For decades, performance running shoe makers have segmented their product lines into distinct categories, effectively divided between stability, cushioning and motion control. Today, however, market forces are blurring those traditional definitions as innovations in design, materials and construction allow manufacturers to build shoes tailored to narrower applications and runner needs. The increasingly competitive business environment is leading some brands to carve out niches by pursuing unique brand positions and footwear definitions.


Claire Wood, footwear product line manager at Brooks Sports, described the shift in thinking. “We look at our footwear line as a continuum. We do have four categories-neutral cushioning, guidance, support, and motion control-but we definitely see crossover,” she said.


In 2008, Brooks created a category called “guidance” that fits between neutral cushioning and support. “You can’t really ‘bucket’ somebody. It really is a continuum,” Wood explained. “You do see crossover. A runner could get along great in a neutral shoe as well as a guidance shoe. It’s really the personal preference of the runner when they go in to get fit. What’s going to feel best and be healthy for them to run in?”


New Balance also uses a continuum approach. Dan Sullivan, running strategic business unit manager at New Balance, said, “We look at it as a continuum in terms of the amount the consumer pronates. We talk about shoes being mild-stability or high-stability. So, within that stability segment, there’s a continuum.”


As product lines expand, the lines between category segments have become less distinct as brands look for opportunities to carve out a niche.


“We definitely see [categories] shifting,” observed Sullivan. “We see other companies changing the vernacular that they are using. A few years ago, it was very consistent and everyone used the same terminology. But philosophies change on what is most important. From a competitive set, the manufacturers are looking for someplace they can own instead of going after the competition when they know it may take years to win.”


 

Isaac “Ike” Alvear, executive director of performance brands for Avia, Ryka and Nevados, adds, “The lines are absolutely blurring. When you have a brand like ASICS that now has 25 SKUs, you have to ask yourself, ‘If you have a 1000 series and a 2000 series, and then introduce a 3000 series, what is the degree of difference?’” Avia segments its line using a 1-10 scale relative to the degree of guidance the shoe will provide.

Many running-oriented retailers support the premise that category definitions are blurred. How blurred? Cody Hill, owner of Boulder Running Company, Boulder, CO, responds, “Oh, big time. There’s what I consider ‘gray area’ shoes. You look at the sub-motion control category. You’ve got the ASICS Evolution and the Foundation. They’re really similar. If somebody’s a heavily over-pronated runner, they’re going to need the Evolution, but if they’re mid-ground, they could run in either. There is definitely a lot of overlapping of the silos of cushioning, stability and motion control, and I think you’re going to start seeing a lot more consumers buying the lower-priced, high-stability shoe versus the motion control shoe.”


Bryan Mills, director of franchise development at Fleet Feet, concurs. “Some of the vendors have started creating some new categories-largely just to gain share. They’re doing an important thing, recognizing that there are a lot of different feet and [running] gaits out there and they’re trying to provide a range. This allows us to provide the customer with a broader range of solutions because, at the end of the day, the customer just wants something that fits well.”


Rod Foley, Mizuno’s director of marketing for athletic footwear reports Mizuno created a footwear matrix to help manage the expanding categories. “We were fighting a battle of perception of how are shoes are categorized versus themselves,” says Foley. “We had some obstacles to overcome in the marketplace [in regard to how] retailers were categorizing our shoes. We were honestly confused within our own group about how we were categorizing our shoes, and where our own shoes were on the level of stability/control or lack thereof, let alone what the people in the marketplace thought of our shoes.”


Foley continues, “We decided to come up with a two-dimensional, two-axis matrix that not only talks about the level of support or stability in a shoe, but also talks to the type of running within that biomechanical category.” Mizuno’s matrix lists neutral, support and control on one axis, with maximum, moderate, performance and racing on the other.


Alvear believes retailers also play a role in changing definitions.


“My sense is that change is coming from leadership in retail,” asserts Alvear. “[Retailers] are saying, ‘I need to describe the difference between shoes.’ When the retailer is driving that, you have to listen. It makes sense. At no other time in my experience in the industry has there been a greater assortment of product. The retailer’s challenge is how to position these products and describe the end-benefit to the consumer.”


Change may occur in the future, but in the near-term, existing product categories will remain in place. “People have deep-seated beliefs and understandings in the science of biomechanics,” Sullivan says.


Yet, the terminology created over time still isn’t universally defined.


“Cushion and responsiveness are words we all throw around, but none of us are completely comfortable with the way we define things,” says Foley. “We have to find a better way to get the definitions to the consumer.”