GIVEAWAY!!!! Invisible Shoes June Giveaway - Expires Thursday, June 7, at midnight

His marketing strategy is why I don't support IS. He has a great product which I can't fault other than the laces are rough on my sensitive skin.
........
I think that would be great. Like I said, his videos crack me up. I have no ill will towards him. Just wish he would change his marketing strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Pardon me for coming late into this conversation. Running our company is a more-than-full-time job and I'm not as on top of all the conversations as I'd like to be.

Okay, let's start at the END, if that's possible ;-)

We're nearing the end of rebranding our company/product and the "offending statement" (better-than-barefoot) won't be a part of our new site. So, if we could just wait until my web guys are done with the new site, this will all be moot.

I'm happy to say more in the meantime, but I can't do it now... I was at the Colorado Senior Games from 10am - 5pm today. 95+ degrees. Colorado sun. No shade. LOTS of running (won the 50m, the 100m, and was 2nd in the 200m by 1"... it was my first time running the 200m). In other words, I can barely stand up at the moment (I have a treadmill desk, so I need to stand in order to type).

Back when I've recovered, and have the time required to respond appropriately (oh, and my computer is going to the Apple store bright and early tomorrow, so I'm not sure when I'll be back online).

BTW, I'm more than open to discussing matters like this DIRECTLY -- my phone number is all over the site and, to make life easier, here it is now: 303.447.3100 x 1001
 
Thank you, Steven. I will call you tomorrow, afternoon, as I know you like your brunch. ;)
 
We're nearing the end of rebranding our company/product and the "offending statement" (better-than-barefoot) won't be a part of our new site. So, if we could just wait until my web guys are done with the new site, this will all be moot.

BTW, I'm more than open to discussing matters like this DIRECTLY -- my phone number is all over the site and, to make life easier, here it is now: 303.447.3100 x 1001

'nuff said. I appreciate your recognizing the problem and making yourself available to any future conversation.
 
Grab a snack and get comfortable for this one.

Marketing strategies are a tricky business. While I personally wouldn't use Steven's strategy, it's not necessarily inaccurate. Huaraches DO protect you from the dangers presented by things like broken glass and they DO keep the soles slightly more clean. I agree with BL- the glass danger bit is definitely over-played. A MUCH better strategy would be to take a picture of a gnarly trail as an example of a place where the protection of shoes are an advantage.

In Steven's case in particular, I know him personally. He's a great guy with a great product. I haven't always agreed with some of his marketing ideas, but he has been an ardent supporter of the barefoot running movement. I'm glad he's dropping the current marketing idea. His product simply doesn't need to go there; it can stand on its own merits. TJ's decision to partner with IS was aligned with the values we established when we founded the BRS, and I support the decision.

The marketing used to sell minimalist shoes sometimes does cross lines that annoy me, but the net result is a win for us. If a shoe company bases their marketing around the idea that their shoe is "better than barefoot", we really have two choices:

A) we can bitch and moan about it by complaining on forums or sending the companies emails, or
B) we can use it as an opportunity to engage THEIR customers to expand our influence to a group we wouldn't normally be able to engage.

Like Steven's case, the "better than barefoot" statement isn't necessarily inaccurate. For 90% of the running I do, shoes would be better than barefoot. My goal is to educate people that barefoot running has merit for that 10% of my runs and can be an invaluable tool to help many people learn to run better. Some of those people will end up running barefoot nearly full-time, which happens to be a great by-product.

