple table that shows quarterly or annual sales in absolute dollars by category of shoe and define each category by the shoe models they are including AND include ALL shoes sold as running shoes, their analysis is totally useless. The way they present their data or analysis if you want to call it that, there is no way to tell exactly what they are analyzing. By selectively manipulating the data as they've done, I really have to wonder what their point is and what they are trying to imply. What can't they just show the data so that people can see in black and white what sales are doing across the categories?
     
  4. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    This topic has been really interesting.

    I have no wish to enter debates on sale figures, etc.
    Just wanted to point out that, as some athletes experiment and then return to a thicker sole, there will be new athletes embracing the minimalist style (For instance I have a client who has recently greatly improved his cross-country times in minimalist shoes as he feels he has greater awareness of and traction on the changing terrain.)

    Therefore even as overall figures decrease, the number of sales will probably be cyclical between current users and new users. IMHO.
     
  5. Competitive runners have been using "minimalist shoes" for 40+ years in order to decrease their cross-country and road race times. Except, 40 years ago, we called them racing flats, not "minimalist shoes". Racing flats, with thin soles, and low heel height differential (i.e. low "heel drop") have been continuously available in specialty running shoe stores for four decades.

    Please don't believe the Chris McDougall led/barefoot running/minimalist shoe fanatics who claim that "minimalist shoes" are new or that your runner is doing something that thousands of us weren't already doing in the 1970s and 1980s in cross-country and road races...wearing thin soled shoes to race to improve our race times.

    "Minimalist running shoes" just represent a renaming of an existing shoe category.

    Just look at these photos of shoes I ran in while a high school cross country in Northern California in the early 1970s. Are these "minimalist shoes"? Of course they are!!
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    That is pretty much what the specialty retailers are saying. I get comments like "minimalism is dead" "minimalism is dying" "we devoting much less shelf space to minimalist shoes this year" and probably the most telling comment I came across in an issue of Running Insight a few months ago was something like "those who brought minimalist shoe are not buying a second pair when they need new shoes; they are buying what they knew before".
     
  7. Tuckersm

    Tuckersm Well-Known Member

    I use to use a slightly padded racing spike for most of my school and club cross country races as they were more minimalist than my road race shoes, and then bought a new pair of spikes for the next track season.
     
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    The September sales figures are out:
     
  9. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Adding the sales of Nike Free into the mix puts Minimalist shoe sales at 11% of the total running shoe market. It might be shrinking but 11% is still a big portion of the pie.

    What is the difference between a stability shoe and a motion control shoe? What are the characteristics and degree of those characteristics that differentiate the two categories of shoes? How does SOS define a Motion Control shoe? Do they use the same parameters as the shoe companies?

    I find the labeling vague and therefore the data not very helpful.
     
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    We only have access to the Executive Summary from SOS, so we don't know exactly what they consider 'motion control' or 'stability' etc unless pay big $ to get the full reports.

    Whatever it is, its a historical classification and the shoes that are in each category have been consistent over time to monitor trends. To start playing with that will make the historical data not so useful.

    As for the Nike frees not being included - again that is historical. They have tracked that category, both its rise and fall minus the Nike Frees that way since the beginning; they sometimes mention the Nike Free figures separately in the Executive Summary. They do that as they claim that the vast majority of Nike Free that are sold are not used for running.
     
  11. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    great for barbeques though Craig.. gotta give 'em that!
     
  12. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Thanks Craig!

    The part I struggle with is that the running shoe industry is really dynamic. A given brand like Nike will update its models as often as every spring and fall season. The Nike Pegasus comes to mind which is currently on version 30. I remember the very first version of the shoe which I bought in the early 1980's, it was absolutely nothing like the current version and would clearly have migrated across classifications. I would have classified Version 1 of the Pegasus as a minimal shoe if such a classification existed in 1982. Today the shoe is a full blown highly cushioned, highly supportive shoe. Anything but a minimal shoe. A given model can "migrate" from one category to another as the result of accumulated changes over versions, yet they are still called the same model.

