Why doesn't Asics/Nike/Adidas Dominate?

[veggieburger]

I was flipping through an old copy of Bicisport when I came across a picture of Michele Bartoli decked out in his Asics kit. It got me thinking about the big sporting goods manufacturers: Nike, Adidas, Asics, Puma, etc. It seems that when one of these players enters a particular market, two or three of them dominate the field, with a few smaller boutique stragglers fighting over the last 10 or 15% of market share.

But you don't really see that with cycling. Adidas, Nike, Asics - they have all had a presence, but none of them have really taken the bull by the horns. I see more Sidi shoes than Adidas, and if Nike still makes cycling shorts, I haven't seen them for sale in my area for a long time.

Why is this? Why can so many clothing manufacturers survive? Why don't two or three big companies push everyone else out of the marketplace?

[Grant McLean]

Why is this? Why can so many clothing manufacturers survive? Why don't two or three big companies push everyone else out of the marketplace?

One main reason is that the dealer base for cycling products is a completely
different set of retailers than the rest of their products. Nike sells to big box
clients that don't care about putting a wall of cycling shoes in their store only
to sell 3 pairs a week. So Nike would have to create a method of distributing
their products to new (to them) dealers, and basically put the tools in place
to convince those dealers to stock their products. In the past, Nike chose to
partner with Trek to do the distribution, but eventually Trek decided to go
their own way with Bontrager branded products.

The small speciality companies survive because they focus on their customers
and their dealers. The market for cycling is very small compared to say,
basketball shoes, or running shoes. For the most part, it's off the radar
of the big companies that occasionally get interested in selling cycling, and then
find out after a few unsuccessful seasons that it's a lot of work for not many
sales, and tend to lose interest.

g

[pdmtong]

Echo grant

Its a reminder that as excited as we are in our world, relative to the WORLD our world is pretty small

[jr59]

Simple; Because Nike does not want to.

For whatever reason, Nike as a company has decided not to own the cycling market. If and when they do, they will.

The dealers are no problem, Nike would buy into the market.
15-20 years ago you would have said the same about golf.
Now Nike has a very large footprint in the golf clothing world.

I have worked with Nike before. When they decide they want to do something they "just do it". They really don't care what it cost, or any other anything. They can and do throw enough cash at something and CRUSH everyone else.

I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing. It just is.

[mtechnica]

If nike made cycling shoes I'd be first in line to buy a set :cool: Love their shoes.

[William]

If nike made cycling shoes I'd be first in line to buy a set :cool: Love their shoes.

I had Nike cycling shoes back in the mid to late 90's. They were good, no issues with them at all. When I switched from SPD's to Speedplay I went Sidi and never looked back. Does Nike still make cycling shoes today?





William

[Grant McLean]

Simple; Because Nike does not want to.

And the reason is because they tried and failed many times.
I worked as a buyer for a large cycling and sporting goods
retail chain for many years. Product selection eventually boils down to
consumer demand, shops will stock what sells.

It's the same reason Nike has no presence in snowboarding or other specialty
sports, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for brands that large. The path for
them to create a significant demand to replace the speciality brands ain't
happening by "buying their way" into bike shops. Suggesting that belies an
absolute lack of understanding of the culture that makes for successful bicycle retail.

-g

[Climb01742]

the only nike shoes i see are on mark cav. and didn't levi used to wear 'em? i'd guess those were made by DMT, no?

[jr59]

And the reason is because they tried and failed many times.
I worked as a buyer for a large cycling and sporting goods
retail chain for many years. Product selection eventually boils down to
consumer demand, shops will stock what sells.

It's the same reason Nike has no presence in snowboarding or other specialty
sports, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for brands that large. The path for
them to create a significant demand to replace the speciality brands ain't
happening by "buying their way" into bike shops. Suggesting that belies an
absolute lack of understanding of the culture that makes for successful bicycle retail.

-g

Although most times I agree with you.
This time you are VERY mistaken and have ZERO insight into how Phil Knight and co think.

There are 1,000's of examples of this, I just gave you one in golf.

Nike will, when it wants to, buy it's way in the market. They have shown this time after time in many different markets.

Sorry but being in the sporting goods industry, does not give you insight into the way Nike thinks. In fact it shows that you don't know them at all!