I classify this debate in the same category as the "barefoot shoes" debate. We have a choice to either be right or be effective. In my early barefoot days, I was concerned about being right. I didn't manage to convince too many people to run barefoot in those days. Eventually the light clicked and I decided to focus on being effective. The result?
  • Barefoot Running University, which has gotten over 1.7 million page views and over 100,000 views per month,
  • The Barefoot Running Book, which has been purchased or downloaded about 26,000 times and the free version has been shared countless times, all before being picked up by a "real" publisher,
  • Partnering with Merrell to help develop a barefoot education program that has drawn thousands of participants over the last year, and helped influence the most robust line of true minimalist shoes in the industry.
Noneof this would have been possible if I wouldn't have shifted my focus a few years ago. When we founded the BRS, we had that exact same discussion... do we take the "purist" approach or become inclusive? Some wanted the purist approach and fought hard for it. They wanted the BRS to be an exclusive club that shunned shoes. I think TJ realized the same thing I did- if the BRS was going to be an influential entity, we had to accept that most people have little interest in barefoot running. Accepting that fact, paradoxically, is the best way to sell the idea of barefoot running.

I know a lot of the purists can't stand my willing acceptance of minimalist shoes and willingness to ignore dumb marketing. They fail to realize the only way to eradicate such marketing is to work with the companies, not against them.

There was a news story recently about a school that wouldn't allow cell phones during graduation practice. One of their graduates was a baseball phenom that was expected to be drafted in the first round. New baseball draft rules require draftees to essentially negotiate a contract as soon as they're drafted, so the kid had to have in phone with him. The school wouldn't bend on the policy, so the kid skipped practice. As a result, the administration wouldn't let him participate in the graduation ceremony. As a former teacher, I saw this happen A LOT. Some people completely ignore the big picture and focus only on the policies, rules, or some morally-superior position. Here's a kid that was about to be drafted and sign a million dollar-plus contract. The school should have been celebrating the accomplishments of their soon-to-be alumni. Instead, they chose to "stick to their guns" and follow the policy. They wanted to be right, not effective.

I simply do not understand this line of black-and-white thinking. The argument the admin probably used was along the lines of "If we change the rules for one, we'd have to change the rules for all." BIG F-ING DEAL... THIS KID IS A FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICK! This would have put the school on the map. If they hadn't pissed the kid off, he likely would have donated money. The school could have turned this into a huge press conference to get tons of positive press which would have made the school a desirable destination in the area. Instead, the admin looks like a bunch of arrogant a-holes that see the world as black-and-white. I'd never send my kids to that school.

Our challenge as barefoot runners is to determine where we're willing to draw the line. One of my favorite authors, Hugh MacLeod, talks about this in this book "Ignore Everyone." At one end of the spectrum we have idealists that insist on correct semantics and demand companies follow a rigid set of rules when discussing barefoot running. At the other end we have shameless cynics that are willing to sell out and do anything to make a buck. To quote Hugh-

"Anyone can be an idealist. Anyone can be a cynic. The hard part lies somewhere in the middle- i.e. being human."

There's a point of maximum effectiveness on that spectrum, and we all struggle to find it. I believe I've struck a good balance. I believe TJ has struck a good balance, too. We've both been at this for awhile now. Finding that balance has been a long, painful process. Trust that we know what we're doing.

End of dissertation.
 
Jason, while I realize your dissertation (! – get ready for another) is not entirely directed towards me, I feel I should respond a bit to clarify my stance.

I think my above comments address most of the points you make and are practical, not ideological, in nature. “Better than barefoot” with a ton of qualifications works, but by itself, as a bold-faced, large-font, headline-type slogan displayed prominently on a footwear company’s web page, it doesn’t, and may actively discourage newcomers or the ‘bare-curious.’ That’s the particular bone I’m picking here. As I said, even my toddling son probably already realizes that footwear protects his feet.

The simple fact is that most of the reservations that I’ve heard expressed about barefoot running center on the whole ‘what about all the sharp pointy stuff?’ question. A lot of us barefooters feel this fear is greatly exaggerated, and from all that I’ve heard and read, it’s the number one reason people are hesitant to give BFR a try, which is ironic, because most BFRers agree that the main barrier to participation is the transition phase one has to undergo, along with the attendant risks of incurring barefoot-specific injuries therein. The truth is I nick up my hands just doing stuff like yard work once in a while a lot more than I do my feet while barefooting close to all the time, but I never wear gloves unless I’m working with a grinder or something (--maybe working with heavy metal is the manual equivalent to your gnarly trails?). So to have a putatively barefoot-friendly brand of footwear feature this misconception prominently in their marketing is really counterproductive, not just annoying, whether or not it’s deployed dishonestly or unwittingly. I can’t see how it’s a win for BFR, and on this we’ll have to disagree.

