Well Mark, you can check my IP address and tell 100% that I have never posted once on this thread, but.....I agree with the poster who said the Hanson's Business Model was no better than any other, owning the houses or not is irrelevant. If Brooks goes away, so does A LOT of Hanson perks, therefore you lose the top runners. Kevin and Keith are NOT going to be paying out of their own pocket to send these runners here and there, it's not gonna happen. BUT and this is a big BUT, I live near the stores and have gone in there frequently. Never once has an employee from Kyle to David to Brian to Melissa back to Richie Brinker, ever pushed a Brook shoe on me.
I've asked about this shoe and that shoe, but not once, since Brooks starting kicking in their financial backing has an employee led me to a Brook show over what I was looking at. I think their concept is a good one, but one that will only lead to a Brian Sell once in a blue moon, if that. If you're really good to begin with (Fernandez), why would you go to Hanson's when you can get an actual contract, a big one at that? They will attract 2:15 marathoners on average.
Who's really making money on the whole deal? Well that is obvious, and yes, they are making money!
But as far as a conflict of interest, I can tell you first hand that there is none. I'm in there once a month and yes, they've shown me Brook shoes, but they've shown me others as well and never said or even hinted to get the Brook over the Nike or Adidas. So in this case, I come to their defense.
To Running Gal--------it's not that they love Brooks so much, it's that Brook's is paying the bills. I can't put it anymore clearer than that. He who pays the piper names the tune.
It's a bit naive to think you are always getting disinterested and objective advice from a shoe salesman (or from any salesman at any store). It's a business and the people helping you always have a financial incentive to sell you something. On top of that, some shoe companies like Asics offer "spiffs" or incentive payments to salespeople who sell a particular brand or model of shoes, so the the sales person might get an extra $5 or $10 for selling a particular model of shoes, which might affect which models a sales person might choose to show someone.
So anytime you take advice from any salesperson there's a potential for a conflict of interest, but at a good running store they know that their money is made by repeat customers who were fitted with suitable shoes. The trick is to find a store with a long-term philosophy that is willing to pass up a spiff or a bigger sale now for satisfied repeat customers. Hansons has always had a solid reputation for being that kind of store, as some of the other posters have pointed out.
I dont know about all the hating. If the coaches believe that the shoes are good enough for their team then they are probably pretty good shoes. When I was there they sold all different shoes and a lot of time they did not even bring out brooks. All shoe companies give store's employees incentives to sell their shoes. Sometimes it is a contest where the winner gets a bonus. Walk into a shoe store and you will see the workers wearing running shoes that............. they did not pay for.
Have any of you ever been in any of the Hansons stores? I have bought at least 30 pairs of shoes over the last 5 years. I HAVE NEVER TRIED ON A BROOKS SHOE. I wear exclusively Asics and not one of the employees has ever suggested I try anything else. What makes you think they push Brooks?
I couldn't agree more with I LOVE SPORTS. If you are running a specialty running store, I would think there should be an equal representation of the brands you carry. If you are always pushing Brooks, and only Brooks, your credibility starts to suffer for sure. That is where the poor business model comes into play. If they love Brooks so much, why not just open a Brooks concept store like New Balance has???
This poor business model has afforded the Hansens the ability to support an elite running team. There are ZERO other running stores in the entire country that provide all of the perks that the Hansens/Brooks program does. How can they afford to do this under such a poor business model? Why don't any of these running stores with stronger business models blow the Hansens/Brooks program out of the water?
The Top 50 store results AREN'T voted on by vendors - you are very wrong there. They are voted on by customers. In theory, you could have a loyal customer base voting multiple times for the same store, just to ensure they win.
The fact of the matter is this, if you have an entire staff of employees wearing and representing Brooks, the other brands are getting the raw end of the deal. There is a clear bias toward the Brooks brand at the end of the day. This is not a good business model at the store. I am all for the elite team, I think that is great. When it comes to their stores, however, there needs to be a separation.
I don't see these other posts as being critical at all. They are simply pointing out a very obvious conflict of interest.
Come on guys. Hansons has been a top 50 store in the country for 3 years in a row. This is an honor that is voted on by ALL vendors. I know that some of you guys just enjoy being critical, but once again you are wrong.
I agree, if you are going to own and operate a running specialty store, you would think you would want to give an equal representation of all the brands you carry there. Clearly, in this case, that doesn't seem to be happening. It's great for Brooks I am sure, but not so great for all the other footwear brands being sold there.
This has been a great partnership for a lot of reasons. I was a Nike man for 10 years but tried Brooks 2 years ago because of their connection with the Hanson's. I am now hooked on Brooks.
Driving with the Hansons - Giving Brooks More Bang for their Buck
Keith Hanson, co-founder and coach of Hansons-Brooks, explains why he is proud of the partnership their group has with Brooks. Keith believes that the Hansons-Brooks relationship benefit both parties bottom line making it much more then a sponsorship, but partnership. July 2, 2009
Driving with the Hansons - Giving Brooks More Bang for their Buck
I've asked about this shoe and that shoe, but not once, since Brooks starting kicking in their financial backing has an employee led me to a Brook show over what I was looking at. I think their concept is a good one, but one that will only lead to a Brian Sell once in a blue moon, if that. If you're really good to begin with (Fernandez), why would you go to Hanson's when you can get an actual contract, a big one at that? They will attract 2:15 marathoners on average.
Who's really making money on the whole deal? Well that is obvious, and yes, they are making money!
But as far as a conflict of interest, I can tell you first hand that there is none. I'm in there once a month and yes, they've shown me Brook shoes, but they've shown me others as well and never said or even hinted to get the Brook over the Nike or Adidas. So in this case, I come to their defense.
To Running Gal--------it's not that they love Brooks so much, it's that Brook's is paying the bills. I can't put it anymore clearer than that. He who pays the piper names the tune.
So anytime you take advice from any salesperson there's a potential for a conflict of interest, but at a good running store they know that their money is made by repeat customers who were fitted with suitable shoes. The trick is to find a store with a long-term philosophy that is willing to pass up a spiff or a bigger sale now for satisfied repeat customers. Hansons has always had a solid reputation for being that kind of store, as some of the other posters have pointed out.
The fact of the matter is this, if you have an entire staff of employees wearing and representing Brooks, the other brands are getting the raw end of the deal. There is a clear bias toward the Brooks brand at the end of the day. This is not a good business model at the store. I am all for the elite team, I think that is great. When it comes to their stores, however, there needs to be a separation.
I don't see these other posts as being critical at all. They are simply pointing out a very obvious conflict of interest.