So I disagree 100%

[Gummee]

I had Nike cycling shoes back in the mid to late 90's. They were good, no issues with them at all. When I switched from SPD's to Speedplay I went Sidi and never looked back. Does Nike still make cycling shoes today?
William
I think they're still making stuff in EUR, but not here in the States.

I have a couple of Nike base layers that I still wear.

...and one pair of Nike Poggio shoes that are still going strong. At one point, I had 3 pairs of em!

I've seen jerseys and bibs, but I've never worn em.

[sonoray]

Cavendish wears nike shoes.

[christian]

Don't tell anyone but sometimes I wear Nike baselayers.

[veggieburger]

Nike will, when it wants to, buy it's way in the market. They have shown this time after time in many different markets.



But what if it doesn't want to? What if it's simply not profitable enough? At one point they had a presence (I think their skin suit was pretty high tech @ the time), but it's waning, if not gone.

Maybe they didn't "fail", maybe they just see cycling as table scraps and have no need for it...

[jr59]

But what if it doesn't want to? What if it's simply not profitable enough? At one point they had a presence (I think their skin suit was pretty high tech @ the time), but it's waning, if not gone.

Maybe they didn't "fail", maybe they just see cycling as table scraps and have no need for it...


No question about this.

I only said IF they want to. For some reason, they have choosen not to get into cycling. I really don't know why. What I do KNOW is, when and if they want in, they will buy a market share, and a big market share at that.

[cat6]

Hayrick Island (68°42′S 67°32′WCoordinates: 68°42′S 67°32′W) is a small prominent rock mass, more than 150 metres (500 ft) high, between Lodge Rock and Twig Rock in the Terra Firma Islands, off the west coast of Graham Land, Antarctica.

[FlashUNC]

No question about this.

I only said IF they want to. For some reason, they have choosen not to get into cycling. I really don't know why. What I do KNOW is, when and if they want in, they will buy a market share, and a big market share at that.

My guess is they just don't see the return for the initial investment necessary to carve up a chunk of that market. Far more people are buying the shoes LeBron James wears than the shoes Lance Armstrong wore.

[deechee]

yeah I remember Nike cycling shoes too. Friend of mine picked them up at OGC's (one of the big suppliers in Canada) end of year clearout. I think Adidas also pulled out of cycling around the same time or the year after, I picked up some samples for dirt cheap.

In what fields does Nike & other players dominate and to what percentage? I understand market perception but I'd love to see some numbers. I remember Michael Jordan's but since then... ?

I have no idea how the industry works, but its not like Nike hasn't give up in other sports either. Look at hockey equipment. They bought Bauer, put on a bunch of swooshes on some skates and then sold off that division after a few years.

Regardless of why they don't, I'm happy the big brands haven't made major inroads. I love Giordana shorts and Craft tops. Neither of whom are big players but they both make great products that fit me perfectly.

[MattTuck]

Putting aside the discussion of Nike's desire and strategy to own the cycling segment, I think the reason that bigger brands don't dominate is an issue of market size.

Granted, the average cyclist probably spends more on his/her sport than the average runner, but that is in large part probably due to the cost of the bike and gear, rather than shoes and apparel. I don't know that cyclists spend more on apparel than runners.... also, the

Overall, I think the cycling population is smaller than the running population. And even if they were willing to spend more, it's a fraction of the size of bigger sports markets.

With regards to barriers to entry, I think that the running shoe market has had one new entrant of note in the recent past, and that is Newton running shoes, you could probably include under armor in there too, but I am not sure how seriously their running shoes are taken by runners.

With cycling, there are new brands being developed... rapha for one, which was discussed at length in another thread, which relies on an authentic connection to cycling...

If a big brand were to come in, I'm not sure they could replicate that approach, as there brand would be very easy to criticize as being the opposite of authentic.

Finally, and I am not a runner, so I may be wrong, but for the most part in an activity like running or soccer, the apparel is just that, apparel... you could wear a pair of nike shorts, or interchange them with a pair of puma shorts. With cycling, the apparel is really integral to the activity... a pair of pearl izumi shorts cannot be interchanged for a pair of craft bibs for a pair of hincapie shorts...

As a result, there's more brand loyalty, and less willingness to wear something if it isn't working for you. I'd suggest that big brands may be aware of this, and it may not fit with their approach of footwear and apparel.

It's an interesting question, and at the end of the day, the consumer is going to make up his or her own mind based on what is important to them... so far, those brands haven't created products that are compelling to the cyclist/consumer.

