> If you were in the market for a new pair of shoes, what would
> be the sensible thing to do to get the best pair? Would you
> look at the glitzy ads, or would you try to choose something
> that is durable and comfortable for its price? Would you compare
> celebrity endorsements or spec sheets?
So what shoes do YOU wear? I bet the majority of your shoes are nationally recognized brands. If not, I'd sure like to know where you find "spec sheets" on shoes. =)
But in general you're missing the point here.
In fact it can be boiled down to a single word. From the transcription:
> Remember, Nike sells a commodity. They sell shoes!!!
Commodity.
You draw a false dichotomy between "glitzy ads" and "durable and comfortable."
The fact is that most shoes, even modestly priced ones, are plenty durable and comfortable. We've been making them for thousands of years and there aren't a lot of useful breakthroughs left to make. For most purposes, they're a commodity.
So how do you get people to buy your stuff when you're competing in a commodity market sector?
Well number one, you have to actually have some quality there. Unless you're selling high-fashion shoes or something they need to be reasonably "durable and comfortable."
And you need to tell some type of story. Perhaps not "glitzy ads" but you do need that story.
Alternately you can, I guess, compete by monopolizing resources or differentiate yourself materially somehow. But there are a lot of product segments where that's not viable. You can't make a pencil that's much better than any other pencil. You can't grow rice that's too much tastier than any other rice. You can't clean gutters too much better than the next guy who cleans gutters. You can't build a computer that's too much faster than anybody else's, unless you're willing to throw down billions of dollars and get into a decades-long arms race with other CPU makers.
And even if you build a better mousetrap you still need to tell people about it, so it's story time anyway...