> Finally, on Mar. 24, the two signed the option, agreeing to the
> 1 percent to 4 percent range, with an exact percentage to be
> determined later.
Then later on when it came time to deal with the exact percentage:
> It [licensing agreement sent by Under Armour] included a royalty
> rate of 1.5 percent for the first stage of sales, and 1 percent
> thereafter. Through his attorney, Hann countered with 5.75
> percent and 4.25 percent.
This is where things broke down. It's puzzling why he didn't stay within the range of the 1 to 4 percent earlier agreed upon. Perhaps 3.75% to start and 2.75% after. Then negotiate down from there. The article states:
> Aerospace engineer M. Frank Rudy, who sold “Air” to Nike, was
> awarded a royalty of around a single percentage point...
I'm thinking Rudy's done pretty well on a meagre one percent.
> I'm thinking Rudy's done pretty well on a meagre one percent.
Has he? If he has, then great. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that other shoe tech inventors (especially those preceding him) got even less than he did and that someone accused him of being a greedhead or unreasonable when he negotiated for that measly one percent.
It also sounds as though Under Armour locked Hann into a royalty range and then, when the time came to settle on a number, went down to almost the lower end of that range. Hann wouldn't have been completely insane if he picked the out-of-range numbers to try to pull UA towards the upper end of the proposed range.
Of course they're going to start negotiations at the lower end of the range. That's what every buyer does. But when he countered he should have stuck within the previously agreed max of 4%, presented a number, and backed it up with reasoning. Going outside of that range in the hopes of bringing up the average is poor form and something an experienced negotiator isn't going to accept.
Given that Under Armour holds some fairly large cards (resources to fund development, production, sales, distribution, marketing, etc.), the reasoning would consist of his large cards like the innovation inherent in the technology as well as what other companies have indicated as a range they'd be willing to pay.
For example: "There's no other shoe technology around which has been proven in a sports lab to have as great a benefit as this. Olympic athletes using these shoes have performed at a level that will push them beyond gold medal records. We chose Under Armour because of ________, and we want it to be the brand associated with high performance athletes. Just as the last Olympics secured Speedo as the #1 brand for high performance swimwear, so should the next Olympics be synonymous with Under Armour for high performance shoes. Just imagine the medal ceremony for all the running events with the medal winners all sporting Under Armour shoes. Think of what a coup that would be. We've approached other manufacturers who have indicated they're comfortable with a 2.5% to 4% range. However, we're really hoping we can make the numbers work with you so that we don't have to take this technology to another company that isn't as passionate. Based on this what we're proposing is..."
Having reread the original article, I see that UA did in fact raise their offer after he asked for a higher-than-previously-agreed-upon royalty:
For the next three months, Under Armour refused a
face-to-face meeting but did make concessions, raising
its percentage and throwing in a monthly advance. Hann
held out for higher numbers. He fielded interest from a
new set of investors and became more wary of Under
Armour. “I feel like the mouse dancing with the bear,” he
said. “No matter how careful the bear is, the mouse
better watch out.” In late October 2010, Kevin Haley,
senior vice-president of innovation, took over the
project from Fulks. Haley offered to put the licensing
negotiation on hold and renew the option agreement at
$15,000 per month. The implication was that this would
allow them to work together like old times.
Hann rebuffed the offer, believing Under Armour was
bluffing and it was a way of avoiding a licensing
agreement. In early December 2010, Under Armour’s
attorney delivered the news: The company decided to move
in a different direction. Hann’s work with the company
was over.
The article doesn't say whether they "higher numbers" that Hann was trying to get out of UA were the out-of-bounds ones he countered with originally or simply within the high end of the original range.
... And then there are the increasing numbers of barefoot runners. It could be argued that the greatest running shoe never sold is already in your possession.
I'm not a huge booster of the whole barefoot trend, but I do think that's what, ultimately, has scuttled Hann's shoe from getting to market. The momentum toward thinner soles and less material is anathema to the theory, look and feel of this shoe.
You've got a book--Born To Run--that won't leave the NYTimes Bestseller list. And you've got every serious/casual runner out there espousing the virtues of minimalist footwear for running. I feel like I run into conversations on the topic at half of the social events I go to; Vibram has made millions of those five-toed shoes; everybody feels smarter for having read that book and worked less foam into their running routine -- and now this guy shows up with a shoe that runs straight against that vibe? That's tough swimming, even if he's right.
