@@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.
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.
Adidas has similar issues with Parley said was massively recycled, but it wasn't. Has recycling & sweatshops had any 8mpact in today's foot wear brands?
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.
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 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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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! 👍
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.
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'
@@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.
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
Super video! I’m always impressed at how you manage to present so much information concisely and clearly. Thanks very much and have a great weekend! 🙏👟🎾
I've seen ON shops in Europe, I didnt think they were cheap. But, coming accross this video, I've just checked their Turkey website and there is a sale on... I'm getting a couple of pairs, one for my wife and one 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.
Had no idea ON was so involved with RF' Ive always been team ADIDAS & still buy and wear them today, bought Stan Smith Lux last week.bouth first Stans 35years ago.
Nice video overall, however strange you have not mentioned Iga Swiatek as a brand ambassador. She's top 1 woman tennis player for quite long time. Generally, as a brand ON gives a bit of elegance, classy look, what some poeple look for (in opposite to Nike or Puma).
There is 1 big problem for me, I worked in a big city and in two famous museums. In the subway and at work I stare at shoes ( don't know why, nothing creepy about it a shoe says a lot about the person who wears it ). I noticed that most people who use ON are at least 50, they are usually pretty wealthy and lean heavily towards athleisure ( The most ON sightings are during global sports events too ). This explains the effort to have the ambassadors being so young ( Iga, Ben etc. ) ; the collab with Loewe ( the hottest big brand ), and Zendaya being their global ambassador. They don't seem to like being stuck there. The thing is : Nike, Adidas, Puma, etc, aren't sports shoe companies; they are sneaker companies that also sell sports shoes nowadays. Most Nike buyers are young and they buy everyday shoes; they even collect them, and no one under 60 seems to be THAT interested in buying a 150€ pair of ON shoes ( regardless of the quality ) for everyday purposes or to collect,. Zendaya being a global ambassador might change things but I don't see people in their 20s or under saving up to buy a pair of ON's to show off at school. Nike, Adidas, Salomon, and Timberland are brands that sell shoes to people who are not their target demographic really well. I don't see that happening with ON right now. Or is it ? I'd like to know.
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.
Nike is big because of MJ, he was also the first to have share in the company...he is still making crazy money for Nike, this guy changed the world, and everything because of how good he was, one of a kind...
I love my Roger Federer On shoes! The Roger Clubhouse Pro. So comfortable and simple, for my bit wider feet. I could not tolerate how narrow the Nike's were.
The thing with On tennis shoes is that they are not On tennis shoes, they are Roger's tennis shoes. That means that they are more of a collectors item that a shoe meant for play. They released the Roger clubhouse pro, which is a cheaper and more traditional tennis shoe, so let's see how it goes.
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.
Since their IPO, On stock has dropped 3.4%, investors in the IPO haven't even recouped their initial investment, assuming they are still holding it. So no, the stock has not kept growing since then, it has underperformed the S&P by about 30% since then
My idol is Federer so I wish they come out with great design, this to me is like asics, it might be the most comfortable thing ever, but it looks meh, not ugly just whatever. On the other hand Nike has all the jordan line and more designs to choose from even if other brands are " better shoes".
I know that ON used to be ON CLOUD. They dropped the "CLOUD" and they are simply "ON." Great move. ON, however, must refine their logo. They must delete the notch sticking out of the O. The notch is not necessary.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
It could have been Nike Federair...
Not even close to lebron
Nice!
I missed my calling in corporate branding 😭
Suggestion - Fedair,
How's it
Another one is CaiR7
The fact that ON is already close to Puma in terms of value is crazy to me.
And yet they still dominate the market by a mile.
wall street value is pretty much scam these days, it's just trying to create FOMO 🤣
@@ronaldbibi209 i dont know why people still dont understand this!!
@@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
But its not
To be fair, most people did not think Federer leaving Nike was a "mistake", they just felt it was "wrong" for sentimental reasons
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".
