just a mini one - 2 cents on skims, etc

A skims x nike collab is squarely in the intersection of my interests and consumption habits so i’d be remiss not to weigh in.

As far as i can tell, the news was broken by Lauren Sherman over at Puck (non-paywalled link here) today that Skims and Nike are collaborating with “NikeSkims” (incredible name), with product rumored to start showing up in Spring this year.

Some initial thoughts and what stood out to me;

• its rare that you get an announcement like this without any type of product tease. the inference is that the priority here is press, not product which is certainly one way at it. i’m excited to see what the product actually looks like and how it is distinct from either brands core offerings. or what it brings together from both.

• Nike has been lagging with women. Although some people i know have been rejecting the idea proposed by Lauren that Nike is suffering with their womens offering, or has even pushed some women away, I do think that swoosh has been leaving a lot on the table w/ regards to women - which i’m pretty sure i’ve written about here at length. I’ll go one further and share a lil screenshot of a dm between me and

  Rae Witte
  here:

  

  For that reason, the move is savvy; Alo’s sports bras, for example, i’d wager are selling WAY more than Nike sports bras in the key cities that once made Nike what it is (NYC, LA). And nike once touted the innovation and design story of their sports bras with immense pride, as a proof-point of their investment in serving women athletes. The womens apparel business should be printing money for Nike and i’m sure it isnt, which i perceive squarely as a product issue, not a brand one. As someone who works out 5-6 days a week (when it isnt -15 outside), I’ve favored Alo for years at this point because it’s simple, inoffensive, the product holds up well if you take care of it, there are no egregious logos and most importantly, it’s comfortable.
  

• this is a divergence from the prioritization of Athletes and the repeated ‘getting back to athletes’ energy that press narratives around Nike have been boosting for awhile. It doesnt get much further from a pure athlete story than Kim K, who falls under Nike’s ambiguous “Athletes*” (with an asterisk) definition of a couple of years back, when the brand was more inclusive in its definitions and willing to apply it to any number of creative professions, cultural producers or influencers. I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but its a different tone than the rest of what is being communicated from the brand right now.
  
  it’s also interesting to see them lean into the “Body obsessed” angle which is way more Skims’ DNA than Nike’s. highlighting appearance as a motivation for fitness seems to not be something they talk about that much. am i wrong?
  

• who stands to gain in this partnership? I’d argue Nike need this way more than Skims in the near-term (being that this won’t even be globally available until 2026; im sure Nike’s global distro was of interest to Skims). It does seem to be an admission of knowing there’s a deficiency in womens apparel design, which is problematic. If it’s true that this partnership is a pilot for acquisition, it would make more sense, but feels as though Skims would be better as an adjacent brand vs. a sub-brand; same as Converse.

  

• Skims has been out-Nikeing Nike for a while now. Which has been very intentional; Jens Grede has been talking about how they are inspired by Jordan and Nike for a long time. And they’ve kind of eclipsed the swoosh at their own game with the Skims customer. Not just through their clever collabs, but the novel product innovation that ‘solves problems’ for the core consumer (one-thigh shapewear, nipple bras, padded booty shapewear shorts - you have to give them credit). It may not be solving athlete problems, but it is solving the problems of the Skims buyer. Their marketing has been more innovative and clearly lacks the bureaucratic behind-the-scenes process built-into a bigger company like swoosh; they’re fast-to-market with editorials and collabs of whoever is driving the discourse at any given time. Lastly, their pop-ups and retail/spatial design deserves a lot of praise; this used to be a space that Nike excelled (and i’m sure will be getting back to soon).
  
  again, this kind of leaves me wondering what is in it for Skims?

  

• what’s the temp check on Kim K right now? Culturally, it seems like she’s no longer bulletproof (which might be certainly part of the equation in why she wanted to take this partnership on). I felt a little lag in her relevance when i saw people’s reactions to her christmas video, her fondness for cybertrucks or other elon-adjacent robotics, and even posting Melania Trump on inauguration day. From people who actually direct trends, there’s been a longstanding acceptance of begrudgingly loving Skims in spite of (not because of) who is behind the brand, and i’m not sure she’s helped aid that in the past few months.
  

• My overall take: Neither brand needed to do this. Nike has a rolodex of incredible designers that could make wonderful womens product if they were enabled. Skims is already absolutely killing it on their own. Why would the next Nike go ahead and join Nike? (Maybe they just want to get under the hood and see how things work so they can continue to scale.) The fact they’re both doing it anyway tells me the product might be really special, or this is absolutely some sort of long game us casuals / armchair analysts aren’t privy to.

Anyway let me know what yall think!

GG x