Obviously, he should have assented to a far lower royalty rate.
Plenty of people have weird biomechanics that benefit from a corrective shoe. I have a super-high arch on my right foot that causes severe overpronation when I run with minimalist shoes. If I run in minimalist shoes, my right shin is out of commission for about a week. I can't be the only one.
I am in the exact opposite position, I have an almost non-existent arch and if I forget to wear arched soles my feet and knees will be aching by late afternoon. I would buy this shoe in an instant.
You cannot expect your body to adjust instantly to a barefoot gait after spending your entire life wearing heavy shoes that drastically alter your natural gait.
When I first tried running in VFF shoes I limited myself to 15 minute sessions, and even then my calves were so destroyed walking was stiff for 2-3 days. I slowly eased that limit up a few minutes at a time over the past year, and while I have a ways to go, I can run about 30-40 minutes now and my legs and feet look completely different.
I did that too, but it's not for everybody. I got a serious injury (compartment syndrome) and wasn't running for 4 months . My minimal shoes turned out to be the culprit, and after switching back to shoes with good support I can now run 5 times a week with no problems.
I fell into this trap too. I got a stress fracture on my shin from a tendon pulling on that area much more than the bone was used to. It took months to heal.
The feet are a complex tangle of muscle, bones, tendons, and nerves. They doesn't respond to increases in stress as well a muscle would. Bones and tendons can need months or even years to build up the strength to handle the stress of serious running barefoot. People who try this should ease into it slowly. Like over weeks or preferably, months.
Conveniently, I started wearing the Vibrams just for walking around in (because they're really comfortable), and did that for 6-ish months before I started running. This has resulted in a distinct lack of any health problems.
I can see how it would be really easy for someone who was actively running when they got the shoes to just go do their normal routine the first day they wore them and utterly destroy something.
If you are already a runner I could see this being the case, e.g. you put on a pair of "barefoot" shoes and then do your normal 10 miles run or whatever.
I tried to take up running last year. I bought a pair of Vivo Barefoot shoes, and thought they were great. Since I was just starting out I couldn't go more than a few hundred yards without taking breaks to walk. I eventually worked my way up to about 5 miles with a few moderate hills in the route, and never had any trouble with pain or injury.
I never grew to enjoy running however, it was always a chore and while I was doing it my mind was always racing with thoughts of other things I could be getting done if I wasn't running. I didn't feel any better, I didn't have more energy during the day, and I didn't sleep any better, so eventually I stopped.
I wear minimal shoes exclusively for walking also and it took two years for running to be really comfortable.
I am also not a serious runner at all. I think if you go into this with good fitness and expect to see your old performance soon it is very dangerous
Did you push yourself too hard when you first started barefoot running? I always heard that its better across the board, but you've got to start slow to prevent injury.
What's more likely is that your running form was the culprit. Shoes simply hide problems with your technique. Barefoot running is less forgiving, but ultimately safer.
You bet. This week I switched from Mizuno Wave Fortis to Wave Rider (simply because I couldn't find Fortis in shops for months), and my right foot began to hurt after only 20 km, though they're supposedly nearly identical shoes from the same make. I'll have to very gradually switch, alternating shoes between short runs, or maybe even give up the Rider entirely...
Funny, that's actually what I thought this article was about. Who gets excited about another "normal" running shoe anymore? I bought my Vibram FiveFingers after reading "Born to Run" and never looked back.
>>A fad is any form of behavior that develops among a large population and is collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period, generally as a result of the behavior's being perceived as novel in some way.[1] A fad is said to "catch on" when the number of people adopting it begins to increase rapidly. The behavior will normally fade quickly once the perception of novelty is gone.[1]<<
I'm not sure that we are yet in the "large population" phase even though this is like the third time I've heard about this new footwear.
You weren't born with shoes on your feet. Running barefoot is the natural way to run. If there's a fad in running, it is that you need to air cushions at your heels when you already have a superior mechanism to cushion your strides.