    I don't know if the SOS classifications are based on specific models or by predefined characteristics. What further complicates this is what one brand may classify as stability, another brand will classify as motion control. Asics for example doesn't even recognize motion control as a classification or a viable concept in running shoes. I wonder if SOS places any of the Asics models in the motion control category. Whether they do or don't, I don't know if they are right or wrong because I don't know where one category ends and the other begins.

    Since it's not clear regarding where the stability classification ends and where motion control begins and SOS saw stability shoes sales decline and motion control shoes increase, depending on where they draw the line between the two classifications could produce different results in their survey. Also, if they are classifying by model, if the models change across versions, their classification may be getting outdated.

    Running shoes are constantly evolving, I would imagine that trying to be consistent across categories over time would be extremely difficult. Different models and brands are constantly entering and leaving the store shelves so a given category could never have a static set of models comprising it. A given model may also contain the characteristics of two categories. It would be really interesting to see what SOS considers a motion control shoe vs a stability shoe today from a model perspective vs what they considered it to be 5 yrs ago. I would expect it to be very dynamic with models coming and going and even switching categories.

    As far as Nike Free, what blows my mind is that the Nike Free was the first big shoe company super popular model that was part of the minimal classification. Since they began in 2002, the model was out years before the minimal "fad" even developed and people even coined the term minimal. We know minimal shoes existed since the beginning of the running shoe over 100 years ago but the marketing classification is new. I wonder what category SOS considered the Nike Free to be in during 2002-2006? What I also find really bizarre about SOS removing the Nike Free is that they are tracking shoe SALES not shoe USE. They are removing the model based on use rather than sales, the component they are supposed to be measuring. I also have to question how they can even determine that Nike Frees are not used for running any more than any other running shoe model. I would argue that most running shoes aren't used for running. At least over the course of most of the day, the running shoe may only be used for actual running a small fraction of the time. Otherwise, they are worn predominantly as a casual shoe.

    The Nike Free is one of if not the most popular running shoes out there. It's sales represent 7 to 8% of the entire running shoe industry. To exclude them from the sales of running shoes has got to really skew the data. Since the minimal shoe classification came after the Nike Free, I don't know how SOS could be consistent in their treatment of the Free over time.

    Like all running shoe models which will live and die. The Nike Free will live and die regardless of how it is used over the course of the day, it is marketed and sold as a running shoe and should be treated as such. I personally use the Nike Free EXCLUSIVELY as a running shoe, I can't say that about many of my other running shoes. I find the Nike Free to be an outstanding shoe for running on treadmills, the best treadmill shoe I have ever worn for that matter. The last thing I want to do is screw them up wearing them around casually or even wearing them outside running. Of course, SOS never counted the Nike Free sale when I bought them. Not because they chose to exclude them but because I didn't buy them in a general sporting goods store. Another issue I have with what they are trying to measure but I'll let that rest for now.

    Many have stated here that minimal shoes make up a small percent of the total market. I completely agree just based on years of observation. People like comfortable cushioned shoes, I don't think that will change for a long time coming. Just go to a large marathon and look at what people are wearing. Even in an actual race, you will only find a small cross section of people wearing racing flats or "minimal" shoes. For now, people like big bulky shoes. Some have tried minimal shoes but have returned to their highly cushioned shoes. There is a small percentage of people who do better with light hardly there shoes. You can't fake responding better to minimal shoes. Regardless of what the fad is, if minimal shoes don't work for you, they don't work and you're better of wearing big shoes.

    Regardless of the shortcomings of the SOS data and analysis, what they are showing is people who really haven't benefited from wearing minimal shoes are returning to the big shoes that have worked for them in the past.

    In the meantime, the minimal shoe fad has certainly had the shoe industry rethink the design points of their shoes regardless of their classifications and everyone has benefited.
     
