The Greatest Running Shoe Never Sold
businessweek.com
businessweek.com
> Finally, on Mar. 24, the two signed the option, agreeing to the
> 1 percent to 4 percent range, with an exact percentage to be
> determined later.
> It [licensing agreement sent by Under Armour] included a royalty
> rate of 1.5 percent for the first stage of sales, and 1 percent
> thereafter. Through his attorney, Hann countered with 5.75
> percent and 4.25 percent.
> Aerospace engineer M. Frank Rudy, who sold “Air” to Nike, was
> awarded a royalty of around a single percentage point...
Has he? If he has, then great. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that other shoe tech inventors (especially those preceding him) got even less than he did and that someone accused him of being a greedhead or unreasonable when he negotiated for that measly one percent.
It also sounds as though Under Armour locked Hann into a royalty range and then, when the time came to settle on a number, went down to almost the lower end of that range. Hann wouldn't have been completely insane if he picked the out-of-range numbers to try to pull UA towards the upper end of the proposed range.
Given that Under Armour holds some fairly large cards (resources to fund development, production, sales, distribution, marketing, etc.), the reasoning would consist of his large cards like the innovation inherent in the technology as well as what other companies have indicated as a range they'd be willing to pay.
For example: "There's no other shoe technology around which has been proven in a sports lab to have as great a benefit as this. Olympic athletes using these shoes have performed at a level that will push them beyond gold medal records. We chose Under Armour because of ________, and we want it to be the brand associated with high performance athletes. Just as the last Olympics secured Speedo as the #1 brand for high performance swimwear, so should the next Olympics be synonymous with Under Armour for high performance shoes. Just imagine the medal ceremony for all the running events with the medal winners all sporting Under Armour shoes. Think of what a coup that would be. We've approached other manufacturers who have indicated they're comfortable with a 2.5% to 4% range. However, we're really hoping we can make the numbers work with you so that we don't have to take this technology to another company that isn't as passionate. Based on this what we're proposing is..."
For the next three months, Under Armour refused a
face-to-face meeting but did make concessions, raising
its percentage and throwing in a monthly advance. Hann
held out for higher numbers. He fielded interest from a
new set of investors and became more wary of Under
Armour. “I feel like the mouse dancing with the bear,” he
said. “No matter how careful the bear is, the mouse
better watch out.” In late October 2010, Kevin Haley,
senior vice-president of innovation, took over the
project from Fulks. Haley offered to put the licensing
negotiation on hold and renew the option agreement at
$15,000 per month. The implication was that this would
allow them to work together like old times.
Hann rebuffed the offer, believing Under Armour was
bluffing and it was a way of avoiding a licensing
agreement. In early December 2010, Under Armour’s
attorney delivered the news: The company decided to move
in a different direction. Hann’s work with the company
was over.
That would be interesting to know.
That's pretty much the only thing holding me back from buying them or any of the funky new (curved bottom) shoe ideas, I know I would never wear them.
http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Product.mvc.aspx/22875M/5039...
I'll never buy a "normal" running shoe again.
http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Product.mvc.aspx/24667M/5598...
For regular walking/business shoes give Geox a try. The solid leather insole and lightweight build is amazing. The air transfer through the sole actually works too.
If you mean acceptable in semi-formal or even business casual settings, I would say that will just never happen.
I have been turned away from places for wearing jeans before. I doubt they would allow me in looking like frog man.
It's more "those places" I was talking about. Sure, nobody is going to scoff at what I wear around my condo.
(This could be my foot's fault though, my smallest toe gets scrunched up in the shoe "fingers")
The Merrrell trail shoe someone linked is a good example. I have a pair of pumas that are very similar, though a little more boring.
Edit: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad
>>A fad is any form of behavior that develops among a large population and is collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period, generally as a result of the behavior's being perceived as novel in some way.[1] A fad is said to "catch on" when the number of people adopting it begins to increase rapidly. The behavior will normally fade quickly once the perception of novelty is gone.[1]<<
I'm not sure that we are yet in the "large population" phase even though this is like the third time I've heard about this new footwear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara_people The word for themselves, Rarámuri, means "runners on foot" or "those who run fast" in their native tongue according to some early ethnographers like Norwegian Carl Lumholtz, though this interpretation has not been fully agreed upon. With widely dispersed settlements, these people developed a tradition of long-distance running up to 120 miles (190 km) in one session, over a period of two days through their homeland of rough canyon country, for intervillage communication and transportation as well as to hunt.
They also have the tendency to eat when hungry, sleep when sleepy (as in, anytime / anywhere) which has threads to other "genius" discussions (lets call being able to run 100's of miles a type of "physical genius" for a thought experiment). I know when I do barefoot walking on a frequent basis my chronic lower back pain starts to dissipate.
Side note: We also aren't naturally meant to sit all day in an office chair, yet...
