Talk:Rocker bottom shoe

Move request
Round bottom shoe → — The AFD raises the need for a rename which is unlikely to be controversial as the article is quite new and the most common name simply wasn't chosen first. The move may need to wait until after the AFD has been completed and only if it unsuccessful. Donama (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NB: rocker bottom shoe currently contains a redirect to here. An admin will be required to do the necessary speedy deletions and a tool will be required to update any redirect which will have become double-redirects. Donama (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. -- cj | talk 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement, proper balance, proper history, etc, per Uncle G
I am pasting some advice from User:Uncle G which was added to an AFD discussion on this article, but deserves to go here: Donama (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you started from the snake oil, the advertisements from the shoe manufacturers and the fashion world puff pieces in the newspapers. To the people to whom shoes are science, rather than marketing and fashion, the world is somewhat different.  When I saw this article, I imediately reached for a book that I had, ISBN 0953762203, covering this.  Bird (the author, who is a podiatrist) calls these things "rocker bottoms".  And that is the name that you'll find used in podiatry and biomechanics, for many years now.  There are plenty of scientific and medical sources to be found if you search for that (or "rocker bottom shoes"), rather than for hokey brand names.  ISBN 9780323041454, for example, has a section on "outsole modifications" on pp. 158 et seq. which explains who it was that primarily advocated "rocker" and "roller" soles for many years, and what actual scientific study reveals (which is actually quite complex).  ISBN 9780443068836 pp. 133 et seq. explains that there are numerous different types of "rocker" shoes, from "heel-to-toe rockers" through "toe-only rockers" and "double rockers" to "negative heel rockers", and again shows the actual science belying the one-size-fits-all marketing puffery.  You'll find a similar typology in ISBN 9780080451077 pp. 217–218.  Go to the actual science and medicine on this, rather than the trend-following newspaper articles and marketing puffery.  It's quite a different world, you'll find.  Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary of books suggested by comment above:
 * Bill Bird (1999) Self Help Guide for the Footsore‎, Wise Owl Press ISBN 9780953762200.
 * Marvin E. Levin, Lawrence W. O'Neal, John H. Bowker, Michael A. Pfeifer (2008) Levin and O'Neal's the diabetic foot, (eds John H. Bowker, Michael A. Pfeifer), Elsevier Health Sciences ISBN 9780323041454.
 * Wendy Tyrrell, Gwenda Carter (2008) Therapeutic Footwear: A Comprehensive Guide, Elsevier Health Sciences ISBN 9780443068836.
 * Ben Yates (2009 ) Merriman's assessment of the lower limb, Elsevier Health Sciences ISBN 9780080451077.

There was a similar shoe about in the 1970s with a reverse heel and a cloggy sole. Sadly I can't remember its name (Sold in UK, made by Clarks(?)). Alleged benefits similar to MBTs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundish1 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can provide some verifiable secondary source please let me know and I'll pursue it. Donama (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Commercial-focussed additions
I have undone completely unreferenced commercial-focused additions to the article. The growth of the market for rocker bottom shoes thanks to MBT is already mentioned. Other information about the marketing is giving WP:UNDUE weight to commercial interests, is not relevant, and serves to distract. See also WP:NOTADVERTISING. Donama (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good source for improving article
From MSNBC.com: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39992618/ns/business-consumer_news%20Do%20those%20funky%20shoes%20really%20promote%20fitness? Do Those Funky Shoes Really Promote Fitness]. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Industry growth not relevant
Just removed a section called Industry Growth which I saw as placing vastly undue weight on the current in-fashion (as of 2010) iteration of the rocker bottom shoe. (See WP:UNDUE guideline). I also saw many part of the section as pushing commercial points of view rather than stating facts neutrally per WP:NPOV. Can we please discuss such a large and controversial inclusion here on the talk page first. Pasting below. Donama (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

h2 Industry Growth

Rocker bottom shoes, also known as toning shoes, have become a notable subcategory of the larger athletic shoe market. The toning shoe industry has grown from $300 million to $1.5 billion since its movement into the mainstream market in 2008. Prominent makers such as Skechers and Reebok launched their respective Shape-Ups and Easy Tones in 2008 after MBT’s patent on the shoe technology expired. Many companies responded by introducing their version of a toning shoe, looking to capitalize on the market’s rapid growth rate and the initial success seen by Skechers and Reebok. Companies have primarily targeted women, who comprise 85% of the market; however, industry analysts observe that men's and children's segments offer opportunities for future growth of the product category.