This has nothing to do with purism. And as a casual barefooter of some 30 years, I’ve come to realize, through reactions and conversations, that people love their shoes, and most people will opt for them. “No problemo” -- I realize I'm the foreigner here. I also have no problem with barefoot running and minimalist running being grouped together and given a hypernym like ‘natural running.’ When barefoot runners start talking about their shoes, I generally skip those posts, reviews, or threads. It’s easy to do, and I agree that trying to separate us into two distinct camps wouldn’t work and would be counterproductive. Although I’m fairly purist in practice, I’m not purist ideologically. I generally feel uncomfortable around purists of any sort and am boringly moderate in most things. Plus, I’ve learned the most about running from watching the elite shod runners (like Usain Bolt) and from reading elite shod trainers (like Steve Magness) who have been practicing ‘bare form’ all along. Anyone who tells you barefoot running is somehow special or that there’s a special trick to it or that good form can only be achieved with bare feet is just talking out of their a$$.

What a lot of people realize, including the elites, is that barefoot running is the royal road to good form. That’s the common denominator in all this, as you and others have pointed out. But once you achieve good form, whether you stick to BFR or not really depends on how much pleasure you derive from groundfeel (that’s me), or how much you enjoy BFR as some kind of identity marker (I don’t, and generally don the sandals/shoes if bare feet will lead to an otherwise avoidable confrontation), in comparison to whatever protection or performance enhancement is enabled by shod running. In my case, the pleasures of barefooting far outweigh the benefits of footwear. I realize I’m in the minority. I only use footwear to run when it’s really cold; the asphalt, concrete, and trails I run on close to my home in St. Paul are all very doable barefooted. Your case--traveling around the country testing your limits on gnarly trails and in ultra-marathons--is not what most potential barefoot runners are up against either. You may only be able to run barefoot 10% of the time, but you also probably represent less than 10% of all barefoot runners, whether actual-existing or potential.

I still have problems with the term “barefoot shoes,” for reasons detailed by Ken Bob, but agree with you that the overall good of embracing this term probably outweighs the possible harm, provided that “barefoot footwear” marketers extoll the benefits of barefoot form without resorting to scare tactics and nonsense about all the sh*t that’s going to cut up your feet if you actually try running with “barefoot bare feet”. Anyone involved in the barefoot ‘movement’ or ‘community’ who really believes that most people under most conditions will only be able to run barefoot 10% of the time probably doesn’t belong in the movement/community. Or perhaps better put: if only 10% of nominal barefoot runners are actually running without footwear, we should admit there is no movement or community to speak of, just a rediscovered technique that’s finally filtering down to the masses. If that’s the case, so be it. I’m not evangelical about this. I was very happy to discover other barefoot runners through this forum and your site, but if tomorrow I wake up and find myself to be the only one who likes to run barefoot, it won’t really matter to me. I have a lot less invested in this trend/community/movement/technique than you all do :p .

Please excuse the convoluted syntax.

