Of course this is from my perspective and experience. The content is both educational and marketing driven.
Perhaps “easy/hard” is an oversimplification (and bit of clickbait, let’s be honest), but the relative difference is the point. Perhaps simple/coplex might be better descriptors.
It’s true that the apparel and footwear industries are different, but not that different - it’s not comparing computer programming and pottery.
From what I’ve seen, the differences and contrast is important to highlight because so many brands get it wrong for one reason or another. As mentioned, Under Armour and Lululemon are just two huge examples of apparel brands who have struggled to get footwear right.
If there are contrary opinions from apparel experts, I’d love to hear it but consensus on my LinkedIn post with the same article seems to be the complexity difference is real, not just in my head. Join the discussion.
I’m posting because I think others might be interested. If you don’t care, that’s OK. You don’t need to read/comment.
Of course not… this is a post comparing ‘design for X’ with ‘design for Y’. To take the Lulu problem further, apparel is easy, footwear is medium-easy, developing and monetizing a hardware/software service like Mirror is very hard. A company should not try to branch out too far from its core expertise or be willing to fail (and burn goodwill and brand equity).
I think Mr Blakeslee’s opinion in the linkedin falls close to my own.
Why not include the body content of the article here on the boards instead of making ‘tbh clickbait’?
But we don’t normally copy and paste an entire article when sharing content, do we?
Is this helpful, or a worse reading experience, where links and content and formatting is missing?
If the intent was to drive clicks I wouldn’t be posting in these all but abandoned forums. I get 20,000+ impressions on LinkedIn. Aside from you two, I don’t know if anyone even reads the forums but I hope to keep it alive…
The use of “hard” and “easy” seems entirely self-serving. “Different”, “long development time”, “costly”, while mundane adjectives, are more accurate. But that is not a complaint directly to you, it is how marketing works today. I’m old, don’t like it and say get off my lawn, and I am certainly not an influencer or a target of any marketing. So my .02 is actually worth less than that.
But Gucci, Chanel, Armani, and I can go on, were fashion companies long before selling shoes. Maybe Under Armour and Lululemon just suck.
Also, UM shoe sales were $300M in 2013. In 2024 they were $1.4B. That is a 15% cagr, which is awesome in an established industry. They passed Adidas to be second behind Nike. How have they “struggled to get footwear right”?
I don’t have time to dig up numbers, but from a high level UA’s general struggle in footwear is well documented and known in the industry-
-lots of turnover in footwear people from leaders to creative
-UA footwear often discounted
-UA footwear often not present in key specialty retailers (more at mass/discounters)
-UA footwear virtually non-existent in the lifestyle market unlike a NB/Hoka/Nike/Adi. Even brands like Saucony and ASICS are bringing more heat with collabs and sport style.
That being said I’m generally looking at things from a running POV and I know UA has footwear strengths with cleated (US Football) and BB (Curry). Everything else though (run, training, etc.) I think is not so hot.
Your responses fall into, I wouldn’t run their company the way the company is being run, or, I would not want to work there. Which is all well and good, but an N of 1.
I’m still struggling to see why a 15% cagr for over a decade is “struggling”. Any publicly traded company would be ecstatic for that growth. Is your company doing the same growth?
It’s like the What is BMW Doing thread. They are crushing sales, that’s what. Yes, designers may not like the design. Literally, no one cares. A design award does not put food on your table. Revenue pays your wage.
So explain to me why I give a toss. And using entirely subjective terms like heat ain’t gonna do it.
It’s no wonder so many brands are jumping into the performance running footwear market.
Is it any surprise then that many seem to exist simply to fill a slot on a range-planning board? That others seem to function only as a colorway accessory to fill out an apparel collection? That some so-called performance shoes will be driven by “culture” or “lifestyle” to justify their performative performance? That some are vanity projects to keep a celebrity or influencer satisfied?
In other words, there are many shoes that don’t need to exist.
While designing a shoe is easy, making good shoes is hard. Making the right shoe? Very hard.
Great footwear doesn’t just fill a slot on a range-planning board or chase trends—great shoes are built on a foundation of Strategy and Creative Direction. They start with a clear “why” that aligns brand values, market needs, and performance goals.
Footwear design may seem simple, but creating the right shoe takes vision, purpose, and expertise.
“Don’t need to exist” imo anything with Kanye attached.
My favorite shoes right now are from GoRuck. Apparently they made them for middle-aged guys to walk around in, and carry heavy things, which is basically ‘life’. I have two pairs of lows and a newer set of boots. I think they were made with a clear purpose and have done their job superbly. GoRuck probably makes more $ on backpacks though.
I don’t know too much about GoRuck. But I’ve heard good things.
There’s a lot of shoes out there. Even in speciality markets like run. Even within a brand. Sometimes I go to a brand website and I’m shocked at the sheer number of near identical styles (not even counting colorways) that exist. When you consider most are just for casual sneaker wear and not differentiated it’s nuts. If they were unique products for unique sports I would get it. But 50 different styles of shoes that kind of look like running shoes but aren’t fit for running???
I’m still waiting on something, anything that is not a narcissistic rant. Sorry you don’t like getting called on bullshit. Poor baby.
Do you actually have any of these pesky things called facts (I know folks like you confuse the word fact with fake, so do your best) that support UA is “struggling”? Anything that is not the world according to the resident super shoe designer.
You know, for someone who doesn’t “care what I think”, you spend a lot of time responding to what I think.
Great article. Didja read it? It is actually how the company overall performs and its lack of identity. It’s meteoric rise has stalled. You probably think that is the first time any company has gone through that. There is zip, zero, nada in that article that pertains to your ego-driven claim of being the arbiter of good and bad shoe design.
So I will patiently wait for something that you post is relevant. The current over under is, well, never.
I don’t know who that person is. This is old news.
Nike installed a new CEO with big plans for a return to performance. I’ve seen most of the 2025/6 Nike running shoes and I predict they will be have a much better market position and showing positive returns for stockholders a year from now.
The top 2 Men’s performances today (incl. US record) at the Houston Marathon were in the Alphalfy.
Nike (and adidas) still share the majority of podiums.
Newbie and social trend driven runners don’t make the entirety of the market.
Kyla, pop culture economic “influencer”. Whoops yeah 6mo old clip.
What’s the majority of the running shoe market if not podiums or socials? Nurses, regular dudes wearing sneakers to the office, folks doing 3 miles a week on a treadmill.
