Why Brands Don't Always Innovate — And Why That's Actually Smart
⚠️ Warning: This article contains no shoe reviews, no ratings, and zero practical advice for your next purchase. It does contain business strategy, foam science, and one Mizuno-related rant that got personal. Side effects may include a grudging respect for boring brands. You've been warned.
Ever wonder why some shoe lines barely change from version to version? Why the Brooks Ghost looks almost identical to how it looked five years ago? Why the Nike Pegasus has existed in essentially the same form since 1982? Why Hoka and On seem more interested in making their trainers comfortable and cool-looking than in competing with Puma, ASICS and Adidas at the pointy end of road race day performance?
And on the flip side — ever wonder why a shoe that was genuinely exciting gets "tamed down" the moment a v2 drops?
The answer, almost every time, comes down to one thing: profit. Not in a cynical, evil-corporation way — but in a completely rational, this-is-how-businesses-work way. Let's get into it.
The Ghost Sells Million of Pairs a Year For a Reason
Let's start with the most obvious example. The Brooks Ghost is, by almost every technical measure, a boring running shoe. It doesn't have energetic foam. It doesn't have a plate. It doesn't have crazy geometry. It doesn't push any boundaries. Shoe nerds don't talk about it. Reviewers don't get excited about it.
But it's Brooks' best-selling shoe, and has been for over a decade. The Ghost and Adrenaline GTS together commanded over 10% of US retail market share for performance running footwear in 2024. Brooks hit $1 billion in revenue for the first time in 2023 and recorded nine consecutive years of growth — driven primarily by those same "boring" franchise shoes.
So here's the uncomfortable question: if Brooks is making this much money off shoes that haven't fundamentally changed in years, why would they change them?
The answer is: they wouldn't. And they don't. What Brooks does — brilliantly — is make just enough updates to justify a new model number, drive customers to replace their current pair, and maintain the comfort signature that made people loyal in the first place. The DNA Loft v3 foam in the Ghost 17 is slightly softer than the Ghost 16. The fit is marginally more comfortable. The drop is slightly more accomodating. The colorways are new. That's it. That's the product strategy. And it works because the person buying a Ghost 17 isn't a shoe nerd comparing foam compounds on YouTube. They're a runner who loved their Ghost 16, wants the same shoe, and trusts the name.
Changing the Ghost substantially — making it bouncier, lighter, more aggressive — would risk alienating that customer. So Brooks doesn't. The consistency is the product.
Comfort isn't just a feature — it's a psychological purchase driver that most brands have figured out how to weaponize. If you want to understand exactly why, we did a deep dive into the neuroscience and consumer psychology behind it: Why Comfort Plays a Huge Role in Marketing →
The Mizuno Neo Zen 2: A Case Study in Profitable Disappointment
This one hit differently for those of us who loved the original.
The Mizuno Neo Zen was a genuinely exciting shoe. And after logging over 600 miles on my pair, I can confidently say it's the most fun shoe I've ever tried. It used a supercritical TPU midsole called Enerzy NXT — a material known for both exceptional energy return and durability — and RunRepeat's lab measured an extraordinary 71.7% energy return. It felt like nothing else Mizuno had made. It was bouncy, weird, and kind of brilliant.
Then version 2 arrived, and Mizuno quietly swapped the supercritical TPU for a supercritical EVA. RunRepeat measured the v2 at just 47.4% energy return. That's not a minor adjustment — that's a near-collapse. The foam that made the shoe special was gone. Believe in the Run called it out directly, noting the switch from a supercritical TPU to a cheaper compound while simultaneously raising the price by $10.
But here's where it gets interesting. On paper, this looks like a cynical downgrade. In practice, it might have been a genuinely smart business decision.
The original Neo Zen was wild. It was unstable, polarizing, and demanded a specific type of runner to appreciate it. Mizuno's stated goal for version 2 was to "rein in the instability." The result is a shoe with a more structured upper, a more stable ride, a better step-in feel, and broader appeal to casual runners who want a comfortable daily trainer rather than a bouncy weirdo shoe. Believe in the Run's multi-reviewer breakdown captures it well — some testers preferred v2, some preferred v1, and the split basically maps onto "performance-focused nerds" versus "comfort-seeking daily runners."