Your loyal reader, BL
 
Okay, I'm minutes away from having to unplug my computer and run to the Apple store. But having read the posts subsequent to mine, I wanted to get in a couple o' comments before I leave:

a) Thanks, Jason, for saying much of what I was planning on saying. You saved me a TON of typing ;-) (and thanks for the compliments). To echo a point of Jason's: I was on the track yesterday, and there were 4 conditions that made barefoot impractical, if not impossible:
  1. The track temperature was 120 degrees
  2. The track itself was surfaced in a way that made broken glass feel like silk
  3. I'm a sprinter... can't do that barefoot. Gotta wear spikes
  4. The path to the track was covered in "goatheads," which are, well, if you don't know what they are, let me just say: you do NOT want to step on one
b) Try not to confuse the one phrase -- "better-than-barefoot" -- that's on one page, with our complete "marketing strategy". I think the line we have in the header (which appears on every page, is a better candidate for our "marketing strategy": "Barefoot... PLUS!" And our slogan -- also on every page, and also the name of our company -- "Feel The World" is a good 2nd place finisher.

c) Please don't put words in my mouth: I don't say anything about broken glass on that page, and I'm not sure I say it on ANY page. In fact, as Jason alluded, when I wrote in the 4th paragraph, "...the stuff on the ground that can hurt and cut your feet..." I *was* thinking about trails and other challenging surfaces.

Want to know the great irony about why I don't talk about the "dangers of broken glass" (and, in fact, mock it in my Sh*t Barefoot videos)? Because I made a living for 5 years as a street performer... and the finale of my act was... wait for it... WALKING ON BROKEN GLASS IN MY BARE FEET! ;-)

By the way, having now spoken to thousands of people about being barefoot, I have to tell you: The FIRST objection you hear from the MAJORITY of people is: "What if I step on something and get hurt?" You and I and others on this forum know that fear is overblown, and compared to "shoe-caused" injuries, irrelevant. But obviously, I have to address their thoughts and fears -- which as Jason and I said, are not entirely unfounded -- and I think that I do so in the 4th paragraph in a pretty non-hype-y way.

d) Similarly, try not to "over-parse" a single page. Think of "better-than-barefoot" as headline for a newspaper article. You can't tell the whole story in the headline. You use the headline to get attention so that people will read the story. And the "story" on that page, told in the first 5 paragraphs is: Barefoot is great, but there are times where it's not appropriate; that's why we sell our product. If you take any one of those elements out of context, you're arguing against a point that I'm not making.

Another bit of over-parsing: there's a lot of attention being paid to "stuff on the ground..." which is merely one phrase in a paragraph, which is one paragraph out of >20 paragraphs (and a video) on that page, which is one page out of hundreds on my site, and one comment out of thousands that I've made online.

e) Check out my more popular posts (in the search engines and among viewers of the site) at, say: www.invisibleshoe.com/1310/how-to-run-barefoot, where I never even say "buy my shoes"... or, even better, at http://www.invisibleshoe.com/598/barefoot-running-isnt-just-running-barefoot/ where I make the point that even our shoes aren't the same as running barefoot.

I know there are other places where I make the distinction between the two, and I do so because I know and live the distinction. I spend a lot of time barefoot. And when I don't want to be barefoot, for whatever reason, I'm in my shoes. And that's the message I try to communicate repeatedly on my site, and in all my public posts, since that's what I think. (I try to be consistent, but I'm sure that, like other humans, I'm not 100%.)

f) Speaking of my shoes, try not to lump me into the same heap as companies that sell products that are as close to barefoot as a pair of stilts and then argue that we're all doing the same thing. It's one thing to sell a shoe with a 12mm heel drop and 1" of foam between you and the ground and call it "barefoot." It's another to sell a 4 or 6mm piece of rubber that, by the way, was recently tested in an independent university study (they called and asked for shoes... I sent them, knowing nothing about why) and shown to be biomechanically the same as barefoot, plus a layer of protection.

And, really, THAT has been our "marketing strategy" all along: to communicate that we are the closest thing there is to barefoot... plus a layer of protection (and some style).

g) If possible, don't ignore what I *don't* say. While I believe in the myriad benefits of being barefoot, many of which are NOT the commonly discussed ones (strengthening, etc.), I don't talk about many of them. Why? Because I know that anecdotes do not equal data, and because the FTC requires me to back up any claims I make. My point here is that I try to be attentive to what I say. I may not do it perfectly... hence this conversation.