It was a huge win for Roger, just that we couldn’t see him with Nike swoosh and RF logo on his match clothes anymore
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.
Title: Why Nike doesn't like Federer
1 sec in: This is Zendaya
😂😂😂
The epitome of talentless vs talented.
Yep, the content did not match the very misleading title because it was more about On LOL.
@@KentBuchla says the loser commenting on TH-cam. yep, sure you are right
@@shuang7877learn how to use language correctly, ‘loser’, or you will continue to appear mindless, petty, and juvenile.
Nice writing, fool.
@@shuang7877 once more but in English, please.
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.
Class action in Switzerland does not exist
Well I believe they will start recycling once they pile up enough used shoes
Fed has always been a virtue signaller
Adidas has similar issues with Parley said was massively recycled, but it wasn't. Has recycling & sweatshops had any 8mpact in today's foot wear brands?
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.
Great comment!
He also stated their growth in the last 3 years. He is not wrong. So, YOU get your facts straight.
thank you
He joined in 2019 actually
The video is junk
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.
Yeah I was expecting a bit about the decision to go to Uniqlo as that's an interesting story in itself
@@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.
I've noticed people are becoming more accepting of clickbait. Not me though, I will fight the good fight even if I'm the only one left.
pretty weak and overly "positive" video yes. clickbait and too much blabla.
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.
I can't believe how underrated this guy.the work he put into making these videos is amazing
it's not a "guy", it's an more like an enterprise or like a studio really, like Kurzgesagt
Underrated? 😂
They are one of the biggest football and sports media network..not underrated ❤
This underrated dribble is everywhere. @@kedrprao
He has 700k+ followers?? Underrated? What else do you want?
Whenever athletic interest uploads im here
I’m a big fan of Federer and I love Uniqlo.. so it’s a win win for me.. I always smiling whenever I saw Federer’s photo in Uniqlo store..😊😊
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)
in other words: Joe has been wearing them since long ago and nobody cares.
look at their competition tho, there isnt a single sports brand with that model that has had longevity. correct me if i am wrong
@@Nomolso_Netinei_Djerexactly, nobody cares about this brand outside swiss
@@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.
The entire video never explain the actual reason why Nike doesn’t like Federer when they parted away!
Because they don’t know. It’s all speculation and bs
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.
The company gives me "You will own nothing and be happy" vibes
because you pilot on 'the feels' and know nothing
@@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.
@@nikoscratchaccountfed has always been an establishment shill
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.
Subscription model for a pair of shoes … "You’ll own nothing and be happy", no thanks, I’m not your cash cow
Honestly, it's not worth 10 dollars per month.
Become a slave
@@Khalil.8611 I think it is on a long run (I see what I did there)
Also "recycle" and "sustainable" 😂
it's never as sustainable as the shoe I own that goes from running -> weekend mornings -> garden shoe.
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.
On's shares price has not climbed since their listing. They opened at 38.95 in 2021 and 39.00 today.
Damn 😂
this is an ad
got a nike ad during this video lol
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
Popular with Scouse drug dealers and gym posers, as well as serious athletes here in England.
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! 🔥
Thank you!
Zendaya was such a smart move. It makes On a “sexier” sportswear. I see so many people in my city (very business-forward city) wearing Ons to work!
Zendaya is transformer 🌈 nothing sexy about him
That is _IF_ you think Zendaya is hot.
@@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
Ok but why is your city a secret?
@@smallworld707 bc i live in Mexico bro and no one cares
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…
Thanks for the idea!
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 seeing these shoes so much around Boston. These and Hoka are taking over
Federer is rocking Billions when he left Nike for Uniqlo and On. A Big W for Federer. Goat on and Off the court.
You buy ON shows once and never again, that is my experience. there are a lot of quality issues and critics in their home country.
This is another moment for ON. I didn’t care about this brand until Athletic Interest.
Hmmmm explosive growth but NB is not one to be slept on
one of my personal fav , NB is just cruising on its own lane which is good. No need to compete. Its a marathon, not a race 😃
That recycling ♻️ ability is pretty darn cool
We just recently bought on sneakers and my family and i love it , not only the comfort , the designs are amazing.
