Imagine you’re the founder of a major sporting shoes manufacturer and a national bestselling book has just started a running revolution; one that touts the benefits of running without said expensive running shoes.
Not only that, but the book calls your brand out by name and blames you for things like running injuries and deaths by degenerative heart disease.
That’s what happened to Nike in Born To Run by Christopher McDougall.
If you haven’t read the book, it’s been credited with igniting the barefoot running revolution. In other words, it might be thanks to this book we see those really ugly (sorry, they just aren’t attractive) Five Fingers shoes.
As I read Chapter 25, I couldn’t help but wonder what I’d do if Nike were my client.
Here are a few nuggets:
There’s no evidence at all that running shoes are any help at all in injury prevention. … Dr. Richards was so stunned that a twenty-billion-dollar industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking.
- Runners wearing top-of-the line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured.
- Old shoes are better than new ones, so you don’t have to buy as frequently as shoe manufacturers recommend.
- Humans are designed to run without shoes.
Here is where Mr. McDougall specifically calls out Nike for the transgressions:
A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate, give us knee problems. Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.
If running shoes never existed..more people would be running. If more people ran, fewer would be dying of degenerative heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, hypertension. blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Western world.
That’s a staggering amount of guilt to lay at Nike’s feet. but the most staggering part? Nike already knew it.
The book was published in 2009 and has slowly been gaining popularity over the past two years.
I decided to dig in and see what Nike might have done in response.
From what I gathered, their reaction appears to be limited to the release of the Nike Free series. They may or may not have funded studies that debunk the theory that running barefoot is better for you. Although I discovered references that large manufacturers funded the studies, it didn’t name the brands specifically.
Three Thoughts to Consider if Your Brand Gets Slammed
There is a bigger question here I’d like to address. Your brand is likely to be challenged in one way or another and the longer you are around, the more likely it is to occur. Advances in technology, changes in economics, and evolving market conditions will affect you.
Have you thought about longevity in your brand or are you living day to day? Have you considered how you’ll stay relevant and adapt when these things happen?
Easier said than done, because we can’t predict this stuff, and unless you are the manufacturer of a crystal ball that actually works, you can’t plan for every possible occurrence.
If your brand gets slammed in a similar fashion to Nike, there is no cookie-cutter way to respond. I can’t give you a five-step process; it all just depends. But there are some questions you can ask, and here is what I would have advised Nike had they been my client:
- Decide how important it is to respond. This is a tricky one. If the issue is likely to go largely undetected, there is no need to plan a large-scale response that will only draw more attention to it. In the case of this bestselling book, let’s assume the argument isn’t going to go away. No need to launch a PR campaign attacking the book or the theories in it. You don’t want to appear defensive or angry. A smart and calculated approach will be necessary.
- Modify product offering accordingly. Hop on the bandwagon and adjust your thinking. Every single business will face a challenge to its relevancy. Those who adapt quickly will survive. We’ve determined the issue is only gaining in recognition and people are subscribing to the theory. What now? How can you modify your product line to stay relevant? Boom – Nike adds the Nike Free series. It doesn’t do away with it’s other products. This barefoot running craze isn’t for everyone.
- Share knowledge. Take the lead in helping people make the transition if they want to. No need to take a position on it. Consumers are confused now. They thought Nike shoes were designed to help them become better runners. Maintain that trust by telling them what they need to know and what shoes are right for what type of runner. Those running on cushioned shoes with arch support can’t just start running barefoot. What products do you have that will helps make that transition? Who better than Nike to lead that charge?
It would take a lot to topple a Goliath like Nike, but complacency would be enormously misplaced in this situation and possibly in yours as well. I’m not advocating a knee-jerk reaction; but it’s important to keep an eye on these things. I call this one a creeper. The book has been out for years, but it continues to grow in popularity and more and more are subscribing to it’s philosophy.
Are you keeping an eye out for threats to your brand?
At Big Leap, we specialize in solving digital marketing problems.
If you need help telling your story, managing your reputation or building relationships, we might be just what you need:
Thanks to Vibram Five Fingers Reviews for the image. 9QQK9CZFGTNU
[ssba]
Love this, Lisa.
Lucky for Nike, a very small percentage of their overall business is cushioned running shoes that actually get used for running.
In the past, Nike has had knee-jerk reactions to new developments — remember Reebok soft-leather aerobics shoes? Nike began cranking out Reebok-like shoes as fast as they could, only to make Reebok look like they’d won the debate on style and comfort. It took about two years for Nike to respond with a second coming of Nike Air, which helped them regain their leadership position.