I can't promise I won't say something that someone disagrees with or takes issue with. That seems an unlikely possibility no matter how careful I am. But I will say that:
  1. If I say it, I probably have a compelling argument to support my claim
  2. If I'm wrong or way off base or was just having a bad-brain day, I'll change it. Rumor has it, I've been wrong in the past, and I'll probably make some other mistake in the future (just ask my wife)
  3. Like I said before, I may not make everyone happy 100% of the time (despite my wish for all humanity to love me, no matter what)
Okay, that was WAY more than I planned and now I'm late for the my appointment at Apple ;-)

Again, the invitation is open... give a call when you want to. The conversation about barefoot/performance/footwear/health/life/critical thinking is my favorite conversation in the world.
 
Oh, one last thing:

I'm not going to simply pull down "better-than-barefoot" for reasons that have nothing to do with this conversation, or the validity of anyone's thoughts, points, or opinions (mine, included).

The reasons are:

a) Again, we're changing our name, domain, and site... and once that's launched, this will all be moot.
b) Google has been making many tweaks to their algorithm... I don't want to test the effects of copy changes.
c) The template we used on that site isn't the best... and there's a lot of custom-coding involving the phrase "better-than-barefoot" (because it's actually the title of a page on the site that's used as the home page). To change the title would mean making lots of other changes, deep within the code of the site. And given our upcoming name change and the limitations of my time at the moment, I don't want to spend the time to hunt down and change the code.
 
BL- I agree with each of your points. My long-winded rant was only directed toward you in the sense that I didn't like you calling TJ out for the association with Invisible Shoes. Having been intimately involved in the behind-the-scenes work here at the BRS (and BRU), I know the difficult decisions she has to make on a daily basis. I think most barefoot runners would agree that Steven's soon-to-be-former marketing statements were dumb, but the net positive impact he's made on the running community far outweigh a few statements. Because of this, I support her decision.

Based on your posts here and the comments at BRU, you have a better grasp of the nuances of the gray area than the vast majority of barefoot runners. The response was more directed toward others that take one of the extreme stances.

Your last point is really interesting. A good number of us seem to be moving from a "barefoot is the ideal" to a "barefoot helps discover your best form" paradigm. How will this change the barefoot running community? We're already seeing some change based on the tone of the questions and answers posed here and on that other forum. Are we strengthening our position, or diluting ourselves in the growing mass of people interested in improved running form? I don't have a good answer or even enough observations to give a decent prediction. Thoughts?
 
Steve,
All I was talking about was that first page, the page that everyone sees first, precisely because of the headline-like prominence. You're deep inside and have thought about each and every page. Try to adopt the perspective of a casual viewer, and you may understand my complaint.

As for
"c) Please don't put words in my mouth: I don't say anything about broken glass on that page, and I'm not sure I say it on ANY page. In fact, as Jason alluded, when I wrote in the 4th paragraph, "...the stuff on the ground that can hurt and cut your feet..." I *was* thinking about trails and other challenging surfaces."

Once again you have to adopt the perspective of the 'bare-curious.' Broken glass is on their minds, not gnarly trails.

All the other points have already been addressed in my above comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
BL- I agree with each of your points. My long-winded rant was only directed toward you in the sense that I didn't like you calling TJ out for the association with Invisible Shoes. Having been intimately involved in the behind-the-scenes work here at the BRS (and BRU), I know the difficult decisions she has to make on a daily basis. I think most barefoot runners would agree that Steven's soon-to-be-former marketing statements were dumb, but the net positive impact he's made on the running community far outweigh a few statements. Because of this, I support her decision.

Based on your posts here and the comments at BRU, you have a better grasp of the nuances of the gray area than the vast majority of barefoot runners. The response was more directed toward others that take one of the extreme stances.