I never heard of On till now. Considering I'm training for my first marathon I should def look into it
as someone who has ran multiple marathons i'd advise theres better brands. Saucony New Balance to name a few
Nike losing 28 Billion in shareholder wealth three days ago and this video three days ago too is wild timing
How?
I’m very proud of myself to own a pair of ON shoes before athletic interest made a video about them
My wife & I have 6 pairs between us:).
Unfortunately the quality is really poor
quality is trash...
Then you all have more money than sense. Outrageous prices for ‘recycled polyester’ LOL
I have never seen an On store. I have only seen On shoes at third party retailers in many countries.
Mind blowing stuff! Big ups! Hope you keep making such content
The only one in my family or friend group who is wearing ON shoes here in Switzerland is my 81 year old grandma…
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.
@@youlatubey4532That means On succesfully sells the shoes as a lifestyle and feeling, not as utility clothing
@@sigmawearif you feel stupid wearing the shoe in everyday life that definetly isn‘t positive
Ich bi 20ni und träg on schueh bre
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.
Roger Federer is a brand in himself
nike and jordan brand will always be relevant. this whole On wave feels like another flash in the pan
Funny part about ON $1b is that they made $300 million in 2 years. The visualization is skewed 1:48
And profit in that, 300 mill is nothing if they didnt profit @@pmadhav1000
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.
Kinda weird to see Roger without Nike after so many years and accomplishments. I wouldn't say no to $300 million though. Great video once again man!
Another brilliant narrated video
So Nike couldn't "Just do it" anymore eh?
Hes not lebron
That’s really an awesome joke. Their slogan has annoyed me since the beginning but I could never come up with a joke that includes it.
Great video, keep them coming
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 came to watch a video about Federer and ended up buying a new pair of shoes!!
Thanks for always educating us all
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.
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! 👍
Solid video and presentation
let's see if On can sustain the gain they achieved, or they will follow Under Armour😂
Ded @@delaslight
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.
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.
ON has nothing to distinguish it from everyone else
@@deusexmachina9776and Nike has? Nike only has that many sponsored athletes to support. 😅
@@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'
@@deusexmachina9776 Nike is trash
Can you guys do an episode on the economics of The NHL and professional hockey as a whole? And make sure to have great emphasis on the Canadian game
0:24 that’s exactly the question that needs to be asked 🤣
Great ON shoe commercial
"What the hell is On?" Lmao I don't know why but that got me 😂
I don't know - in Europe these are already considered dad sneakers. Mostly older people wear them for their comfort 😅
Ah..no wonder.
That is New Balance's position in the US.
@@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.
That's eating up New Balance market share then.
I mean Nike was considered sports wear for fat people and they have a huge market share now 🤷🏻
So fantastic (it's simply the best Channel ❤)
Me and my husband combining have five pairs of On shoes,and loved them immensely.
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
I love ON since my first pair 5 years ago, it does feel like walk on the cloud.
Great video production. Congrats!
Super video! I’m always impressed at how you manage to present so much information concisely and clearly. Thanks very much and have a great weekend! 🙏👟🎾
I hope it goes well for ON. there's a long history of companies who grow extremely fast, go down extrememly fast after a short period.
Subscribed . From first ever video.
Once Again Great work Sir, thank you for the video
Excellent as always! Castore next? Seem to be getting bigger and bigger although with set backs like Newcastle and Aston Villa
Federer was smart, he switched to Uniqlo on a $300 million USD contract. He put some of that money to invest in 'On running'.
I've seen ON shops in Europe, I didnt think they were cheap. But, coming accross this video, I've just checked their Turkey website and there is a sale on... I'm getting a couple of pairs, one for my wife and one 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.
Federer did NOT found On. Just a quick Google search to realize this...
Been an On user since 2017. Great shoes if you're walking all day.
