Brooks Sold to Russell

....this is too bad (and not good for the running community). brooks is a
wounded animal & getting leveraged on. it's one less player that offered a
decent option/product to runners. it won't happen overnight but i don't see
russel maintaining brook's business model. in all their business spaces (i.e.
they own spaulding)...russel does not compete w/the high end of the sector.

this tail (brooks) will not wag the dog (russel). brooks totally missed
developing penetration in appearal whereas even saucony has done far far
better over the past 5-6 years. in the mid 90's brooks was a much bigger
company than saucony.....however today?...well last year saucony had more the
50% greater sales volume than brooks. sauc had $130M-$140M. in 1995 if
someone told you saucony would have 50% more gross annual sales than brooks in
less than 10 years...you would have been laughed. btw expect k-swiss or
someone else to buy saucony in '05.....

i got back into running in '99/'00 on a pair of the first version of the brooks
trance too, loved the shoe. just last week i bought a pair of brooks dyad 2
for my girlfriend (this is a shoe designed for flat feet/low arch runners).
i've not ran in brooks shoes for 4 years now.

russell makes decent [censored]...but it's not "great". 2-3 times a year i buy (by
the dozen) long sleeve russel cotton tops for $5 or so from campmor.com. I buy
their tanks, their shorts...etc...but it's all mid-level stuff, decent and
inexpensive. To my knowledge Russel does not make anything for the Mid-Upper or
Upper end of the athletic market (strategically).

Being a player in the shoe game today means not only keeping up w/the market
w/shoes but also apparel. There's more money in the apparel than the shoes
anyway. "Fabrics"....cool-max, etc...moisture wicking tops, shorts, jackets,
etc.

Is Brooks a gateway for Russel to get in that space immediately? No. Will
they finance attacking this space w/the Brooks brand?....who
knows...maybe....But I am not counting on it. It's not what they do.
Russell's model is serving the entry level market. For example...today you
don't see Brooks shoes in the #1 retailer of athletic shoe footwear.
Footlocker. Russell has deep distribution w/Footlocker and you can bet going
forward you will see those shelves w/Brooks shoes.

But i bet the product will be "watered down" and bracketed down...quality,
price, etc. In sum, I am saying I don't see Russell seeking to play "catch
up" to the high end of the runner's market. That will cost too much money.
I see Russell leveraging their in place alliances and shoving the brooks brand
through those channels...and "re-working the line" to fit in with their in
place and successful model.

but don't listen to me on any of this....i am simply musing off the top of my
head in realms and areas wherein i have little knowledge...

Leafing through rec.running, I read Lanceandrew's message of 14 Dec
2004:

Quoted message said:

but don't listen to me on any of this....i am simply musing off the
top of my head in realms and areas wherein i have little knowledge...

Why couldn't you have put that at the top of your post. I just wasted
several minutes readng your "off the top musings." ;-)

Phil M.

Phil M. said:

Leafing through rec.running, I read Lanceandrew's message of 14 Dec
2004:

Quoted message said:

but don't listen to me on any of this....i am simply musing off the
top of my head in realms and areas wherein i have little knowledge...

Why couldn't you have put that at the top of your post.

He did so, implicitly. In the "from" line.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

in all their business spaces (i.e.
they own spaulding)

Then Brooks is doomed!

Quoted message said:

i got back into running in '99/'00 on a pair of the first version of the
brooks
trance too, loved the shoe. just last week i bought a pair of brooks dyad
2
for my girlfriend (this is a shoe designed for flat feet/low arch runners).
i've not ran in brooks shoes for 4 years now.

Brooks are great if you like a soft, squishy shoe with a relatively short life.

Quoted message said:

wherein i have little knowledge...

Why couldn't you have put that at the top of your post. I just wasted
several minutes readng your "off the top musings." ;-)

Phil M.

I agree! He must've "had tea" with our resident psycho Virginhag. A long post
like that, then at the end "I don't know jack about what I just wrote"???
[censored] me off!

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...this is too bad (and not good for the running community). brooks is a
wounded animal & getting leveraged on. it's one less player that offered
a
decent option/product to runners. it won't happen overnight but i don't
see
russel maintaining brook's business model. in all their business spaces
(i.e.
they own spaulding)...russel does not compete w/the high end of the
sector.

this tail (brooks) will not wag the dog (russel). brooks totally missed
developing penetration in appearal whereas even saucony has done far far
better over the past 5-6 years. in the mid 90's brooks was a much bigger
company than saucony.....however today?...well last year saucony had more
the
50% greater sales volume than brooks. sauc had $130M-$140M. in 1995 if
someone told you saucony would have 50% more gross annual sales than
brooks in
less than 10 years...you would have been laughed. btw expect k-swiss or
someone else to buy saucony in '05.....

The reason Saucony does more sales volume is because they sell a ton of
retro shoes in mall and department stores to kids. Brooks OTOH sells only
technical running shoes and clothing primarily in running specialty shops.
They made the decision a few years ago to ditch the low end stuff and stick
with what they do best and that's selling higher end shoes in shops where
the employees are somewhat knowledgeable about their products. Go to your
local running shop and ask them about Brooks and I'll bet it's one of their
better selling brands. They own the motion control category and the
Adrenaline is one of the best stability shoes out there. They're also making
inroads into the racing market by sponsoring the Hanson's racing team and
the NCAA cross country nationals. I don't know what the Russell deal will
mean to Brooks but I know in the past few years they have become a major
player in running specialty shops in a lot of places and I can't see Russell
scrapping all that.

Jim Johnson

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Phil M. said:

Leafing through rec.running, I read Lanceandrew's message of 14 Dec
2004:

Quoted message said:

but don't listen to me on any of this....i am simply musing off the
top of my head in realms and areas wherein i have little knowledge...

Why couldn't you have put that at the top of your post.

He did so, implicitly. In the "from" line.

hahaha :-)

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The reason Saucony does more sales volume is because they sell a ton of
retro shoes in mall and department stores to kids. Brooks OTOH sells only
technical running shoes and clothing primarily in running specialty shops.
They made the decision a few years ago to ditch the low end stuff and
stick

I beg to differ on the low end stuff with Brooks...when I was selling shoes
in a sports store not too long ago, I was the King of the 19.99-29.99 Brooks
court shoes, hikers, and cross trainers. Not to mention their $29.99 to
$49.99 nylon running suits. Heck, even yesterday whilst out shopping for
some new workboots, I was debating between a pair of nice steel toes, or
$24.99 Brooks hikers. And that was in a department store. And that was in
Canadian funds.

JerryB

Quoted message said:

I beg to differ on the low end stuff with Brooks...when I was selling shoes
in a sports store not too long ago, I was the King of the 19.99-29.99 Brooks
court shoes, hikers, and cross trainers.

Hey stupidaxx, he said "TECHINAL RUNNING SHOES" not play shoes.