Regardless of who is right, this is a weak argument. Barefoot may be the natural way to run, but that doesn't mean it's the best. The natural way to handle an infection is your immune system, but you'll be thankful for antibiotics when you need them. In short, it's possible for us to improve on "natural".
Person dependent (like above comments on barefoot killing peoples shins, etc.) and cultural, like the Mexican-Indian (native) folks who drink, and run for 100's of miles (Born to Run book inspiration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara_peopleThe word for themselves, Rarámuri, means "runners on foot" or "those who run fast" in their native tongue according to some early ethnographers like Norwegian Carl Lumholtz, though this interpretation has not been fully agreed upon. With widely dispersed settlements, these people developed a tradition of long-distance running up to 120 miles (190 km) in one session, over a period of two days through their homeland of rough canyon country, for intervillage communication and transportation as well as to hunt.
They also have the tendency to eat when hungry, sleep when sleepy (as in, anytime / anywhere) which has threads to other "genius" discussions (lets call being able to run 100's of miles a type of "physical genius" for a thought experiment). I know when I do barefoot walking on a frequent basis my chronic lower back pain starts to dissipate.
Side note:
We also aren't naturally meant to sit all day in an office chair, yet...
I'll just say your second link is a completely illogical response to my comment.
Note, I'm not necessarily advocating barefoot running. I do run on my forefeet, so I run in Newtons, for now.
Two things though: (1) Heel running is less efficient, results in higher impact forces and leads to more injuries than forefoot running. (2) The only reason most of us heel run is because we started running in sneakers from a young age.
I agree that it could be a fad, but couldn't it also be the start of a widespread and permanent change? Seems both situations would start the same way.
I wear the Merrell Trailgloves, and they give much the same barefoot feel as the five finger but look like normal shoes. They are so light I often forget they are on. The zero rise from front to back also makes them great squatting and dead lifting shoes.
I run with their Sonic Glove. I enjoy it. However, going downhill does way too much damage to my feet. Minimal/barefoot requires short strides with a high cadence and that's hard to do [for me] going downhill.
For regular walking/business shoes give Geox a try. The solid leather insole and lightweight build is amazing. The air transfer through the sole actually works too.
matwood, do they really compare to the feel of the vibram's? i think my favorite thing about the vibram's is how they let your toes spread out to help with balance and changing direction. do you get that same feel with the merrell's? i've been looking for something similar to vibra's that would also protect my feet on trails.
Well, obviously if you need/want the individual toe feel then they won't replace that. If you're looking for a barefoot shoe that is as minimal as the vibrams then they fit the bill. On my feet the Trailglove toebox is quite wide so my toes spread out inside the shoe. This spread doesn't transfer to the ground of course, but it does lead to the feeling of not wearing a shoe at all.
I don't worry about social acceptability. I have a pair of VFFs for the gym and one for daily wear. They are a great conversation starter, and strangers ask me about them a lot. The one thing they are not good for is standing around. After realizing this and some experimentation I switched to work boots with Dr. Scholl's arch support when I spend a lot of time just standing.
Agreed. I tried wearing them for a while, and while they were fine for running, I couldn't just wear them around casually and they always felt sooo good to take off. They're sized by length, so I had the right size but they were just too narrow for my foot.
I wear mine at the gym and sometimes to/from the gym as well. Why wait for them to become common? In what way are they not acceptable? I challenge anybody not to serve me at a restaurant, or allow me into their store, or kick me out of my place of work because of the shoes I've chosen. How absurd.
I do frequent high end restaurants and clubs. But not being "acceptable in society" leading to "never wearing them" is quite different from not being acceptable in a high end restaurant or club.
Depends what you mean by acceptable. I work in your standard jeans-and-a-polo software shop, and there are a few people who wear them. That may just be part of the company culture though (in Calgary, so lots of hiking/biking/skiing types).
If you mean acceptable in semi-formal or even business casual settings, I would say that will just never happen.
I wear mine around all the time. (Well, not at the moment, because I want something warmer for winter.) I get comments about them, mostly from people who're wondering what they are, but I've never seen anything negative.
There's a couple other options out there; you can get a pair of web-footed shoes for special use, and a pair of minimalist closed-toed shoes for regular use. The web-footing will always feel cooler, but you can walk/run in minimalist shoes the same way.