[krhea]

Here's a bit of info on why adidas left the world of cycling:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3101303

During that era adidas was a relatively strong cycling brand in Europe but couldn't get a foothold here in the states. The only time you'd see adidas product would be when Nashbar purchased a container of past years product to sell. A few high end US shops gave the stuff a try but shipping, cost etc was prohibitive. No idea what's happening with the brand in cycling today.

Nike tried many times to enter the market with what they thought were competitive/technical shoes but failed each time due to outsourcing the production and at times "rebranding" footwear which was subpar. For awhile "Nike" cycling shoes were actually Specialized shoes. The shoes were not bad, however, they had no "point of difference" other than the "swoosh" logo. The Poggio is a perfect example. Astute retailers had to ask themselves, "why put another brand on the wall and use my open-to-buy dollars" on just another shoe.It was always shocking to me because at the same time they were struggling they had some of the best designers in the industry who also happened to be national class cyclists. They suffered the same problems when they went after cycling apparel. I still have some Nike prototype cycling bibs and jerseys I wear tested a few years ago.
There are a couple pro's who use Nike shoes. Those shoes are made in their custom shop just for those riders.
I do agree however, if Nike ever got serious and really wanted to enter the cycling market, be it footwear or apparel they have the resources to be a dominant force...as they are in every other category. Best example is soccer. 10 or so years ago Nike was not a factor whatsoever in the worlds most popular/most played sport. Check where they are today...one of two or 3 dominant forces in the sport.


Asics has only been involved from a sponsorship perspective. Every now and again you might see or have seen a small Asics logo on a team kit. Their "Heritage/Vintage" footwear products are very popular with the fixie riding hipster crowd so I guess you could say they're "in" cycling. A number of years ago they did "team only" stuff for localized Asian teams.

Technically speaking, entering the cycling shoe marketplace is prohibitively expensive and a big gamble, especially for brands not usually associated with cycling. From the design energy, production/factory costs, designing&cutting lasts and then all the varied mold costs it's incredible how expensive it can be. So you have to 100% committed from start to finished product and then don't forget...you have to advertise/market/promote the product.

You can't underestimate the damage drug scandals have done to the image of cycling as it pertains to companies wanting to enter the market. We all know Nike goes after it one way and that's BIG, which means pro teams which means possible drug scandals. Business is tough enough, expensive enough that the gamble on cycling doesn't seem to be worth it to variety of megabrands.
As someone else mentioned, even though in our minds cycling is a "huge" sport, in the "real" world it's not that big or profitable at all. If a footwear company has the choice of dollars targeted at soccer or cycling where does it go...

[MattTuck]

On this topic, I take Kevin's word as gospel. That isn't much different than other topics....

[Grant McLean]

I think Adidas also pulled out of cycling around the same time or the year after, I picked up some samples for dirt cheap.


The adidas arrangement was interesting, because technically their cycling
division was completely run by Salomon (one of the companies they bought
to address speciality market categories) So Adidas was never really "in"
the cycling market, just chose to brand the products developed by Salomon
as Adidas since they thought it might be a marketing benefit.

When Adidas sold the division to the Amer Sport group, (along with Mavic
that was owned by Salomon) all the products that were once branded as
Adidas became rebranded as Mavic. That's why there is Mavic branded
clothing and shoes that were very much like the Adidas stuff, it's the same
design group responsible for the products.

These big brands struggle to crack the cycling speciality market, i've seen
it over and over for my 25 years in retail, most as a buyer attending trade
shows, product launches, dealer events, and design seminars. I had a good
relationship with many brands in both the USA and Canada, being from one
of the largest players in cycling retail in Canada. (and the OGC guys are
some of the best distributors going!

-g

[Grant McLean]

You can't underestimate the damage drug scandals have done to the image of cycling as it pertains to companies wanting to enter the market. We all know Nike goes after it one way and that's BIG, which means pro teams which means possible drug scandals. Business is tough enough, expensive enough that the gamble on cycling doesn't seem to be worth it to variety of megabrands.

While I completely agree with this take, and how the brand image is something
these larger companies that operate outside the cycling industry exclusively
would factor into their calculations... The fact remains that these 'outsider'
brands have never gained any significant market share in cycling, which
makes it super easy to just walk away. I don't see Sidi deciding to get out
of cycling, and focus on their motorcycle division exclusively....

