Kevin Paulk Interview

[GTF]

http://petemagill.blogspot.com/2009/03/kevin-paulk-on-shoes-suds-and-sprints.html

Nike's Global Running Specialty Group Director, he shares some good, candid insights on the running shoe industry:

Younger Legs: Okay, to get the ball rolling, why don't you just explain what you currently do with Nike.
Kevin Paulk: I've been around the running shoe business for 25 years now, since I graduated from college and worked in a running specialty store. Now I take care of those stores. The running specialty stores are the ones that sell to the local runners. And if the running brands - like Nike - pay attention to them, then they've got no problem succeeding.

I was responsible for the Bowerman line - 8 shoes - and those are the shoes that turned things back around for us. The Bowerman series is what made our shoes start showing up on the feet of runners again. And what made that possible was developing relationships with the running specialty stores. They're the real shoe cobblers in this industry.

YL: The shoe cobblers?
KP: Sure. Look, who do you go to when you want advice about running shoes - or about running itself? Our running role models are the runners who live in our neighborhoods or work in running shops. They're the ones who you can approach for advice about running.

Marketing asks all the time: Who are our athletes we can put in this television ad? And I'll tell them, "Our athletes are our friends and neighbors who run - and who will answer our questions with advice." Because let's be honest, this is a "word of foot" business.

So the bottom line is to pay attention to the running specialty stores - the Runners Highs [for whom a certain Younger Legs blogger used to run], the Snail's Paces, the Fleet Feets, all the specialty stores. And listen to what they need.

YL: And what do they need?
KP: They sell fit. If the shoe doesn't fit the customer on first impression, right then and there on the shop floor, then you've got nothing. So what's important is "fit." Unless it's actually great fit!

For awhile, our fit sucked. We lost our way. Got too big for our britches. And we forgot what created Nike in the first place - the little running shops.

YL: You mean back in the beginning, when Bill Bowerman was making shoes with his waffle iron ...
KP: Bill Bowerman is probably the reason that most of us run. Way before he co-founded Nike, he brought this thing call "jogging" to the Western World. When he met Arthur Lydiard [legendary New Zealand coach] and learned about this thing called "jogging," he thought, Hey, I can teach everyone how to do this - and I can create 4 minute milers with it too! He saw way ahead of his time that this running thing was going to be important some day. When you think about it, it's amazing. These days, anybody can get off his couch, start running, and complete a marathon - when 20 to 30 years ago only elite athletes could do it. Well, Bowerman's responsible for that.

YL: I've heard Bowerman could be a tough taskmaster.
KP: Some people are direct, and we don't have enough of those on earth anymore. They're no bullshit. And Bowerman was a no bullshit guy. Bowerman was a very discerning, straight-shooter. Many times I wish my business card would say, "Kevin Paulk, Nike Running," and then either "The Truth" or "The No Bullshit Director." Because that's how Bowerman was. And that's how most of the runners I know are.

I didn't get to know Bowerman like some people did. But he was hard as nails. He would still be after our butts even for these successful Bowerman series shoes. He'd say, "They're jacked up too high," or "They're too heavy." He believed in the foot, not the shoe.

Bowerman was an innovator. He experimented with a lot of things that had nothing to do with running shoes - running tracks, Gatorade before there was Gatorade.

And he would try to let runners run as naturally as possible, not put these slabs of foam on their feet. He always said, "It's not the weight of the grams on the scale, it's the feel of the weight of the shoe on your foot."

YL: So what happened?
KP: Nike became so popular - like Coca Cola - we got so big for our britches that we took our eye off the ball, which is, "Are you servicing runners or not?" We forgot how to be special. And we lost a little credibility.

Nike has the largest market share in the running industry worldwide. But if you go down to Snail's Pace and ask what our market share is there, we're probably down to 13 or 14 percent - where we were 60 or 70% in the past.

What we're trying to do now is get back to the meat and potatoes of this industry. We're designing our running shoes for any mom, dad, or kid to train in 7 days a week - to make sure they feel and fit fantastic. And in this industry, you'd better be smart enough to build relationships with every running shop, so that they will be able to tell their customers the same thing about that feel and fit. If the clerk in the running shoe store doesn't have confidence in your shoe, he or she isn't going to bring it out of the stock room.

