Swiss sportswear brand On announced a subscription-based trainer. On, whose subscription will cost £25/month, claim to have created a revolutionary, zero-waste product. Brilliant or BS? Let's see:
Glad you enjoyed it, Jake (with your 5k times you're at demigod status already in my eyes!)
You raise a good point. The subscription is only for the Cyclon model, which in turn only comes in (dye-free) white. There is no flexibility; replacement shoes will always be identical. I think this serves further evidence of what the target market may look like: top runners, who care more about performance than looking good. But, who knows? If Cyclons are a big success, On may well look to expand the range available in the future.
How often are customers allowed to replace their shoes, worn-out is subjective?
Are the beans grown sustainably? Could this do more harm than good? Would it not be better to use ocean-bound plastic for example, as has been done by Nike or adidas?
Not sure it would lead to the direct demise of the high street, online retail probably doing more damage than subscription. This must be a marketing ploy, or is it...
Hi Thomas - thanks for the great questions, will try my best to address them in turn.
1. You raise an interesting point as there is an obvious conflict of interest here between On and its customers. Cyclons will be designed to cover 400km, after which performance declines. The costs incurred each time shoes are exchanged (shipping, packaging, manufacturing etc) means On will want customers to keep the shoes as long as possible. Seems like they're aiming for max 2 pairs per year. Subscribers, on the other hand, will likely want new clean white treds more frequently than that. Will be interesting to see how On approach this going forward.
2. Regarding the beans, there is a lot of talk linking soy production and deforestation (particularly in the Amazon). As far as I’m aware, however, castor beans are less controversial - the soil requirements are minimal and castor tends to be grown on land which isn’t suitable for other commercial farming.
3. I think clothing made out of recycled plastic is a marketing sham. The problem with plastics is that most can only be recycled once before the quality degrades. I remember last year Adidas partnering with various football clubs (Real Madrid and Manchester United being two of them) in a high-profile campaign to produce football shirts from recycled plastic. A nice initiative no doubt, but in reality this is just another step added in the linear economy (make-use-waste). On’s model is different, its circular (make-use-recycle-reuse).
Great article Leo!
What numbers, exactly, must one be aiming for to achieve demigod status?
Really interesting similarities between the "fast-fashion subscription" and that of the Cyclon.
I feel that people often want a slight change in style when they order a new pair of trainers. Is this possible with the Cyclon subscription?
Glad you enjoyed it, Jake (with your 5k times you're at demigod status already in my eyes!)
You raise a good point. The subscription is only for the Cyclon model, which in turn only comes in (dye-free) white. There is no flexibility; replacement shoes will always be identical. I think this serves further evidence of what the target market may look like: top runners, who care more about performance than looking good. But, who knows? If Cyclons are a big success, On may well look to expand the range available in the future.
There’s definitely an element of being part of an “exclusive” club and being first to it for that matter.
How often are customers allowed to replace their shoes, worn-out is subjective?
Are the beans grown sustainably? Could this do more harm than good? Would it not be better to use ocean-bound plastic for example, as has been done by Nike or adidas?
Not sure it would lead to the direct demise of the high street, online retail probably doing more damage than subscription. This must be a marketing ploy, or is it...
Hi Thomas - thanks for the great questions, will try my best to address them in turn.
1. You raise an interesting point as there is an obvious conflict of interest here between On and its customers. Cyclons will be designed to cover 400km, after which performance declines. The costs incurred each time shoes are exchanged (shipping, packaging, manufacturing etc) means On will want customers to keep the shoes as long as possible. Seems like they're aiming for max 2 pairs per year. Subscribers, on the other hand, will likely want new clean white treds more frequently than that. Will be interesting to see how On approach this going forward.
2. Regarding the beans, there is a lot of talk linking soy production and deforestation (particularly in the Amazon). As far as I’m aware, however, castor beans are less controversial - the soil requirements are minimal and castor tends to be grown on land which isn’t suitable for other commercial farming.
3. I think clothing made out of recycled plastic is a marketing sham. The problem with plastics is that most can only be recycled once before the quality degrades. I remember last year Adidas partnering with various football clubs (Real Madrid and Manchester United being two of them) in a high-profile campaign to produce football shirts from recycled plastic. A nice initiative no doubt, but in reality this is just another step added in the linear economy (make-use-waste). On’s model is different, its circular (make-use-recycle-reuse).