The reason why most of the small brands are successful in cycling is because
they're super-passionate about the sport - not just the biz. That difference
goes a long way in explaining their success, and the failure of brands that
fail to bring that level of commitment to cycling. Both dealers and customers
pick up on that.

No doubt Nike could decide to spend a pile of money in cycling, but they don't.
Andy Rihs - 'Nuff said.

-g

[beeatnik]

In golf, Nike had an interesting strategy. First, they created brand awareness by sponsoring Tiger. Tiger was Mike. Everyone wanted to be like Tiger and dress like Tiger. So, Nike golf shirts became ubiquitous on the pro shop floor and on the course. IIRC, the golf shoes they introduced weren't a game changer but a nice complement to the "modern" apparel line. But, I think Nike realized pretty early on that they needed a, um, holistic approach. So they followed the apparel play with the development of quality golf ball. At this point there were still a lot of skeptics. In golf like in cycling, you have a lot of cats who stick to one brand for life. Anyway, when Nike introduced their driver and then irons, it seemed like every golfer was a few thousand dollars away from going head-to-toe Nike. Of course, others in the industry were motivated (compelled) to continue to innovate (see Taylor Made) and order was restored to the golfing universe. Short story long, IMO, if Nike goes after cycling, they'll be thinking about bikes and not apparel. They'll go after Specialized.

[krhea]

While I completely agree with this take, and how the brand image is something
these larger companies that operate outside the cycling industry exclusively
would factor into their calculations... The fact remains that these 'outsider'
brands have never gained any significant market share in cycling, which
makes it super easy to just walk away. I don't see Sidi deciding to get out
of cycling, and focus on their motorcycle division exclusively....

The reason why most of the small brands are successful in cycling is because
they're super-passionate about the sport - not just the biz. That difference
goes a long way in explaining their success, and the failure of brands that
fail to bring that level of commitment to cycling. Both dealers and customers
pick up on that.

No doubt Nike could decide to spend a pile of money in cycling, but they don't.
Andy Rihs - 'Nuff said.

-g

Grant, you're right. Brands that just "get their feet wet" can avoid the investment, test the waters and then pull out without much damage. It's been proven time and time again that when a brand is passionate about what they do they have a great success rate. A "dabble here, a dabble there" and if it tastes good then go for the entire pie, if not, move on until the flavor gets better.

As Matt mentioned, when your product is so activity specific your opportunities for growth are limited. Nobody I know wears their cycling jersey at any time other than when on the bike. My kids are always wearing their soccer shorts or jerseys or their bball stuff as do college age kids. It's fashion. About the closest we can come to fashion are cycling caps and perhaps some of the newer "hipper" cycling apparel brands that are doing casual cycling "inspired" clothing.

Grant, who did you "buy" for and when. Hit me with direct message. I have the feeling we may have met and perhaps worked together "in past lives".

[Grant McLean]

Although most times I agree with you.
This time you are VERY mistaken and have ZERO insight into how Phil Knight and co think.

There are 1,000's of examples of this, I just gave you one in golf.

Nike will, when it wants to, buy it's way in the market. They have shown this time after time in many different markets.

Sorry but being in the sporting goods industry, does not give you insight into the way Nike thinks. In fact it shows that you don't know them at all!

So I disagree 100%

We're really not disagreeing, just speaking at much different levels.
The statement of yours I focused on in my response "dealers are no problem,
they'll just buy there way into the market" is something that sounds great
as a generalization, but it skips over many steps of how placing products
in retail stores actually works.

First of all, dealers are a huge problem to crack into, not "no problem".
Of course nike could "buy it's way in"... but it wouldn't be through the dealers.
A good example of what i'm talking about is Specialized. They always
had shoe dealers, but the way they cracked the market open was sponsoring
so many riders, designing a good product, and driving demand in stores.

Another technical business difference between Nike's way of doing biz
and the way most shops operate is pre-orders. Nike gets their big accounts
to order 6 months ahead of time, is always forecasting. Bike shops want
to call up the distributor and order 12 pairs to fill in their broken size runs.
Shops do a lot of their ordering as fill ins. That's not how the big guns are
set up to do biz. They want to ship containers.

The problem Nike always had in the cycling specific retail channel is their
sales reps could never crack the top bike shops, and the cycling customers
didn't head to shops in droves asking for Nike shoes. Of course anything
is possible, my response, and my experience suggest to me I have a pretty
good handle on why it didn't happen for Nike, and why it's not likely for them
to try again any time soon.