Your last point is really interesting. A good number of us seem to be moving from a "barefoot is the ideal" to a "barefoot helps discover your best form" paradigm. How will this change the barefoot running community? We're already seeing some change based on the tone of the questions and answers posed here and on that other forum. Are we strengthening our position, or diluting ourselves in the growing mass of people interested in improved running form? I don't have a good answer or even enough observations to give a decent prediction. Thoughts?

Yeah, as I said, I realize you were making a general, public statement, but felt the need to clarify my position nonetheless.

I've already apologized to TJ for reactively registering my complaint, while at the same time remaining convinced that BRS does bear responsibility for its endorsements. And I still believe any discouragement, as opposed to a nuanced description, of barefoot running, whether done dishonestly, or unwittingly, as is apparently the case with IS, should not be allowed.

Finally, as regards your last point, I have no real investment in the barefoot 'movement' or 'community', and have always felt a bit uncomfortable with those terms. I just ask that people are given a fair chance to hear the case for BFR, give it a try, and then decide for themselves what's best for their running goals--in terms of performance, challenge, pleasure, fitness, etc. I don't really care if they opt for a relatively purist approach, like Ken Bob, or a mix, like you, or do 100% shod like Pete Larsen. I don't really see it mattering one way or the other; we all want to enjoy running and remain injury-free, and that's all the community or movement I need. So yes, I would say you're strengthening your/our position with a big tent approach, but truth be told, I'm much more concerned about the impending implosion of global capitalism :eek: . I will say that I do enjoy the company of barefoot runners immensely--we tend to be an iconoclastic bunch, much more free-spirited than your average, shod competitive runner, it seems to me, although my generalization is pretty superficial considering my relatively recent participation in all this.
 
Okay, I moved my Apple time since I was going to be late ;-)

Steve,
All I was talking about was that first page, the page that everyone sees first, precisely because of the headline-like prominence. You're deep inside and have thought about each and every page. Try to adopt the perspective of a casual viewer, and you may understand my complaint.

Lee, I have an advantage that you don't have. I actually KNOW what people see when they come to my site. I have software that shows what they do, where the cursor moves... it practically tracks eye movement. What I can tell you is that reality is different than you think:

The FIRST THING they see is my header... which says "Barefoot... PLUS!" and "Feel The World."

The SECOND thing they see is a video.

Often the third thing they see is the opt-in form.

The fourth thing they see is the sub-head which, IN CONJUNCTION with the next few paragraphs, which they also see, tells a story: Barefoot is great. Sometimes it's not. Here's for when it's not.

Further, if you looked at my web-stats you would see that:

a) over 50% of my visitors do NOT see that page first
b) over 80% of the people who see that page first see other pages on the site


As for
"c) Please don't put words in my mouth: I don't say anything about broken glass on that page, and I'm not sure I say it on ANY page. In fact, as Jason alluded, when I wrote in the 4th paragraph, "...the stuff on the ground that can hurt and cut your feet..." I *was* thinking about trails and other challenging surfaces."
Once again you have to adopt the perspective of the 'bare-curious.' Broken glass is on their minds, not gnarly trails.

Regardless of what's on their mind, you accused me of saying something I didn't say, and then complained about my "saying" it. ;-)

And, I know that a significant number of our customers are, in fact, campers who are worried about trail-issues.

Do with that what you will.

And thanks again for being part of this important discussion.

Okay, NOW I'm unplugging.
 
"Okay, I moved my Apple time since I was going to be late ;-)

Lee, I have an advantage that you don't have. I actually KNOW what people see when they come to my site. I have software that shows what they do, where the cursor moves... it practically tracks eye movement. What I can tell you is that reality is different than you think:

The FIRST THING they see is my header... which says "Barefoot... PLUS!" and "Feel The World."

The SECOND thing they see is a video.

Often the third thing they see is the opt-in form.

The fourth thing they see is the sub-head which, IN CONJUNCTION with the next few paragraphs, which they also see, tells a story: Barefoot is great. Sometimes it's not. Here's for when it's not.