The performance-focused nerds are a small market. The comfort-seeking daily runners are a massive one. Mizuno made a business decision, not a product failure. It just felt like a failure if you were in the first group.
Nike's Pegasus: The $6.4 Million Formula That Never Changes
Nike has made 42 versions of the Pegasus. Forty-two. And the core philosophy, according to Nike's own archive, has been the same since 1983: "Keep it simple. No junk. Give people what they need and don't overbuild."
The Pegasus 42 just dropped in April 2026. The most notable update? A curved full-length Air Zoom unit that gives it more energy return than the Peg 41 and a wider, more anatomical toebox. Believe in the Run's review describes it as "a solid role player" and a "perennially a top-selling shoe."— which is, hilariously, exactly what a shoe that has sold continuously for over 40 years actually is.
Nike knows who buys the Pegasus. It's not us. It's the runner who goes to the gym three times a week, wants something reliable, and picks up whatever the store employee recommends. Nike has owned that customer for four decades by never changing the fundamental promise of the shoe while nudging the tech just enough to keep the model feeling current.
The Pegasus is, in a very real sense, the Ghost. Same strategy, different brand.
On Running: When Looking Cool Is the Innovation
On is a slightly different case because their strategy isn't really about not innovating — it's about where they choose to innovate.
On's CloudTec sole is instantly recognizable. It looks unlike anything else on the market. And that visual distinctiveness, according to Piper Sandler analyst Abbie Zvejnieks, is literally what drove their initial market share gains — "visible innovation," she called it. Consumers could see what was different about On. They didn't need a reviewer to explain PEBA foam or torsional rigidity to appreciate it.
The result is a brand that now sits at an extraordinary intersection of performance credibility and fashion cachet. On collaborated with Loewe. They signed Burna Boy. Their CFO noted on an earnings call that their shoes are now being worn by "cool kids in affluent high schools across the US" — and that this wasn't something they were chasing, but they were very pleased about it. Trades for On sneakers on StockX increased 695% between 2022 and 2023.
But here's the thing shoe nerds have been pointing out for years: for a long time, On's actual running performance lagged behind their aesthetic reputation. Doctors of Running noted that their trail offering "felt like a design exercise" more than a performance product. Believe in the Run described them as "once better at aesthetics than performance."
The difference now is that On has quietly started catching up on the performance side — the Cloudultra Pro and Cloudmonster Hyper are genuinely competitive — while keeping their visual identity intact. They used the fashion money to fund the performance R&D. That's not cynical. That's actually a smart sequencing of priorities.
So Why Are Brands Slow to Innovate in Race Shoes?
This is the question I find most interesting, and honestly, I don't think there's one clean answer. But here's my best read.
Race shoes are a small market. The overwhelming majority of running shoe revenue comes from daily trainers, not race shoes. Most runners don't want to spend $250+ dollars on a shoe. Those who do buy them only use their super shoes a handful of times per year. Developing a carbon-plated PEBA shoe is enormously expensive — the materials cost more, the manufacturing is more complex, and the performance tolerance is tighter. Brands are doing this R&D for a product that represents a fraction of their total revenue.
The category is already commoditizing. Carbon plate technology, once Nike's proprietary advantage with the Vaporfly, is now everywhere. ASICS, Adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Puma, On, and others all have competitive super shoes. One market analysis noted that carbon-plating is becoming "a commodity feature rather than a premium innovation," leading to margin pressure across the category. When your differentiator is no longer different, the economics of aggressive R&D investment weaken.
World Athletics regulations limit how radical you can go. The 40mm stack height limit and single-plate rule effectively constrain the design space. The next breakthrough isn't going to come from adding more foam or another plate — it's going to come from lighter builds, smarter foam chemistry, rocker geometry, or manufacturing techniques. That's slower and less visible innovation, which makes it harder to market.
Loyal trainer customers don't automatically become loyal race shoe customers. You might think someone who runs in Brooks every day would buy a Brooks race shoe. The data suggests otherwise. When people buy a $250 super shoe, they research it obsessively and buy the one with the best performance reputation — which, for most of the last decade, has been Nike or Adidas. Brand loyalty built on comfort doesn't automatically transfer to a category where performance is the only thing that matters.
