The materials of the ON shoe CAN be recycled, but it was recently demonstrated that ON never recycled anything. This is a big problem, and risks a class action, because ON sold premium shoes and subscriptions with the promise of recycling them, but so far these shoes are just sitting somewhere…probably cause recycling costs money and ON doesn’t want to lose any.
@@zward0522 Interesting to hear. Every pair of New Balance shoes I have has significantly outlasted both Asics and Nike shoes I've used previously with the same use.
"Most money is not made with running, basketball or tennis products, but with sportswear". Really? Since afaik, I'm pretty sure running, basketball or tennis etc are all sports and the outfits and clothes they wear and use are all included under the "sportswear" category.
I have 5 pairs of ON shoes, & EACH PAIR FELL APART!! The hiking boots...in 4 months unusable!! I cakled MANY MANY TIMES to get help. They answered, but said "sorry, we don’t fix that problem'. WTF!
I'm a student in Zurich and lately I noticed a bunch of people wearing this one brand, it looks unique and the logo was clear so I remembered it. Just yesterday I was asking my friend what was this brand. Well, through this video I found out it's On and that the fact that the innovative technology was developed at my Uni. Though, I think Zendaya matters more than the innovation because I never noticed the brand before this summer...
Roger Federer did not create ON. They've been around long before he joined them, yes he's help to make them bigger but he's not their founder as you seem to suggest...
When Federer announced his retirement, one of the first places I checked the day after was Nike's official IG page. Thought they would post something about him. Nothing. Damn.
I think "On" won't even be able to seriously take on the "JORDAN" brand let alone Nike as the mother brand. There have been even bigger names in the past that shot for the moon, like Under Armour. Since then, Under Armour Stocks have dropped right into the center of hell.
@@ronaldbibi209and who in your humble opinion creates this fomo? Innovative brands just tend to have high value cause they have a realistic chance of beeing the next big thing
yeah, I didn't see anywhere where people thought it was a mistake. If anything, people thought it was a mistake for not marketing Federer's logo to make him the Jordan of tennis. His logo only seemingly picked up towards the end of his career.
@@nicholastartaglia4276I believe it was reported at the time that Nike wouldn't offer a deal exceeding his active career (when uniqlo did). So he was basically dropped because Nike didn't see that "Jordan-potential".
Nike lowballed him and practically said he wasn’t THAT marketable. To who? MJ? Of course no one is but Roger is very marketable. In hindsight Nike turned him into a billionaire by letting him go.
Nike didn't want to match Uniqlo's offer, which was 300 mil over 10 years, to 37 year old Federer. Uniqlo sells casual clothing, and not just supports clothing, which is actually their side venture. So, it made more sense for Uniqlo to offer such a deal. He didn't think and he probably didn't know about on at that time. A year later, in the Wimbledon final 2019, he still wore Nike's, even without a contract. On came into the game a year later. So this was just a coincidence.
I mean if you're a serious runner, you run through shoes at a large pace. Most of the best shoes are foam based, and the foam bottoms out over time. People who run on rough surfaces often wear out the sole very quickly. It could be worth it for those people.
I don't like the fact that it mainly talks about "on" brand than actually why Nike doesn't like Roger Federer. There is not a single word that mentions that Nike doesn't like Roger Federer.
@@harryfowler1917 yeah, I guess people will click more if the title is about Nike doesn't like Federer instead of being Roger Federer and his On brand.
Nike doesn't like competition. Instead of signing more contracts (and endorsing Nike) Federer is instead owning a rival company and donating his celebrity to help ON take Nike's market share. If he was still a Nike athlete, I seriously doubt ON would have launched (then relaunched) a new tennis shoe for example. It's another headache for Nike (and other brands) because their technology can't keep up. Plus, they'll have to spend more on marketing/ brand recognition as the market becomes more saturated the costs increase incrementally.
ON was established in 2010 and Roger Federer became an endorser and investor in 2021. Federer's stake in ON is estimated at 3%. To state that Federer is building the company is unfair to the founders of the company. Get your facts straight. And, by the way, ON is primarily a running shoe company.