-g

[Climb01742]

Short story long, IMO, if Nike goes after cycling, they'll be thinking about bikes and not apparel. They'll go after Specialized.

fascinating thesis.

anyone know what the size of the total golf market is vs total cycling market? for someone like nike, is the ROI just not worth it?

[jr59]

fascinating thesis.

anyone know what the size of the total golf market is vs total cycling market? for someone like nike, is the ROI just not worth it?


That's the thing. In all honesty, if Nike wants to make a splash, the ROI does not come into play. I know some will say that is not so, but you can believe me it is. They could and will pour so much money at something that it drowns the others out. I have seen it happen and been in meetings where it was discussed.

Just think about the pro riders contract. If Nike wants, it can pay 5-7 times more for them to wear and use their stuff. If that doesn't work, they will just buy all the riders.

I think they would buy a company instead. Cannondale or Specialized.
But the patteren would be the same. It's they way they think. It's the way Mr Knight thinks, and they have the resources to back it up, with little reguard to ROI.

It's a strange co that way. I'm sure at some point they would want a profit, but it's not the same as most people or other companies think of doing it.


I am sort of in the camp of Nike has at this time little desire to work with such a small market as us. Yet when I see what Asso, Rhapa, and others are getting for their high end stuff, I'm sure somewhere in the DARK bowels of Nike, someone is taking a peek.

[Grant McLean]

It's the way Mr Knight thinks, and they have the resources to back it up, with little reguard to ROI.

It's a strange co that way. I'm sure at some point they would want a profit, but it's not the same as most people or other companies think of doing it.

For sure Nike came to dominate certain categories that way,
thinking long term investing $$$ in players and marketing.
But Phil Knight hasn't been ceo of nike since 2004 -
my point being, i don't think he's awake at night planning
how to take over the cycling market. He could just write
a cheque for the whole thing, but they have bigger markets
to worry about these days.

-g

[krhea]

For sure Nike came to dominate certain categories that way,
thinking long term investing $$$ in players and marketing.
But Phil Knight hasn't been ceo of nike since 2004 -
my point being, i don't think he's awake at night planning
how to take over the cycling market. He could just write
a cheque for the whole thing, but they have bigger markets
to worry about these days.

-g

Word

[beeatnik]

I am sort of in the camp of Nike has at this time little desire to work with such a small market as us. Yet when I see what Asso, Rhapa, and others are getting for their high end stuff, I'm sure somewhere in the DARK bowels of Nike, someone is taking a peek.

If Nike was able to get guys who never dropped more than $20 on a collared golf shirt (my buddies) to buy a few $75 Nike/Tiger golf shirts and to also move up from Big 5 $75 golf shoes to $250 Nikes, then their ROI might be pretty nice on cycling apparel (regardless, of the relatively small size of the market, margin is margin). But let's not forget that Nike doesn't think of itself as an apparel company but a worldwide sporting goods company. So they'd probably look to drive worldwide bike sales with the cache of the apparel/shoe brand and then leverage the hard good sales to drive the apparel/shoe sales.

[MattTuck]

I will say this about Nike. Their pyramid approach, ie. focusing their marketing dollars on the athletes at the top of the pyramid and creating that pull is potentially risky for cycling. Given the number of doping allegations and findings for the top athletes in cycling, there is a lot of risk in sponsoring a given rider...


The strategy that worked so well for them in basketball (using the stars as their endorsers) probably wouldn't work so well in cycling when their big star pisses in a cup and it comes back with CERA or whatever the drug dujour is.

That speaks more to a Nike specific risk than all big athletic brands, as Nike was really the one to focus on the top of the pyramid so successfully.

[beeatnik]

15 large halo bikes, gas above $4/gallon, the high socio-economic status of many bike commuters and roadies, cities adding thousands of miles of bike lanes (LA)...I'm sure Nike is taking a hard look at the bicycle market in the US and Western Europe, even.

[jlwdm]

As I recall when I followed the Tour for a couple of weeks in 2001, Nike's name was on the various leaders jerseys. I think someone else might have been making them though.

Jeff

[jlwdm]

Although most times I agree with you.
This time you are VERY mistaken and have ZERO insight into how Phil Knight and co think.

There are 1,000's of examples of this, I just gave you one in golf.