Note, I'm not necessarily advocating barefoot running. I do run on my forefeet, so I run in Newtons, for now.
Two things though: (1) Heel running is less efficient, results in higher impact forces and leads to more injuries than forefoot running. (2) The only reason most of us heel run is because we started running in sneakers from a young age.
Again, your second link, did you even read it?
The feet are a complex tangle of muscle, bones, tendons, and nerves. They doesn't respond to increases in stress as well a muscle would. Bones and tendons can need months or even years to build up the strength to handle the stress of serious running barefoot. People who try this should ease into it slowly. Like over weeks or preferably, months.
I can see how it would be really easy for someone who was actively running when they got the shoes to just go do their normal routine the first day they wore them and utterly destroy something.
I tried to take up running last year. I bought a pair of Vivo Barefoot shoes, and thought they were great. Since I was just starting out I couldn't go more than a few hundred yards without taking breaks to walk. I eventually worked my way up to about 5 miles with a few moderate hills in the route, and never had any trouble with pain or injury.
I never grew to enjoy running however, it was always a chore and while I was doing it my mind was always racing with thoughts of other things I could be getting done if I wasn't running. I didn't feel any better, I didn't have more energy during the day, and I didn't sleep any better, so eventually I stopped.
I still like and wear the shoes, though.
You've got a book--Born To Run--that won't leave the NYTimes Bestseller list. And you've got every serious/casual runner out there espousing the virtues of minimalist footwear for running. I feel like I run into conversations on the topic at half of the social events I go to; Vibram has made millions of those five-toed shoes; everybody feels smarter for having read that book and worked less foam into their running routine -- and now this guy shows up with a shoe that runs straight against that vibe? That's tough swimming, even if he's right.
Obviously, he should have assented to a far lower royalty rate.
When I run on a minimalist shoe for the first time (or wear hockey skates, or snowboard, etc) I get arch and shin pain.
Your feet will adjust very quickly, especially with some stretching. I also found a small weight loss (10 pounds) helped tremendously.
When I first tried running in VFF shoes I limited myself to 15 minute sessions, and even then my calves were so destroyed walking was stiff for 2-3 days. I slowly eased that limit up a few minutes at a time over the past year, and while I have a ways to go, I can run about 30-40 minutes now and my legs and feet look completely different.
Writing software (like a search engine) doesn't require millions of dollars worth of machine tooling just to get started. Manufacturing running shoes does.
The vast majority of businesses are nothing like modern software (which has virtually no startup costs beyond your own time).
...in the '70s. Clothing manufacturing economics are not the same now as they were then.
Even if you start producing your own shoes in China, wait until the first two containers come back with your initial 1000 pair of shoes all having some error that renders them useless.
Sure, you can get quality assurances in place, but you can't go and sell running shoes for twice the price of Nike or Adidas.
It takes some amount of scale to simply make this happen. So he's waiting for an investor to cover the large sums of money required to get a shoe to the market (let alone market the shoe itself).
There are plenty of $160 running shoes out there not made by Nike or Adidas. It's also not unfeasible to make the shoes in the US. It's cheaper to make a billion shoes in China, but it probably costs about the same to make a few thousand.
Sure, they're not running shoes and they're not selling things in volume (they probably only make 50-60 pairs per year), but it's not exactly impossible to sell shoes for those prices.
I've recently begun walking to work (about 2 miles one way), and have been seriously considering plunking down $350 or so for a pair of the American-made leather-soled Wolverine 1000-mile boots.
I don't want to turn this into /r/malefashionadvice (which regularly debates good urban walking footwear), but I'm looking for such shoes and welcome a new brand to investigate.
It's not so much a brand as a husband & wife team that travels to various fairs, making custom fit boots & shoes. They make them by putting a sock on your foot, covering it in duct tape so that it holds its shape, then cutting the sock off your foot. I think that you need to see them IRL for this process, but maybe it's possible to make other arrangements.
The waiting list is severe. It has always taken me ~11 months, but they will contact you when its your turn. They have a cool way of lacing them, so that the knot to tie them is one-handed. For me, that means that I can tie both shoes at the same time, but I hear there are people who only have one useable hand that appreciate it for more practical reasons.
If you want to be all 37Signals and sell only 50 pairs of shoes per year and make a decent living: fine. But scaling that process up to anything of significance will cost you a lot more money and (typically) isn't done in your garage.
But still, I do hope he can find a partner who will help him get his product to market. It wouldn't be the first time that a good functional shoe got cancelled, because it wasn't trendy enough for a mass market appeal.
Let's just hope that within 10 years from now, we'll be able to 3D print most of the parts for his shoe at an affordable price. Which would go along way of making the process more accessible.
Somewhere there is confusion, either from me or the journalist. Depending on the context, foot-pounds are a unit of either torque or work, but not force. Who's confused here?