h3. Makers and Brands

Though most toning shoe makers strive to design products that improve muscle tone, the execution of each product or product lines differs significantly among competitors. Below is a list of the industry's top five competitors, their product lines, price points and unique selling propositions (USP). (Note: unique selling propositions are a marketing-based strategy used to differentiate a company's product from that of its competitors)

h4. Masai Group International
 * Product: MBT (Masai Balance Technology)
 * Price Point: $200
 * USP: the first balance technology shoe; patented 2002-2008

h4. Skechers
 * Product: Shape Ups
 * Price Point: under $100
 * USP: affordability; traditional “rocker-sole” shoe

h4. Reebok
 * Product: EasyTones
 * Price Point: $100
 * USP: Balance-ball technology; create a feeling of instability

h4. New Balance
 * Product: True Balance, Rock&Tone
 * Price Point: $100-$120
 * USP: wobble-board technology

h4. Nike
 * Product: Free
 * Price Point: under $100
 * USP: Mimics barefoot running; healthier; the “anti-toning shoe”; men's and children's

h3. Marketing Tactics

h4. Product Toning shoe makers utilize marketing tactics based off of claims that the shoes will help improve muscle tone by engaging leg and butt muscles through instability. Marketers specifically target women using claims that the shoes will improve physical appearance through improved leg muscle tone and the shapeliness of one's rear end. The products also report increased calorie burn through heightened muscle engagement. Companies also target men, but emphasize the added exercise benefits of wearing the shoe more than appearance benefits. Additionally, companies have expanded their toning product offerings to include sandals, boots and apparel.

h4. Price Toning shoes range in price between $75 and $200. Brand image greatly influences the price strategy that companies choose. Where standard Skecher’s sneakers are priced around $50, consumers are willing to pay a small premium for toning capabilities (i.e. a $75 product). Alternatively, Reebok attracts a higher selling price, as the brand is known more for performance than affordability. Depending on the degree of market penetration a company wishes to achieve (i.e. how many consumers will be able or willing to purchase their product), they will price the shoe at a low, high, or mid-range price point.

h4. Place Toning shoes can be found in retail outlets around the United States and select markets around the world. Famous Footwear, for example, sells Skecher's Shape-Ups, while Reebok, New Balance and Nike shoes are available at sporting goods stores. Shoes may also be purchased online.

h4. Promotion Reebok, Skechers and New Balance have all produced TV commercials, print ads and integrated marketing campaigns that send a similar message – become more fit and attractive simply by wearing these shoes. When a new product enters the market, any promotion for the product category can benefit the industry as a whole. For example, when industry-wide sales in Q1 of 2010 reached 75% of 2009 total sales, many linked the growth to Skecher’s 2010 Super Bowl advertisement.

h4. Position Veronica Dagher of the Wall Street Journal suggests that companies have thus far targeted “time-starved middle-aged women who don't make it to the gym”. Industry analysts have also identified a trend towards women who are active and are looking to supplement or enhance their existing workouts. Whatever their motivation for purchasing toning shoes, American women have numerous options on store shelves. Certain brands like Reebok utilize a “sex-appeal” strategy showing fit women from only the butt down in a series of television commercials. Skechers has mimicked this strategy, only to put a more social spin on the commercials. The ads feature women walking with their friends, paying little mind to all the extra work they are doing by wearing Skecher’s Shape-Ups. This alludes to the product positioning of “work less, see more results”. New Balance, being third to enter the market, has made a point to highlight the unique (and often criticized) appearance of Shape-Ups. Their ad features two young women, both walking for exercise, who are noticed by an attractive man. The only difference between the two scenarios is that the woman wearing Skecher’s Shape-Ups is not actually being looked at – the man is checking out her shoes. However, the young woman wearing Truebalance shoes is being noticed for her attractive physique, not her shoes. Thus, New Balance has taken the market position of being the toning shoe that doesn't look like a toning shoe.

h3. Skepticism

Critics worry that not only are toning shoes detrimental to the health of their users, but that companies are taking advantage of customers with false advertising and lofty claims. Manufacturers solicit results from privately funded studies showing that their technologies do improve muscle tone, burn more calories, and help sculpt the lean muscles that many Americans are unwilling to sweat at the gym for. The shoes offer a “quick-fix” solution for weight loss and muscle toning – claims that certain health professionals deem unrealistic and even dangerous. Todd Galtti of the American Council on Exercise notes, "These shoes are not a magic pill. It is the walking that will make a difference in your life. Not the shoe.” Celebrity endorsements, such as Joe Montana and Brook Burk for Skechers, may serve to weaken the validity of toning shoe makers' claims.  Skeptics dispute whether the toning shoe industry warrants such acclaim or whether it is a mere fabrication of marketing executives.