The Merrrell trail shoe someone linked is a good example. I have a pair of pumas that are very similar, though a little more boring.
I've worn my Vibrams exclusively (even to 2 weddings) for the past 4 years, and it's been great for my social life. It's probably the best ice breaker ever invented. Strangers regularly approach and start conversations.
That is a great reason to wear them. My wife and I both wear Vibram's (we even did a Tough Mudder event in them), and they're great for starting conversations on the trail. Of course, if you don't like small-talk with strangers, they will be a nightmare :)
just make the freaking shoes! sell! what are you waiting for!?!? You have passion for a completely new product in a very profitable niche. Start producing and when you have customers that can't get enough Nike will be knocking down your door. Tell them to shove it.
Unless you have a (Chinese) factory with EVA molds and some women who stitch the shoe together in your garage, I don't see anyone 'just doing it'.
Even if you start producing your own shoes in China, wait until the first two containers come back with your initial 1000 pair of shoes all having some error that renders them useless.
Sure, you can get quality assurances in place, but you can't go and sell running shoes for twice the price of Nike or Adidas.
It takes some amount of scale to simply make this happen. So he's waiting for an investor to cover the large sums of money required to get a shoe to the market (let alone market the shoe itself).
you can't go and sell running shoes for twice the price of Nike or Adidas
There are plenty of $160 running shoes out there not made by Nike or Adidas. It's also not unfeasible to make the shoes in the US. It's cheaper to make a billion shoes in China, but it probably costs about the same to make a few thousand.
I don't know about running shoes, but Tim & Mary just sent me another pair of ~$500 order made custom leather shoes last week. They have a waiting list about a year long and make everything by hand.
Sure, they're not running shoes and they're not selling things in volume (they probably only make 50-60 pairs per year), but it's not exactly impossible to sell shoes for those prices.
Sure there's a market for more expensive shoes. Just look at orthopedic shoes, they easily cost 1000$ dollars and in some cases are just slightly modified retail shoes (albeit not very trendy).
If you want to be all 37Signals and sell only 50 pairs of shoes per year and make a decent living: fine. But scaling that process up to anything of significance will cost you a lot more money and (typically) isn't done in your garage.
But still, I do hope he can find a partner who will help him get his product to market. It wouldn't be the first time that a good functional shoe got cancelled, because it wasn't trendy enough for a mass market appeal.
Let's just hope that within 10 years from now, we'll be able to 3D print most of the parts for his shoe at an affordable price. Which would go along way of making the process more accessible.
I've recently begun walking to work (about 2 miles one way), and have been seriously considering plunking down $350 or so for a pair of the American-made leather-soled Wolverine 1000-mile boots.
I don't want to turn this into /r/malefashionadvice (which regularly debates good urban walking footwear), but I'm looking for such shoes and welcome a new brand to investigate.
It's not so much a brand as a husband & wife team that travels to various fairs, making custom fit boots & shoes. They make them by putting a sock on your foot, covering it in duct tape so that it holds its shape, then cutting the sock off your foot. I think that you need to see them IRL for this process, but maybe it's possible to make other arrangements.
The waiting list is severe. It has always taken me ~11 months, but they will contact you when its your turn. They have a cool way of lacing them, so that the knot to tie them is one-handed. For me, that means that I can tie both shoes at the same time, but I hear there are people who only have one useable hand that appreciate it for more practical reasons.
Same thing I was thinking. There would be no google if the founders had just given up when first trying to sell their search engine and were unsuccessful.
You guys are wearing some seriously focused blinders here.
Writing software (like a search engine) doesn't require millions of dollars worth of machine tooling just to get started. Manufacturing running shoes does.
The vast majority of businesses are nothing like modern software (which has virtually no startup costs beyond your own time).
Patagonia started with Yvon Chouinard building mountain climbing equipment in cooperation with a machinist and basically out of a shed. There are hardcore runners who would pay top dollar for this cutting edge technology. These early adopters are the INVESTORS in this product, in this brand.
"Hann called the [conveyor] belt company... and learned they were adjusted to 2,500 foot-pounds of force"
Somewhere there is confusion, either from me or the journalist. Depending on the context, foot-pounds are a unit of either torque or work, but not force. Who's confused here?