I never heared about the brand "ON" before this video... you should start getting advertisement deals from the brand you talkabout. ;)
This was a paid video by on
Agree. Didn’t know that ON is the new kid on the block.
Had no idea ON was so involved with RF'
Ive always been team ADIDAS & still buy and wear them today, bought Stan Smith Lux last week.bouth first Stans 35years ago.
Nice video overall, however strange you have not mentioned Iga Swiatek as a brand ambassador. She's top 1 woman tennis player for quite long time. Generally, as a brand ON gives a bit of elegance, classy look, what some poeple look for (in opposite to Nike or Puma).
I've heard of ON once a few years ago, and never again since until now
very interesting
What a great and interesting video. Thanks a lot.
i really love the voice doing this story
Thanks for the stock tip. Looks very interesting and with a business model like On, it's no wonder the market is interested.
If the video had the inflation adjusted Sales numbers would provide a better look into their success and the market size during those years.
There is 1 big problem for me, I worked in a big city and in two famous museums. In the subway and at work I stare at shoes ( don't know why, nothing creepy about it a shoe says a lot about the person who wears it ). I noticed that most people who use ON are at least 50, they are usually pretty wealthy and lean heavily towards athleisure ( The most ON sightings are during global sports events too ).
This explains the effort to have the ambassadors being so young ( Iga, Ben etc. ) ; the collab with Loewe ( the hottest big brand ), and Zendaya being their global ambassador. They don't seem to like being stuck there.
The thing is : Nike, Adidas, Puma, etc, aren't sports shoe companies; they are sneaker companies that also sell sports shoes nowadays.
Most Nike buyers are young and they buy everyday shoes; they even collect them, and no one under 60 seems to be THAT interested in buying a 150€ pair of ON shoes ( regardless of the quality ) for everyday purposes or to collect,. Zendaya being a global ambassador might change things but I don't see people in their 20s or under saving up to buy a pair of ON's to show off at school. Nike, Adidas, Salomon, and Timberland are brands that sell shoes to people who are not their target demographic really well. I don't see that happening with ON right now.
Or is it ? I'd like to know.
Great video
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.
Agree
Very interesting. Never heard of this brand and some of the facts in this video. Thanks for sharing.
very good video
Nike is big because of MJ, he was also the first to have share in the company...he is still making crazy money for Nike, this guy changed the world, and everything because of how good he was, one of a kind...
I love my Roger Federer On shoes! The Roger Clubhouse Pro. So comfortable and simple, for my bit wider feet. I could not tolerate how narrow the Nike's were.
The thing with On tennis shoes is that they are not On tennis shoes, they are Roger's tennis shoes. That means that they are more of a collectors item that a shoe meant for play. They released the Roger clubhouse pro, which is a cheaper and more traditional tennis shoe, so let's see how it goes.
Always waiting for your next upload!
I had a pair of On running shoes but they just kept picking up small rocks in the sole lol, I sold them and went back to Nike
I needed this video
They still look terrible. They just give the same cringe vibes like Under Armour.
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.
Very interesting. Never heard of On.
I don't get it. So why does Nike dislike Federer? I did get a lot of info about On and how their tennis shoes did not live up to the hype, though LOL.
The title is so misleading . The title should be something like "Why Nike doesn't like On"
Since their IPO, On stock has dropped 3.4%, investors in the IPO haven't even recouped their initial investment, assuming they are still holding it. So no, the stock has not kept growing since then, it has underperformed the S&P by about 30% since then
Dope viddy
My idol is Federer so I wish they come out with great design, this to me is like asics, it might be the most comfortable thing ever, but it looks meh, not ugly just whatever. On the other hand Nike has all the jordan line and more designs to choose from even if other brands are " better shoes".
I know that ON used to be ON CLOUD. They dropped the "CLOUD" and they are simply "ON." Great move. ON, however, must refine their logo. They must delete the notch sticking out of the O. The notch is not necessary.
OK, but what is the connection between Uniqlo and Federer? Uniqlo and On?