YL: So what do you consider the most important thing when you think of re-establishing - or developing - a relationship with the shoe buyer?
KP: In one word, "Listen." It's a day-to-day operation of trying to earn runners' trust.

When I got appointed to the Bowerman Series, I had some great talent in 2 designers and 2 engineers and a product marketing manager. So I knew I had the talent to create and produce shoes. My role was to listen.

Now, I couldn't go to 700 running stores. So first I went to Luke's Locker in Dallas. They have a racing club, people who knew Bowerman, knew Lydiard, coaches to coach youngsters of any age. And those people all work in that running shop. Those are people you can listen to. And then I picked about 20 shops like that.

You go into a store like that, and you say, "I would really like to build a relationship with your team that works on the floor." And then you stay all day. And then come back again and again. The first time, you introduce yourself. And then 3 months later you go back and do it again. And then 3 months later, do it again. Until finally you go back, and one of their guys stands up and speaks on your behalf - because by then Nike has promised them something and delivered.

Developing relationships is passion. It is respect. It is understanding that no matter what, you must develop a respectful relationship with the clerk on the floor at the running shop.

We have lots of meetings back at corporate headquarters. But the real meeting is on the running shop floor.

YL: Tell us the truth, why are shoe models constantly being changed? It seems like you find the perfect shoe - then 6 months later it's a totally different shoe.
KP: I believe there at 2 worst nightmares for runners. The first is obvious: I'm injured. The second "worst nightmare" is this: I liked last year's shoe better!

What runners want out of their shoes is for brands to be consistent. That's another reason we got into trouble. We became consistent at being inconsistent. The Pegasus and the Structure - one year they'd be good, the next year bad. One year it'd be new in July, the next January.

One thing we started practicing again: Get the shoe right, and then don't screw it up!

The industry standard has been to change product on a 12 month cycle. We just started changing our shoes on a 24 month cycle. We spend so much effort getting it right, we'd be foolish to screw it up.

Our best-selling shoe is the Structure Triax. The Structure 12 just hit in January, and everything about that shoe that your foot rests on is exactly the same as the year before. So for 24 months, if you like the cushioning and stability of a Bowerman series shoe, you can get it for 2 years. The upper is really the same - it's maybe just a different color or a different mesh.

We didn't invent that practice. Asics invented that. They've been doing that for about 20 years, and that's why they've been kicking butt. They made tiny "evolutions" instead of "revolutions." Brooks is doing a good job of that now. Saucony is doing a good job. Mizuno does a good job. And the Bowerman series is mimicking that same strategy.

We runners are all so geeked about our shoes that we notice the slightest millimeter change. This business calls for small evolutions.

YL: What do you personally think is the best shoe Nike's made?
KP: Since the Bowerman series got going, the Skylon and the Elite. [A certain Younger Legs blogger thinks the Skylon is the best training shoe ever made.] My personal favorite has been the Zoom Elite III, because it was only and exactly what I needed, from heel to toe.

YL: What shoe was the biggest mistake?
KP: I would say the Pegasus from 1997, when we put a fit sleeve in it because we thought it would improve the shoe - it killed the shoe.

Or the 1998 Pegasus, because it didn't exist. I'm serious, we killed the whole shoe - both 1998 and 1999. Not only did we anger the runners who loved the Pegasus but hated the fit sleeve, but we angered the people who loved the fit sleeve by discontinuing the shoe.

We re-launched the Pegasus in 2000. It was like what Coca Cola did after they'd ditched the coke formula and tried to market New Coke. People revolted. "Why would you try to re-engineer a classic?!" But when Coke brought back the original formula, they marketed it as Coca Cola Classic, and it sold more than ever.

That's the Pegasus. We brought it back, people saw it was a good shoe, and we sold a lot of them. If you see product on a lot of people's feet, you know it's damn good.