@@KentBuchla to the contrary, the subscription based business model is taking over and is everywhere now from cars, to shoes, to software, to fruit juice machines. It represents quite a few challenges to the Wests traditional concepts of ownership of private property and personal freedom. Whether you think those people experiencing difficulties transitioning to this business model are stupid or not, the fact is you could never expect to make such a change without encountering resistance. It is perfectly normal and expected for some, many people to feel resistant and hesitant, and it doesn't mean they are just stupid.
It's really gross. I immediately reject any company that does this crap, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and others. If people buy in to this shit, they know they have us by the balls.
ON is growing trough it's excusivity brand. If they want to challenge NIKE they have to abandon this line and become mainstreeam which will slowly make them lose their core clientele and be destroyed by the other brands. They are very succesful as they are. There is no need at all to challenge Nike and Adidas as this video suggests. It is not the branch they are in and all their business model is about going the other way and cater for other markets. People that buy ON mostly do it as a statement. If Joe from the corner starts wearing those shoes while he mows his lawn then it's RIP for then.
As a Guy who only wears ON boots and knows the brand since long before Federer entered the company I feel entitled to tell you that you are writing BS. On's are (in Switzerland, where a lot (you can't go anywhere without seeing them) of people wear them) mostly bought cause they are increadibly comfy. It's has nothing to do with Status, in fact On's get mocked all the time. They are just plain better than what nike has to offer (at least many people like them more comfort-wise)
@@Nomolso_Netinei_Djer On is playing a game similar to Patagonia etc I live in a big city in Canada, alot finance and tech bros, office workers, older ladies are now wearing this because its comfy and virtue signal "im not a pleb" vibes. As I get older I dont fall for big brand marketing anymore, as long as the shoes are reasonably priced and top tier performance similar to Nike or Adidas, im ok i perform well on court regardless of the shoes im wearing.
You should always be wary of using stock value in these cases where a companies "value" blows up rapidly. It can predominantly be a bubble that could burst and crash if confidence wobbles. This is obviously the case to one extent or another for any listed company but ON is riding a wave of rapid growth and market disrupting confidence at the moment that's likely significantly exaggerating it's true value.
Don't misguide people by saying that Nike does not like Federer.. they may not have the deal with him, but Fed is extremely smart enough to make millions out of having no deal with Nike. Just get your facts correct.. its fed's genius.
Nike misjudged Roger. Saying he wasn’t marketable. The hell is wrong with them. Of course he is, I guess Nike did him a favor by low balling him just to make him a billionaire with the other company he signed and part owner of now.
I've been following you since your earliest video and eagerly anticipating every new upload. Your production quality, interesting topics and beautiful visuals always amaze me. Keep up the great work! 🔥
@@EhCloserLook first of all, lmao. second, not the point. By “Sexy” I mean, fashionable, attractive to to people who don’t just play sports. Third, please go give your mother a hug or something, man idk
Im running with on shoes, but I see your point there. A lot of old and many unfit people at my company are also wearing them, which kinda makes them unattractive for me. But I still like them for the sport.
My wife and two daughters own them. They don’t run. My brother in law owns them. He doesn’t run. I run 30ish miles a week and have never tried them and am not really tempted.
it takes more than just influencers or celebrities to boost the image nowadays. we all know that they are paid to say the things on TV, youtube, tik tok. where's the credibility? only the teens to mid 20s would fall for it.
Nice that you covered something related to running this time! Maybe the story of marathon world record holder Kelvin Kiptum and his tragic death, and how it impacted Kipchoge would be a good story for your channel as well…
But they're so ugly. Terrible branding too. Under Armour had a similar trajectory and fell off a cliff. Nike has gone stale, but they were right place, right time with all their legacy stories, like Bowermans waffle, Jordan, Prefontaine, Air and lets not forget, Tinker Hatfield.... On, with Federrer just seems boring and middle-class aspirational.... Under Armour MK II
I'm sorry, but this feels like really pushed ad that pretends not to be one.. I like the brand, but lets face it - they got big so quickly just because the competition is stale. Its really great that their profit margin is 56% and in some cases you do not even own the damn shoe.. like thats good for them, not for the customer. Also, it's difficult to compare Nike and ON since companies must act differently based on their size. ON can play the exclusivity card only so long.