Another driver of skepticism has been the influx of entrants into the toning shoe market. Many companies seek to gain marketshare by developing what some would consider “knock-off” versions of these shoes. Avia, for example, developed the “Iburn Double Rocker”, while Walmart sells a toning shoe branded under the Danskin name. Industry experts predict that brands such as Puma and Saucony will enter the market with toning shoes in 2011.

Proponents for the shoes reference test studies, scientific research and customer testimony to support shoe makers' claims. With more and more Americans buying the shoes, could it be possible that they not actually work? And to further that point, if the shoes motivate Americans to hit the gym and be more active, can they really be that bad? American consumers have a decided history of rejecting unsatisfactory products, so if consumers continue to buy the product, shoe makers will continue to enter this category.

h2. Future Growth

Despite the skepticism that revolves around toning shoe technology, companies participating in this athletic shoe subcategory have experienced great success. Nike delayed the development of a toning shoe product because the company's upper management did not support industry claims about the technology's effectiveness. By doing so, however, “Nike's share of the women's footwear market [fell] by 7.5 percent as compared to this time last year, according to market retail tracking firm SportsOneSource.” Skechers and Reebok wasted no time in launching their toning shoes once MBT’s patent expired in 2008, and as a result gained a “first-mover” advantage on the mainstream market (i.e. they were the first to offer the product and therefore consumers associate the entire product category with those brands). Because of this leadership, the two companies enjoy 54% and 40% marketshare, respectively.

Sales results and industry statistics indicate that toning shoes will remain a strong product category in years to come. Consumers have bought into the benefits of these shoes regardless of their actual effectiveness. Reebok has expanded its toning line to include “toning apparel”, walking, running and training toning shoes, as well as a men's line of running toning shoes and zig-zag “energizing” shoes. Nike did decide to hedge the toning shoe market with its special line of “natural” running shoes, perhaps recognizing the profit potential that exists in the category. Whether toning shoe technology will become a standard the way air and gel technology did in the late 90's/early 00's is unclear at this time; what is certain, however, is that consumers have shown a preference for toning shoe technology and industry forecasts predict continued growth.

References

Therapeutic claims
This heading: "Therapeutic claims for contemporary heel-to-toe rockers and responses" does not seem to conform to guidelines for WP headings. For example, MOS:HEAD states: "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article..." Moreover, the heading is painfully verbose and syntactically poor. So I think we should find a better heading. I changed it to "Therapeutic claims and responses," though I don't think that is ideal either. In any case, my suggestion was reverted, with the edit summary: "correct heading to what it's about." What is it about? I've restored my less-than-ideal, tentative heading. I'm not married to it, but I really don't think that the former heading is up to WP standards. Perhaps we could discuss a better heading? Sunray (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Testimonials
I am a consumer who has developed heel spurs over the past 6 months. The pain has been growing increasingly, to a point where I can no longer wear any conventional flat-heel shoe, sandal or slipper. Walking barefoot is no longer an option either. When wearing flat-heel shoes, walking or simply standing for any length of time becomes so painful, that I become virtually incapacitated. I tried a pair of Ryn rocker-bottom sandals about 1 month ago for the first time. I was amazed! The pain in my heel is not completely gone, but I can now walk and stand, for long periods of time, with just a slight discomfort. No more incapacitation! I purchased a pair of the Ryn Babylon black leather dress shoes, with the same result. I can wear them all day, with very little discomfort, yet I am now un-restricted in my activities. I recently purchased a pair of the Chung-Shi rocker bottom sneakers, the "Anti-Step" McAllen, with the same results. Relative comfort, with no restrictions to my activities. (Note: The Chung-Shi brand comes in several different rocker-bottom variations. I tried one of the other variations, but did not like the feel of it.  The "Anti-Step" version is the one most commonly associated with the rounded rocker-bottom, and almost every shoe model comes in all of the sole variations.)  I have not tried the Sketchers brand, the MBT brand, or any other brands to date. I read an article recently that linked heel spurs to plantar faciitis. It seems as if plantar faciitis is what may cause heel spurs. So, you can have plantar faciitis, without having the heel spurs, but you may not have heel spurs without having the plantar faciitis. I don't know if this is a true statement. I don't know if the rocker-bottom shoes will help those patients with plantar faciitis, but I can guarantee, from personal experience, that they do have a significant effect on those with heel spurs! I can not make any claims to extended wear, as I've only been using the rocker-bottom shoes for approximately one month now. I hope this review / testimonial is helpful to others. Joe F., Valrico, FL 71.180.84.157 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)