[GTF]

More on running shoes:
'No evidence' on running shoe safety
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25171370-5005961,00.html

[GTF]

And a quote worth highlighting from the Paulk interview that has nothing to do with shoes:

YL: Is there some wisdom or message you'd like to leave us with regarding running?
KP: It's all about confidence.

It was Rudy Chapa who taught me how to really race. He said, "Race with confidence." Those three words, I used to write them on my hand. I didn't say - Run this time, or Win the gold. What are we racing? We're racing other runners. There's nothing better. That's why we do it.

[Ryan]

Interesting link there. I've been coming to the same conclusion for some time, the shoes don't do a whole lot of good. This is where I started my "minimalist" experiment and I've found it to be a great success. If I could, I'd buy shoes that were nothing but a piece of rubber strapped to the bottom of my feet to protect me from harsh surfaces.

I also like the Chapa quote. In my opinion, the greatest thing a runner can do is know his or her capabilities, then run with confidence in those capabilities. It's easy to question yourself on the course. Those who overcome those questions run to the best of their abilities. Those who don't end up kicking themselves later when they realize they didn't leave it all on the course.

[GTF]

If I could, I'd buy shoes that were nothing but a piece of rubber strapped to the bottom of my feet to protect me from harsh surfaces.

http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/index.cfm

[Ryan]

Interesting. Ever give them a try? I'd love to hear of a review if you have. If not, maybe I'll have to consider giving them a try myself and offering up a review at a later time.

[GTF]

No, I have not been quite that extreme.  Yet.  I might consider them for summertime casual wear, but then I tend to wear flipflops or Vans in the summer for casual wear and they are about as low-profile and flexible.  I have a buddy who recently unloaded his on eBay because of how the shoe rubbed his small toes owing to how his toes are shaped.  It was the classic model and if I were to get some I would want the fabric to cover more of the foot, like the Flow or KSO, mostly to prevent the likely rubbing from that fabric edge and to better keep out twigs, dust, dirt, and stones.  There is also this: http://www.sierratradingpost.com/p/,1570N_Teva-P-2-Amphibious-Shoes-For-Men.html
And I have seen the minimalist cult at Letsrun make mention of this: http://www.sierratradingpost.com/p/,1264V_Teva-Proton-3-Shoes-For-Men.html

[Ryan]

Wow, those are interesting ideas and, at under $20/pair, the second would be not that expensive of an experiment. I'm going to be in the market for a new pair of shoes very soon. That's tempting.

[GTF]

Well I simply linked to the STP listing to illustrate, the available sizes are limited at that price.  The MSRP, however, is a mere $40, so even at full price (EMS and Zappos have the Proton 4 at that price) they are not that expensive.

[r-at-work]

Target has beach socks for $9.99...

http://www.target.com/Mens-Lonzo-Beachsocks-Grey/dp/B001OZCMVK/qid=1237388620/ref=br_1_1/181-4787767-5868725?ie=UTF8&node=1267094011&frombrowse=1&rh=&page=1

[eastcoastrunner]

More on running shoes:
'No evidence' on running shoe safety
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25171370-5005961,00.html

I don't place much value on these articles and suspect there is a hidden agenda.

They say, "This means there is no scientific evidence (the) shoes provide any benefit to distance runners.''

That leaves the possibility that there is evidence, just not scientific, and any evidence that isn't scientific probably wouldn't be considered valid by these scientists. Even worse there's a reference to some non-scientific study on the percentage of recreational runners that get injured each year without attributing the injuries to a cause, while obviously trying to mislead the reader to make the association to shoes or that shoes don't prevent injury.

I can't believe the advances in shoe technology over the past few decades have not resulted in fewer injuries. But suspect the cost of a comprehensive scientific study that could prove or disprove the theory is prohibitive. Also, how long would they have to study the subjects? Many of the older runners I talk to (and I'm over 50) believe their knee and hip problems could be attributed to many years of not having the correct type of shoe available. Were the waffle-bottom Nikes the right type shoe for all of us?

Finally, while we may all question the need for heavier, more cushioned and more protective shoes, I suspect many people would not be recreational runners if these shoes didn't exist.