What I hate about Nike is that they’re cheaply made… unless you decide to spend $200 on a pair. They rip after 2 wks, aren’t comfortable, cheap on cushioning or support, run too narrow with not much other options, etc.
I love Roger Federer... Ask me a year, and I can tell you what grand slam he won, and whonhd played against. That said, Federer is as middle class an athlete a brand could hope for... Roger Federer has always been closer to Rolex's target audience than Nike's. Now, Nike let Federer go because he has never been a major driver of their sales, and this would only decrease once he retired... But for On's Swiss, wealthier, middle/upper class, Rolex-wearing, distance-running target market... Roger Federer ticks box after box.
ON isn't stylish enough for those fashion conscious. It just looks weird and their logo is confusing. I am currently in the market for a running shoes, ON isn't even in my top 3 brand choices. 1-Nike 2-New balance 3-Asics For the time being, Nike and Adidas can sleep peacefully 😴.
At 5:00, Dwayne Johnson wore On shoes? I mean, c'mon, he has a multi-million dollar deal with Under Armour and has his own line of shoes with the company. C'mon, find a way to wear to support to the hand that feeds you. That's not an ideal representative..
When I was 20, I was working in a Foot Locker in suburban USA in 2012. We had 2-3 models of ON's. They were horrible colors but there was a devoted group of people who swore that they were the best shoes. A lot of nurses and runners, actually. A decade later and I remember being amazed that this niche brand had suddenly started dominating the shoe industry. Amazing story
They need to do the same marketing in Latin America, there only cheap sports retailers sell ON, and the market is aspirational middle class that want to feel they’re rich. Otherwise, there’s no doubt they will be competing with the greats
Zendaya is a fashion icon due to her ability to dress up on the red carpet for the specific themes of her film, a chamelon, she however has no personal brand. Selling sports wear around her is unlikely to pay off like say Serena Williams, Beyonce and Rihanna are bigger stars yet their brands are tanking. Social media follows dont translate to actual sales the film Challengers was marketed around her and still flopped. Hollywood doesnt have stars anymore who can sell movies or brands like they used to.
There's another video on YT which goes into more detail about Federer leaving Nike and signing an apparel deal with Uniqlo in addition to ON. Apparently Nike made quite a bit more from other sports than tennis and, as a result, paid LeBron and Ronaldo more in endorsements.
It cannot be Zendaya. She is not an athletic icon, just a pop-culture figure. They probably need to get into the basketball competition, and experiment with soccer cleats.
It's good and all for the company but from my experience, On "innovation" is overrated. I tried a pair before and they aren't that great. When it comes to running shoes, nothing beats Asics in my opinion and many people I know agree with me.
would it have been even wiser had he worn ON apparel instead of signing with Uniqlo? Ofc the cash on the table was too good to make this an easy choice but it would've been pretty cool to see him wrapping up his career wearing a new brand he helped created, marking the beginning of the second chapter of his life.
He signed with UNIQLO first and for way more cash. ON becoming a giant was kind of lucky for him. Although he is a huge part of the casual and tennis success they would've been a billion dollar company without him.
@@impopquiz Nike is an established brand, at this point they have already done the work to lead a whole industry. ON is new and in need of customers, nothing about their clothes screams ''chose us over far cheaper nike'
Ummm. Roger did not create the company. Not even co-created. That‘s some disrespectful wrong information at the beginning. Is he building it up and shaping it now? Yes. But he did not co-create. Get your facts right, guys. Not that difficult.
Shoes & shirts are not that complicated like a phone or a car. I mean it’s not that difficult to design a good one. Marketing & branding is the biggest key to determine its success. And Federer knows his worth!
I feel proud to be in Canada and to have been wearing this brand for a few years now… my friends always used to ask… what is the brand? Never heard of them… For my flat feet they are the best running shoes I’ve ever worn other than maybe some Sauconys. The design is really cool too and they have some great colours! And the fact that my favourite athlete of all time is involved… well… no brainer for me! 👍
A running shoe designed to where you land on your heel. Only problem though, is that while running your heel is never supposed to touch the ground. Most people cant run properly though, so they don't know this.
