Re: [WSJ] The Rise and Stumble of Nike.

CobraBoy (
Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:41:39 -0700

At 5:03 PM -0700 6/6/98, Dr. Ernest N. Prabhakar came up with this:

> You wrote:
> > > A rule of thumb holds that 80% of athletic shoes aren't sold for any
> > > athletic purpose, so it gets worse.
> >
> > Why would a person buy athletic shoes for a nonathletic purpose?
> "Sneakers" et al are generally classificed as atheltic shoes. So, from
> my perspective, anything that isn't sandals, dress shoes, or hiking/boots
> are "athletic shoes". "Athletic purpose" probably limits it to
> sports. So, the shoes I wear walking to work don't count. The black
> sneakers I wear for minor social events certainly don't count. Only the
> "court shoes" I use for racquetball count. So, I'm one for three, or
> 66%. Fairly close.

Hiking boots are considered athletic footware.

Last year saw Nike showing a doubling of it's sales. When it researched
what was going on the increase was attributed to "extreme sports" related


p.s. And for any potential Elwoods I said Nike, as in the company not just
the shoes.


Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're full up here. ...Nicholson

<> <>