In October 2024, we conducted an extensive survey to understand runners’ preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction with various running shoe brands. The survey gathered responses from 794 runners, providing valuable insights into running shoe preferences and how different brands are perceived by their users.
With this sample size, at a 95% confidence level, our survey findings have a margin of error of approximately ±3.5%. While this indicates strong statistical significance, it’s important to note that these findings represent the views and behaviors of our survey respondents and may not be fully representative of the overall running shoe market.
You are free to use this data for your own articles, as long as you credit us by linking back to our site. If you want access to the raw data file, please email guru(at)runningshoesguru.com
Introduction
This analysis explores six key aspects of runners’ relationships with running shoe brands:
- Brand Consideration: Which brands runners consider when shopping for shoes
- Purchase Behavior: How consideration translates into actual buying decisions
- Favorite Brands: Which brands runners prefer and why
- Important Factors: What drives brand preference among runners
- Satisfaction Levels: How satisfied runners are with their chosen brands
- Future Purchase Intentions: Which brands runners plan to buy next
Brand Consideration: Which brand have you considered buying in the past 12 months?
The running shoe market shows clear stratification in terms of brand consideration among runners.
Traditional running-focused brands dominate the top tier, with Asics (467) and Saucony (444) being considered by significantly more runners than other brands.
These specialist running brands are followed by a strong middle tier consisting of New Balance (360), Hoka (359), and Brooks (341), each being considered by roughly similar numbers of runners.
Interestingly, global athletic wear giants Nike (292) and Adidas (285) sit in a lower-middle tier, suggesting that despite their massive presence in general sportswear, they aren’t the go-to choices for dedicated runners.
The consideration set is rounded out by Puma (176), Mizuno (125), and On (119), though it’s worth noting that Puma’s relatively stronger position might reflect their recent push into the performance running market.
The results suggest that runners tend to favor brands with deep running heritage and specialized running expertise over general athletic brands, with traditional running-focused brands commanding the majority of runner consideration.
Purchase Behaviour: How consideration translates into actual buying decisions
Looking at actual purchases in the past 12 months, Saucony (300) and Asics (292) maintain their leadership position from the consideration phase, creating a clear top tier significantly ahead of their competitors.
A solid middle tier emerges with Nike, New Balance, Hoka, and Brooks all clustered very closely together (181-183 purchases), followed by Adidas (171).
The bottom tier comprises Puma (92), while Mizuno (54) and On (45) lag significantly behind – though this may reflect their smaller market presence or more specialized positioning in the running shoe market.
The conversion rate indicates what percentage of runners who considered a brand went on to make a purchase from that brand in the past 12 months. This is calculated by dividing the number of purchases by the number of considerations for each brand, giving us insight into how effectively brands convert interest into sales.
Saucony emerges as the clear leader, converting 67.6% of considerations into purchases, followed closely by Nike (62.7%) and Asics (62.5%) – an interesting mix of specialist running and general athletic brands.
A distinct middle tier in conversion effectiveness includes Adidas (60%), Brooks (53.1%), and Puma (52.3%), while New Balance and Hoka hover around the 50% mark despite their strong consideration numbers.
Most notably, this data challenges the narrative from the consideration numbers – while traditional running brands dominated consideration, the conversion rates show global athletic brands Nike and Adidas performing remarkably well at converting interest into sales.
At the lower end, Mizuno (43.2%) and particularly On (37.8%) show significantly lower conversion rates, suggesting potential barriers between interest and purchase for these brands – possibly related to factors such as pricing, availability, or the need to try these brands in person before purchase.
This conversion analysis paints a different picture from the pure consideration data, suggesting that while specialized running brands might capture initial interest more effectively, both specialist and major athletic brands can be equally effective at converting that interest into sales.
This could indicate that factors beyond pure running heritage – such as pricing strategy, distribution networks, or marketing effectiveness – play crucial roles in the final purchase decision.
Favorite brands: Which brands runners prefer and why
When runners were asked to select their single favorite brand, Saucony (192) emerges as the clear leader, significantly ahead of second-place Asics (142). A distinct middle tier forms with Brooks (97), Nike (95), and Hoka (91) clustered closely together, followed by New Balance (66) and Adidas (60). The bottom tier consists of Puma (26), Mizuno (18), and On (7), showing a significant drop-off from the higher tiers.
Looking at the progression from consideration to favorite brand provides fascinating insights into brand loyalty and preference strength. Saucony shows remarkable effectiveness in converting both consideration (43.2% of those who considered Saucony named it their favorite) and purchases (64.0% of purchasers consider it their favorite) into brand preference. Similarly, Nike and Brooks show strong ability to convert purchasers into loyal fans, with 51.9% and 53.6% of their purchasers respectively naming them as favorite brands. In contrast, brands like On (15.6% of purchasers name it favorite) and Puma (28.3%) struggle to convert even their customers into brand advocates.
This progression analysis reveals that while some brands may be widely considered or purchased, their ability to become a runner’s favorite varies dramatically. The data suggests that certain brands, particularly Saucony, have found a sweet spot in not just attracting consideration but in delivering an experience that converts runners into brand advocates. Meanwhile, the relatively low conversion rates for some brands might indicate either a role as a complementary rather than primary running shoe, or potential gaps between expectations and experience.