Nike will, when it wants to, buy it's way in the market. They have shown this time after time in many different markets.

Sorry but being in the sporting goods industry, does not give you insight into the way Nike thinks. In fact it shows that you don't know them at all!

So I disagree 100%

You loose any credibility you might have had with attacks like above.

Also, for what it is worth, Nike has never made any decent golf apparel.

Jeff

[beeatnik]

Also, for what it is worth, Nike has never made any decent golf apparel.

Jeff

Their golf balls were a big hit out of the gate. A lot of dudes also lusted for their drivers. Not sure their position now, as I've gone from 4-5 rounds weekly to 4-5 rounds every 4-5 years.

[wc1934]

not a clue what marco is saying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JUFkO8RiJw

[Louis]

I'll be the shallow one on this thread:

If Nike ever got into the cycling business and sold shoes I would do the same thing Campy lovers do vs Shimano, and gladly pay extra to stick with Sidi instead of going with the Trek / Nike crowd. (Unless the Nike shoes were 10x better than the Sidi's, which is unlikely, given how happy I am with mine).

Louis

[jr59]

For sure Nike came to dominate certain categories that way,
thinking long term investing $$$ in players and marketing.
But Phil Knight hasn't been ceo of nike since 2004 -
my point being, i don't think he's awake at night planning
how to take over the cycling market. He could just write
a cheque for the whole thing, but they have bigger markets
to worry about these days.

-g

Very true.
But in fact Phil Knight is still Chairman of the board and still controlls what happens at Nike. He just does not work as CEO every day.

But I do think you are correct in thinking that they have other/bigger markets in their sights right now. (China)

The original statement I made was if and when Nike wants to do something in this market. They will, and in the end, they will have market share, and not a small one at that.

[cataño]

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Team GB are wearing Adidas-branded Mavic shoes as part of the Stella McCartney-designed kit:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/22/article-0-1248F6AB000005DC-743_634x554.jpg

I wonder if they'll make them available?

[Kontact]

I really can't think of any market, aside from athletic/casual shoes where those three dominate. Those companies make packs, hiking boots, jackets, water bottles, etc. The only thing they are known for is the athletic shoes, and then they still don't dominate when it comes to the most serious athletes who might buy boutique running shoes. All that extra stuff is just to service brand fans, not really to offer legitimately strong choices in boutique markets.

Nike et al is a mall based consumer line. Cycling, snowboarding, rock climbing, etc are boutique sports that have boutique industries that cater to them.

Why didn't/doesn't Huffy dominate cycling?

[cat6]

Hayrick Island (68°42′S 67°32′WCoordinates: 68°42′S 67°32′W) is a small prominent rock mass, more than 150 metres (500 ft) high, between Lodge Rock and Twig Rock in the Terra Firma Islands, off the west coast of Graham Land, Antarctica.

[MattTuck]

Don't be bringing Huffy into this conversation. What did huffy ever do to you? ;)




Why didn't/doesn't Huffy dominate cycling?

[Kontact]

Don't be bringing Huffy into this conversation. What did huffy ever do to you? ;)

We have a beautiful Huffy TT frame hanging in the shop. And one not made by Ben Serotta.

[oldpotatoe]

But what if it doesn't want to? What if it's simply not profitable enough? At one point they had a presence (I think their skin suit was pretty high tech @ the time), but it's waning, if not gone.

Maybe they didn't "fail", maybe they just see cycling as table scraps and have no need for it...

Grant said(and I agree with him), "It's the same reason Nike has no presence in snowboarding or other specialty
sports, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for brands that large."

LIKE that analogy...face it, they are in it for the $, and if the cost and time outweigh the 'juice', they aren't going to do it.

I know a guy that works in Beaverton, great guy..and Nike's focus is on running, golf, soccer, primarily, right now.

why? big $ to be had. Golf is a larger($$) 'sport' than cycling, in the enthusiast level, not among kids who ride around the cul-de-sac. Cycling is teeny. Soccer worldwide is HUGE as well. Just not in the US.

[benitosan1972]

Nike et al is like the Starbucks of the cycling world. Their model is to cover anything & everything & make money rather than focus on making great products (like good coffee). They care more about making money than provide a great product (which cyclists demand thus they stick with cycling-specific brands). It's similar to every product, there's the generic ones made for Joe Schmoe who'll buy it at Costco or Performance or Big 5, then there's Joe Pro who'll only get it from a reputable source.