  13. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Dana - I will email SOS and see if can get a clarification.

    I just back from the gym; >50% of people there were in Nike Free's - none of them looked like runners ... that is the problem with tracking sales in that category of "running shoes".
     
  14. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Thanks Craig.

    Yes, Nike Free's are widely popular, I see the same thing in the gym I go to in Colorado. Talk about a fad....the Nike Free fad. A shoe companies dream to have a shoe as popular as the Nike Free.

    I bet Nike hasn't lost a minute of sleep worrying about whether their shoes are being worn in the gym or at a BBQ as long as they keep flying off of the store shelves.
     
  15. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  16. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Surprising Benefit Of Running On Your Heels
    Full story
     
  17. I hate to keep bringing this up, but I will anyway....and this was from over 6 years ago...:cool::rolleyes:

    From Forefoot Running

     
  18. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Leisure Trends are reporting sales for September 2013:
    http://www.leisuretrends.com/showarticle.aspx?id=1043
     
  19. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the 3rd Quarter Summary from SoS:
     
  20. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I just on the Leisure Trends webinar on running specialty data for the first 3 quarters of 2013:

    3.23% increase in running specialty sales
    5% increase in road running shoes sales; 9% decrease in trail shoes sales

    Stability: down 2.45%
    Motion control: down 20.45%
    Cushioning/Neutral: up 5.4%

    Minimalist: as a category, down 9% (up 20% in 2012)
    BUT: road minimalist up 3.77% and trail minimalist down 31.9%
    "category not dead" "2013 sales ahead of 2011 sales, so still viable, but not the sales driver that it was in the past"
     
  21. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the just release Oct 2013 figures from Leisure Trends:
     
  22. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    "Minimalist road runners also tumbled, down a noteworthy 25% with just $2M in sales."

    If so few are doing the minimal thing, why do they get paid so much attention and make so much noise online for? They have become an irrelevant minority.
     
  23. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Yes, they are very noisy online which gives the false impression that there is way more of them than there really is.

    How many Vibram wearers does it take to change a lightbulb?
    100. 1 to change it and 99 to blog what a positive experience it was.

    Even though this is a joke, it does sum up what has been happening. Those 99 who blogged what a positive experience it was gave the impression that there were a lot of vibram wearers!

    Runners have voted with their feet.
     
  24. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the November 2013 Sales figures from Leisure Trends:
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2014
  25. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the December 2013 summary from SportsOneSource:
     
  26. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    lol......
     

    Attached Files:

  27. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I wonder where this is.. in September of 2011 i told tech retail in LA and surrounds to watch their stock numbers because the bubble was about to burst.. some listened.. some, obviously, did not...
     
  28. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the Dec 2013 numbers from Leisure trends:
     
  29. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the 4th Q of 2013 commentary from SoS:
     
  30. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here i the 2013 summary from SoS:
     
  31. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here is the Jan 2014 figures from Leisure Trends:
     
  32. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Feb 2014 figures from LT's press release:
     
  33. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    A lot of retailers at the PAC conference were telling me that they can't even give away vibrams now.
     
  34. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I just saw a disgraceful posting by vibrobarefoot claiming that heel striking is twice as likely to injury a runner.. as they claimed immediately after the Daoud paper was published. It was up, along with quotes from the 'world's best coach" Lee Saxby about an hour ago.. mysteriously.. it has disappeared.. not only are they misinformed and perpetuating myths that injure runners... it appears they also have no strength of conviction.. pathetic.
     
  35. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    make that vivobarefoot.. not vibro.. I get my vivo's and vibro's mixed up.. not that I really care!
     
  36. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Yep; vivobarefoot have a habit of doing things like that that damage their brand. Many have called them on it.
     
  37. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Here are the June 2014 figures from Leisure Trends:
     
  38. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
Loading...

Share This Page