In this case, Nike seems to have been smart in how they responded. They’ve been number one since the late 80s. I can’t think of any other company that’s been better at product and promotional strategies for as long a time.
Barrett! Thanks for this added information. Really good to know!
My guess is, Nike has a far wider audience than the book does, so by over-reacting, they just bring more attention to it. A new product seems to be the right answer.
I do think they should add a category in their blog that is less product-centric and more customer-centric – just a quick observation I made during my research. 🙂
Hi Lisa,
I love your content. I want to reblog your posts. Let’s talk. Skype me, maybe 🙂 dino.dogan
Who, me? LOL. Thanks, Dino, I will later this week!
You. Are. A. Rock. Star.
Awesome topic, Lisa! The same thing occurred to me when I read “Blaming the running injury epidemic on big, bad Nike seems too easy – but that’s okay, because it’s largely their fault.”
To make sure I had the quote right, I googled “Nike’s fault” and got results blaming the company for Tiger Woods, inner-city crime, NBA game-fixing, Lance Armstrong, overseas sweatshops, and the fiscal cliff. So they’re used to it, I guess.
Nike’s job was not to help people run better, it was to sell shoes to more people, and that meant enticing them off the couch with shoes that could carry them for a 9 mile week. The sport swelled and times got faster, numerous sneaker companies got into the act, health and performance food products showed up, and apparel tech expanded. If Nike is a little cocky about that, that’s one thing they can’t be blamed for.
Here’s Nike being cocky: http://myleftone.com/2011/09/20/nike-running-a-social-media-mistake/ (my post about Nike’s social blasting of Vibram in 2011).
So now, partly because of this book, people are running minimal or ‘barefoot’ style. It’s totally not necessary for the 9-mile per week runner or for weight loss. But for those of us who went out for 25 miles on Sunday on the Boston Marathon hill section in Newton, and want to run into our 70s, and also do things like hike the White Mountains with the kids on off-days, I’d strongly suggest transitioning to the forefoot strike.
But it is a transition. It took me about 6 weeks to get up to a 10-mile distance. And that was in traditional shoes (NB 1080, Asics GT-2150, NB 890). Today I’m in NB Min Zeroes for half-marathons and Brooks PureConnects for longer distances. Out on the Newton section, BTW, training season has begun, and you see Brooks, Brooks, NB, Brooks, NB, and some Nike. The Frees are not a true minimal shoe. But they do have more support than the Brooks Pure series. The Brooks Pure line offers the transition you’re asking about.
Here’s a guy running 50 miles a day, right now, at a 10-minute pace, and he’s wearing Nikes: http://www.maine2dcrun.com/
Now THAT they should latch on to!
This is actually fun – I blog about something I knew a little about, not a lot, and then I have you guys come in and add all these smart comments!
One thing I did notice in Nike’s content, is it’s very product-centric. Would be great to see more stories like the one you point out.
So you run on minimalist shoes, not the barefoot ones? I’ve actually been working on modifying my strike. I always thought you were supposed to start with the heel strike. wow. And I have some hefty trail runners (Salomon). I’ve attended a run clinic and have modified the strike, and now I’m thinking about toning down the shoes too. I’ve run on this brand, however for gosh, 15 years probably.
Tom, thanks for the great comment.
I could not get my toes into the VFFs, so the NB Min zeroes are the next best thing, and they make a trail version (Merrell also makes a min road and trail shoe that looks like they’re worth a try). There are two transitions, really. First the landing for only 10% of your distance each week. Then introduce the shoes to one short run each week. The calves grow, and hurt, but within a season it will feel weird to run the old way.
I haven’t tried trail running yet, but will when the kids are old enough. Right now we hike and I use the most comfy, supportive boots I’ve ever owned (the Zamberlan 760 Steep GT).
Good to know – going to look into Merrell and NB. I have to say, on the running path in Chicago, the guys who were passing me were definitely landing mid to front foot. Big big difference in pace.
I LOVE trail running. Especially when my black lab sets the pace. 🙂 I’m sure you’ll love it when you get into it. 🙂
I love that your are brave enough to use that hated work “depends.” It is so true too. With these type of situations there is no clear way to move from chaos to organization messaging because it all “depends.” The best thing you can always do is, as you stated, is to share knowledge. I tell my team all the time: ” knowledge will set you free, and complacency will kill you.”
Justin, you should make t-shirts or bumper stickers with that. 🙂 I love it. (Except I telemark ski so I always thought freeing you heel sets you free.)
Sometimes the best response is to breathe, look, listen and think. That is my story and I am sticking to it.