I struggle with On on so many levels. You have to admire their brand story, growth and portfolio efficiency, business execution, and ability to build impressive concepts - yet these rarely translate into ‘real’ life, meaning true impact in their regular collection and production. And you can still sense how ‘cost-efficient’ their production is. On is a blueprint for the hyper-growth game, but still more a lesson in marketing than in genuine innovation.
Well, let’s just say the other public ones (mainly Adidas, Nike, VF…) probably wish they had such ‘efficient’ execution. The gap between brand game and product is unique with On. And if you look a little closer at their labor conditions, from Zurich HQ to the factories, it gets even wilder (start with Glassdoor). Of course, it’s also easier for On, since they’re still relatively young and can build a structure from scratch that matches today’s possibilities.
Hoka is the only other brand that has managed a comparable growth trajectory - thanks in part to Deckers and a similarly high-margin product strategy (and a beautifully clean pitch). But I have more sympathy for them, because they don’t churn out pseudo-products that generate buzz, claim to save the planet, and never reaching mass production.
That said, perhaps that will change now and I have the utmost respect for On’s marketing team. Nike should ‘Meta-hire’ there.
Such a great read and makes you desire On for sure.
We have a question around this "the rise of personality-driven content"
From what we're seeing, personality driven content also requires a lot of re-invention I mean look at the OG's the Kardashians, even Kylie has been through constant personality upgrades to keep audience engaged from private life, to style, values.
So the question is can you become irrelevant quickly if you're either not cool enough or authentic enough?
I struggle with On on so many levels. You have to admire their brand story, growth and portfolio efficiency, business execution, and ability to build impressive concepts - yet these rarely translate into ‘real’ life, meaning true impact in their regular collection and production. And you can still sense how ‘cost-efficient’ their production is. On is a blueprint for the hyper-growth game, but still more a lesson in marketing than in genuine innovation.
Well, let’s just say the other public ones (mainly Adidas, Nike, VF…) probably wish they had such ‘efficient’ execution. The gap between brand game and product is unique with On. And if you look a little closer at their labor conditions, from Zurich HQ to the factories, it gets even wilder (start with Glassdoor). Of course, it’s also easier for On, since they’re still relatively young and can build a structure from scratch that matches today’s possibilities.
Hoka is the only other brand that has managed a comparable growth trajectory - thanks in part to Deckers and a similarly high-margin product strategy (and a beautifully clean pitch). But I have more sympathy for them, because they don’t churn out pseudo-products that generate buzz, claim to save the planet, and never reaching mass production.
That said, perhaps that will change now and I have the utmost respect for On’s marketing team. Nike should ‘Meta-hire’ there.
Do you think you could say that about every running brand though?
Such a great read and makes you desire On for sure.
We have a question around this "the rise of personality-driven content"
From what we're seeing, personality driven content also requires a lot of re-invention I mean look at the OG's the Kardashians, even Kylie has been through constant personality upgrades to keep audience engaged from private life, to style, values.
So the question is can you become irrelevant quickly if you're either not cool enough or authentic enough?
That shoe creation video is so cool - very on brand (sorry...I couldn't resist the pun)
Amazing deep dive! So looking forward to seeing more on the storytelling panel
Thanks for the in-depth read about the brand. Great stuff here.
Cool to see On support your work and the newsletter!