So brands like Brooks, Hoka, and On have rationally concluded that their resources are better spent defending and growing their enormous trainer businesses than trying to wrestle Nike and Adidas for a sliver of the race shoe market that most of their customers don't even participate in.
Will Comfort-First Brands Get Left Behind?
Probably not — at least not soon.
Brooks finished 2024 with record global revenue, up 9% year over year, marking eight consecutive years of growth while doing almost nothing technically exciting. Hoka is one of the fastest-growing running brands in the world. On's revenue grew 52% year over year in Q2 2024.
The brands "getting left behind" by innovation are crushing it financially.
What might change things is if the performance gap between super shoes and comfort trainers becomes so visible to casual runners that it starts affecting their purchase decisions. That's already happened at the elite level — you cannot be competitive at the marathon without a carbon-plated shoe. But for the average runner? The comfort and brand familiarity of a Ghost or a Clifton is still winning the in-store try-on test every time.
The more interesting question is whether the next generation of foam technology — PEBA and ATPU compounds becoming cheaper, new supercritical materials, modularity — eventually closes the performance-comfort gap enough that there's no tradeoff anymore. If a shoe can be both as plush as a Bondi and as propulsive as a Vaporfly, the entire strategic calculus changes.
We're not there yet. But some brands are getting closer than others.
In the meantime, Brooks will keep selling Ghosts and Adrenalines and counting its money. And honestly? Fair enough.
Want to find the right shoe for how you actually run? Take our 3 minute quiz, designed to match you to your perfect shoe.
Key Sources
Brooks Running 2024 Full Year Revenue Press Release — https://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us/02-06-2025/
Brooks Running Q3 2024 Earnings ($1 Billion Milestone) — https://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us/10-29-2024/
Brooks Running Q2 2024 Record Quarterly Revenue — https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240730466329/en/Brooks-Running-Continues-2024-Surge-with-All-time-Record-in-Quarterly-Revenue
How Brooks Dominated The Running Market In 2024 (Marathon Handbook) — https://marathonhandbook.com/how-brooks-dominated-the-running-market-in-2024/
Mizuno Neo Zen 2 Review — RunRepeat Lab — https://runrepeat.com/mizuno-neo-zen-2
Mizuno Neo Zen 2 Review — Believe in the Run — https://believeintherun.com/shoe-reviews/mizuno-neo-zen-2-review/
Mizuno Neo Zen 2 Review — Doctors of Running — https://www.doctorsofrunning.com/2026/02/mizuno-neo-zen-2-review-2026.html
Nike Pegasus History — Nike Inc. — https://about.nike.com/en/magazine/how-nike-created-the-pegasus-running-shoe
Nike Pegasus 42 Review — Believe in the Run — https://believeintherun.com/shoe-reviews/nike-pegasus-42-review/
Nike Pegasus 42 Review — Six Minute Mile — https://sixminutemile.com/post/nike-pegasus-42-workhorse-legacy-energetic/
How On Running's Innovation Is Driving Its Rise — Retail Dive — https://www.retaildive.com/news/on-running-athletics-competition-wholesale-innovation/696513/
On Running Story and Brand Strategy — Quartr — https://quartr.com/insights/edge/running-on-clouds-the-story-of-on
On Running 2026 Business Strategy — WWD — https://wwd.com/footwear-news/shoe-industry-news/on-holding-cloudrunner-cloudmonster-running-sneakers-1238346083/
Best On Running Shoes Guide — Doctors of Running — https://www.doctorsofrunning.com/2023/01/best-on-running-shoes-buyers-guide.html
Carbon Plate Running Shoes Market Analysis — Grand Research Store — https://www.grandresearchstore.com/consumer-goods-and-services/carbonplated-sneakers-market
The Future of Running Shoe Brands — Peter Fisk — https://www.peterfisk.com/2025/07/the-future-of-running-shoe-brands-beyond-adidas-and-asics-new-balance-and-nike-as-super-shoes-become-normal-athletes-look-to-next-generation-brands-materials-and-technologies/