% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Message Board

  • catch83sails catch83sails May 12, 2011 8:34 AM Flag

    Kid's Shape Ups article

    Just opened yahoo and this is on the first page, before I ever went to finacial.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Pretty much because they overproduced the shoe styles that no one wants to buy. They're still selling the other shoes they always sell.

    • The local radio host did a call in segment on this today. Just what SKX needs, more bad press.

      What the heck? When management saw that the Shape Up trend was falling apart, why did
      they decide to doubledown on it (especially in an idiotic way via kids shape ups)?

      How bout they promote the heck out of twinkletoes instead since that's an already proven successful line that they could extend and build off of?

      • 3 Replies to reitkid
      • How bout they promote the heck out of twinkletoes instead since that's an already proven successful line that they could extend and build off of?

        Just a thought on this.

        They could think they are getting all they can out of Twinkle Toes with what they are doing. I am guessing at their situation, but I know there does come a point when you are getting all you can without simply selling more product and not making any more money vs the spend.

        Not a shoe salesman, but I would think the key to Twinkle Toes is get them on feet at an early age. Once the kid's like the shoes, it then becomes a balance of holding them in the style until they reach an age to leave completely. Mom and Dad know the child is going to outgrow the shoes in six months, so they are only going to get a pair or two of any style shoe in each size range. To overly discount, could send Mom and Dad on a buying spree into future sizes, thus killing future margins.
        The balance has to be, gaining new feet vs losing margins on existing future sales to the feet you have. I know that is a simple way to explain it, and I do not know what management is thinking at SKX. I do know they are getting their share of sales in children's shoes with Twinkle Toes, but not being able to see sales markets figures, demographics by size and age, etc, I would guess they might be considering this part of it when not promoting them more.

        Just my two cents of course, but thought I would throw it out there for consideration. Losing faith in management is not hard here, but I have to yield to their knowledge in the market place on this one, when I do know there has to be a balance to protect the margins, as well as get all the growth you can.

      • Apparently this is the young lady's response to SKX. Takes 2 post.
        Text May 17, 2011 1 note
        No, Skechers Shape-Ups Are Nothing Like the First Lady’s Let’s Move Campaign
        Augusta Christensen from HuffPost’s rebuttal to the president of Skechers Fitness Group’s response to her petition to ban Shape-Ups for Girls’ ads on children’s networks. Basically, she’s owns it.

        It seems that the Skechers Shape-Ups for Girls petition that I started on has made its way through different channels of the blogosphere, and stirred up quite a bit of controversy. In the last few days, my petition has been featured on Yahoo!, the Daily Mail, HuffPost, and has since elicited a response from Leonard Armato, the president of the Skechers Fitness Group here on the Huffington Post. As the instigator of this mini media frenzy, I’d like to personally respond to his remarks.

        Mr. Armato first makes the point that petition was not started by a parenting group, but “a student at Swarthmore College” on a website that “lets anybody start a petition on anything”. And of course, all this is true. However, I do not think the fact that I am a student (technically a recent graduate) of Swarthmore College detracts at all from the aspects of this product and marketing campaign that are highly problematic, especially when a quick glance at the comments page of my petition show quite a few parents throwing their hat in the ring. In case this does somehow discredit me, allow me to take a moment to introduce myself to Mr. Armato’s satisfaction.

        My name is Augusta, and I’m a 21-year-old feminist blogger with a BA in Political Science from Swarthmore College. Perhaps more relevant, however, I am a former 7-year-old girl. A former horrifically awkward 7-year-old girl who, despite being witty and having gushing parents, had awful self-esteem and was susceptible to many marketing ploys that preyed on on my insecurities.

        Coming at this issue from this perspective, I wholly disagree with Mr. Armato that my conflation with Shape-ups for Girls with the booming dieting industry of false promises and low self-esteem is in anyway unfair or inaccurate. Should there be NutriSystem for Young Girls ads on Nickelodeon? Or Zantrex 3- for 8-year-olds advertised on Cartoon Network?

      • Reitkid,

        What was sentiment from the callers? Just curious.


    • I did see her on TV with her "lawyer". She was a bit over-weight but not hugely over-weight. She stated that her bone density checked out normal so that rules out bone problems. I suspect that the stress fractures were already there prior to Shape-ups and that they may have been aggravated by the shoes and different muscle use.

    • It depends upon the kids' feet if it's worth the money. I would have loved them as a kid. I have no arches. One foot is longer with a shorter leg because the bones in the ankle are shifted downward. When I was a kid, my mother took me to a podiatrist who built me arch supports inside dorky leather high top shoes. I hated them; I felt as dorky as they looked. In recent times, my foot problems started to really bother me. I tried Shape-ups and the majority of my foot problems are under control.

    • and i would love to see what the women looks like who is sueing Skechers.... i bet she has massive cankles and probably can't support her own weight with her vericose vined jumbo legs.

      easy to blame instead of being honest... blame the shoe, fatty!

    • Nice post, however I agree with the fore-mentioned article. Parents should not spend their money on expensive shoes for their kids when they can buy crocs for 10 bucks and the balance on a barbie doll -- the role figure of an extremely realistic human body that young girls should aspire to. Oh, and get a couple of extra donuts for themselves with the change.

    • You can read here about what the American Podiatric Medical Association thinks about them and their claims. Shape-ups for kids probably would receive the same endorsement.

    • The advertising has little to do with any article attacking Shape-ups. These articles are written for those who are shorting. This one gives them an opportunity to attack Skechers for their money grubbing motivation. Just look at that article. It incorporates everything bad that shorts could think up, from one woman's lawsuit, a study by a group funded by a trainers' association, to podiatrists' statement about foot roll. I say: The woman got stress fractures prior to her shoe purchase; it's consistant to high impact and not wearing any specific shoe. Athletes wear MBTs for training to protect themselves from injury. The study was flawed from the start using only young physically fit women funded and controlled by a biased group. MBT's European studies and Skechers own studies show different results. Most any shoe can cause foot roll for some, including me. If you have foot roll, buy Orthotic Insoles. And podiatrists do recommend rocker soled shoes including Shapeups for various problems. Will they hurt young kids? Probably not any more than any other shoe, other than maybe a few more spills in the learning curve. In fact the number one shoe that young girls do want is uggs and podiatrists do not like them at all. Shape-ups might even teach the kids better posture and balance. So, is this another form of short attack to influence investors and the public in general so as they will not buy the stock or the shoes? I say that it is.

    • alfredkkkim May 15, 2011 4:05 PM Flag

      I think it's a great ad campaign against kids getting fat and eating bad stuffs. There was nothing wrong about this advertising. If you are talking about false advertising, how Nike shoes advertising? Can average person can fly and dunk a basketball simply wearing a Nike shoe?

    • Anyone complaining that toning shoes are bad for kids or that don't actually work, probably just at a hotdog and washing it down with a milkshake. Maybe you'd rather take a pill to help you lose weight instead of getting off your butt.

      Skechers would not invest in a product if there wasn't a market out there.

      I suggest Skechers create a new ad and go full force

      " if you're young and fat, probably eating soda and cheesecake for breakfast, we suggest you get up off your fat butt and start working out! Stop eating that junk. Your parents are to blame but you are ultimately responsible for yourself. So what can you do? Exercise and eat healthy foods in moderation! Wear toning shoes to keep you reminded that you need to keep active and lose weight. People might say that toning shoes don't work but that is not the point. The issue is that you are over weight and that is unhealthy. Wear toning shoes and keep yourself active! "

      That will definitely raise awareness

    • View More Messages
24.99-7.19(-22.34%)Jul 22 4:00 PMEDT