Important Factors: What drives brand preference among runners
When examining the factors that drive brand preference among runners, two factors clearly dominate: Comfort (346) and Performance (333), together accounting for about 85% of all responses. There is then a significant drop to a second tier consisting of Durability (48) and Price (28), followed by a third tier of Style/Design (17), Brand Reputation (12), and Availability (10).
Looking at how these factors vary by brand reveals interesting patterns. Brooks (56.7%), Hoka (67.0%), and New Balance (59.1%) are predominantly chosen for Comfort, while Saucony (52.6%), Puma (61.5%), and Adidas (48.3%) are primarily selected for Performance. Asics shows a more balanced profile between Performance (43.0%) and Comfort (41.5%). Interestingly, Nike stands out with a significant portion of runners (9.5%) citing Style/Design as their primary reason for preference – the highest among all brands for this factor.
These findings suggest that while runners primarily make their brand choices based on functional aspects (Comfort and Performance), different brands have successfully positioned themselves along these axes in distinct ways. The data also reveals that factors often emphasized in marketing, such as style and brand reputation, play a surprisingly minor role in runners’ brand preferences, with practical considerations clearly dominating the decision-making process.
Satisfaction Levels: How satisfied runners are with their chosen brands
The satisfaction survey reveals overwhelmingly positive feedback across all brands, with an impressive overall satisfaction score of 4.45 out of 5. The distribution is heavily skewed toward high satisfaction, with 93.8% of respondents rating their shoes either 4 or 5 stars. More specifically, 51.5% gave a 5-star rating and 42.3% gave a 4-star rating, while only 6.2% rated their shoes 3 stars or below.
Looking at individual brands, satisfaction scores range from 4.17 to 4.57, showing consistently high satisfaction across the board. While On leads with a 4.57 average, its small sample size (n=7) makes this finding less reliable. Among brands with substantial sample sizes, Hoka and Brooks share the top position (both 4.53), followed closely by Puma (4.50), Asics and Saucony (both 4.49). Notably, even the lowest-rated brands – Nike (4.31) and Adidas (4.17) – maintain very positive scores above 4 stars, though they do show a slightly higher proportion of 3-star ratings compared to other brands.
These remarkably high satisfaction scores across all brands suggest that running shoe manufacturers are generally meeting or exceeding runner expectations. The minimal variation between brands (a range of just 0.4 between the highest and lowest scores among major brands) indicates that while runners may have strong brand preferences, the actual experience with their chosen brand tends to be consistently positive.
Future Purchase Intentions: Which brands runners plan to buy next
The chart compares the number of runners who currently favor a brand with those who plan to buy it next, shown as a percentage change. For instance, a +47% for New Balance means that 47% more runners plan to buy New Balance next compared to those who currently consider it their favorite brand (from 66 current fans to 97 future buyers).
Looking at future purchase intentions reveals some significant shifts in the running shoe market. Two distinct groups emerge: brands gaining momentum and brands experiencing decline. On shows the most dramatic increase, with nearly four times as many runners planning to buy it compared to current favorites (+285.7%, from 7 to 27 runners). New Balance also shows strong momentum with 47% more future buyers than current favorites (+31 runners), followed by Puma with a 61.5% increase (+16 runners). On the other end, Saucony shows the most significant decline, with 33.9% fewer future purchase intentions than current favorites (-65 runners), while Nike also sees a notable 25.3% decrease (-24 runners).
The middle of the market shows interesting stability, with Brooks, Hoka, and Asics maintaining nearly equal numbers between current favorites and future purchases (variations under 10%). This suggests these brands have found a stable market position, neither gaining significant new converts nor losing current supporters in large numbers.
These patterns could indicate a market in transition, with runners showing increased interest in brands that might be seen as challengers to traditional market leaders. The strong showing from On, New Balance, and Puma, combined with the decline in Saucony and Nike purchase intentions, might reflect changing preferences in the running community or successful innovation and marketing from the ascending brands.
Some final observations
Looking across all aspects of this running shoe market analysis, several key patterns emerge that paint a picture of a dynamic and evolving market. The analysis reveals both the strength of traditional brands and the emergence of exciting challengers, suggesting an industry in transition.
Market Dynamics
- Traditional running brands (Asics, Saucony) dominate initial brand consideration
- However, high consideration doesn’t automatically translate to purchases or loyalty
- High overall satisfaction (4.45/5.0 average) across all brands
- Market shows significant fluidity in future purchase intentions
The data reveals an interesting tension between specialist running brands and general athletic brands. While running specialists excel at entering the consideration set, global athletic giants like Nike and Adidas show remarkable efficiency in converting consideration to purchase. This challenges the notion that serious runners automatically prefer specialist brands.
Emerging Challengers & Future Implications
- On and Puma show remarkable momentum in future purchase intentions
- On demonstrates the most dramatic growth from current favorites to future intentions
- New Balance gaining significant ground in future purchase plans
- High satisfaction across brands enables easier brand switching
- More diverse and competitive market likely to emerge
- Established leaders will need to work harder to maintain their positions
These patterns point to an industry where established leaders can’t rest on their laurels.
While traditional running brands maintain strong positions, the high satisfaction scores across all brands combined with significant variation in future purchase intentions indicate that runners are increasingly willing to experiment. The running shoe market of tomorrow may look quite different from today’s.
Want to use this data for your own research? Send us an email at guru(at)runningshoesguru.com!