Happy Running,
Mike

[GTF]

I don't place much value on these articles and suspect there is a hidden agenda.

Such as?

I can't believe the advances in shoe technology over the past few decades have not resulted in fewer injuries.

I believe it.  The main culprit of injury in running is pushing the body to stress levels that it is unprepared to handle.  Shoe design does little at all to mitigate that, though there are aspects of modern running shoe design that function as crutches and thus enable weakness which thus will be more easily susceptible to injury. 

Many of the older runners I talk to (and I'm over 50) believe their knee and hip problems could be attributed to many years of not having the correct type of shoe available.

A lot of people (too many) believe that aerobic mileage will cause injury.  That does not make it so.

Finally, while we may all question the need for heavier, more cushioned and more protective shoes, I suspect many people would not be recreational runners if these shoes didn't exist.

I suspect that is true for people who are in a rush to become recreational runners before they are really ready.  The human body is amazingly adaptable, though it can take a while to adapt adequately -- too long for those who are too impatient.  Running is not for those who need instant gratification, however, it is a patient man's sport.

[eastcoastrunner]

Such as?

Such as, the scientists could use a grant to fund their study, or the shoe companies should hire these guys to design shoes (Dr. Richards designs shoes).

I believe it.  The main culprit of injury in running is pushing the body to stress levels that it is unprepared to handle.  Shoe design does little at all to mitigate that, though there are aspects of modern running shoe design that function as crutches and thus enable weakness which thus will be more easily susceptible to injury.

I agree about the main culprit of injury and that shoe design can provide a crutch, but this does not prove that improvements in shoes have not prevented injuries. I'll concede that some shoes can contribute and point to the Nike Free as a possible example. However, when people don't use a 'tool' for the purpose it was designed, it's not the tool's fault they got hurt.

A lot of people (too many) believe that aerobic mileage will cause injury.  That does not make it so.

True, but what scientific study could disprove these beliefs. If we agree that we are all "an experiment of one" then we can never know what the result would have been if we took a different course of action.

I think some of us (me) rush to become competitive runners, only to realize that we are only recreational.

Cheers,
Mike

[Ryan]

Often, the hidden agenda is considered to work in the reverse direction, with shoe companies suspected of "paying off" for favorable articles (possibly through advertising). I'm curious about the idea of a hidden agenda for discussing the idea of shoes being overrated.

As for scientific studies, the problem with "non-scientific studies" is that they can say whatever they want. My non-scientific study of one says I have had fewer minor issues and major injuries wearing less shoe than I have had wearing more shoe. Of course, I'm willing to say that this doesn't mean much because my one major injury in 19 years running had nothing to do with the shoes I was wearing and there could be many reasons for the fewer minor issues, the shoes being one of those many. Other such "non-scientific studes" have the same problem.

As for people rushing to become competitive runners, it's not that they aren't competitive runners. It's that novice competitive runners want to train at intermediate and advanced competitive levels. One needs to build through the levels, many skip to advanced levels of training in certain aspects (most notably speedwork) without doing the prerequisite work required to be able to withstand the stresses of that training.

[GTF]

Grants from the deep pockets of the fat cats in the barefoot/minimalist/antishoe-industrial complex?  Studies on things that are not regulated by government are generally funded by private sources.  The only published research on running shoes one is apt to find is research that supports the current design trend (try to hunt down the research on cell phone safety funded by Motorola and the scientist whose said research they refused to publish).  Shoe companies are not hiring people to develop designs that go against their own established market. 

There is not even proof that there have really been "improvements" in shoe design.  Change != improvement.

A scientific study is not needed to disprove something that was never proven via scientific study.  People believe a lot of irrational things, often completely in defiance of science and logic.  Basically people believe it because that is a perception they arrived at independently or they rather unquestioningly swallow something from a source they believe is authoritative because it sounds true or confirms their own suspicions. 

A significant part of what influences people to rush to become competitive runners (or even runners, period) is in effect a marketing campaign by those who profit from the sport to lower levels of acceptance and prudence.