Further, if you looked at my web-stats you would see that:

a) over 50% of my visitors do NOT see that page first
b) over 80% of the people who see that page first see other pages on the site"

Points taken. Although I still agree with Jason that the "better-than-barefoot" headline is dumb, and am glad you're removing it, no matter the motivation, because for half the people who visit your site it is the thing, or one of the things, they see most prominently, and it may discourage them, which is all I've ever said to begin with. If my analysis of your site wasn't more nuanced, you'll have to forgive me, but such is the nature of these forums and blog comments--they're written hastily when we should be doing something else:( .


"Regardless of what's on their mind, you accused me of saying something I didn't say, and then complained about my "saying" it. ;-)"

I quoted you, and then made the association with the comments I get. I never said you said something specifically about broken glass. I have to go now, but will re-read the above later to make sure.
 
OK, back now. The part that Steve is referring to about putting words into his mouth is probably in this post addressed to TJ:

"The whole 'glass is everywhere' myth is the number one doubt or concern people express to me. Your endorsement of a company that uses this myth in their advertising is very disappointing to me ..."

I tend to use the "'glass is everywhere' myth" phrase as a cover all for exaggerated fears/anxieties about getting cut or punctured while barefoot. IS's advertising promotes the spirit, if not my exactly wording, of this misconception. Sloppy thread comment, sloppy advertising.

In any case, I do apologize for not contacting you first, but am glad we've been able to come to an agreement of sorts, and wish you all the best in your business and running.
 
Your last point is really interesting. A good number of us seem to be moving from a "barefoot is the ideal" to a "barefoot helps discover your best form" paradigm. How will this change the barefoot running community? We're already seeing some change based on the tone of the questions and answers posed here and on that other forum. Are we strengthening our position, or diluting ourselves in the growing mass of people interested in improved running form? I don't have a good answer or even enough observations to give a decent prediction. Thoughts?
Just a few more thoughts:
I think the sooner this becomes about proper form or natural running, the better. That will diminish the fadish elements, and send a clearer and more enduring message, although it will piss off the people for whom barefoot running is a strong identity marker or some kind of compensation for not being a bigger badass in their non-running lives. You may very well lose those people. But if the overall goal is to have as many people as possible running joyously (to borrow Barefoot&Agile's term), and if it's true that most people are just not going to give up their shoes, then I think you're charting the right course, and applaud you for recognizing it early. Keep up the good work!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lomad
I hope you can pull this up, Lee. I've been waiting for Matt to find some time to add it to the bottom right of the site. It's our About page. I created it based on my beliefs and those of the other founders. This is our Stance, as it always has been. It comes from the old site and has never been revised and never will be: http://thebarefootrunners.org/articles/about.20/ The page is broken down to explain the club, then our Stance finishes it off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
I hope you can pull this up, Lee. I've been waiting for Matt to find some time to add it to the bottom right of the site. It's our About page. I created it based on my beliefs and those of the other founders. This is our Stance, as it always has been. It comes from the old site and has never been revised and never will be: http://thebarefootrunners.org/articles/about.20/
Yah, I think I saw that a long time ago. Thanks. When you reintegrate it, you might consider working in something along the lines of Jason's statement: "A good number of us seem to be moving from a "barefoot is the ideal" to a "barefoot helps discover your best form" paradigm." And also something about how a lot of people have found it's best to start barefoot, and then, after achieving decent form, incorporate shoes according to whatever running goals they may have. That seems to be a somewhat more complete statement of the emerging paradigm to which Jason refers.
 
There are so many aspects I could add. I could write a book based on them all...but I don't need to as Jason has that covered. ;) If Jason has a specific statement, worded precisely, he would like added, he can send it to me. He's good at that stuff. An excellent communicator.

What I find interesting is how many people start out in boat anchors, then switch to minshoes never intending to go barefoot, then ultimately turn to barefoot running, and either totally ditching the minshoes or only using them when truly needed. I hear these stories over and over year after year. We cannot forget about these people. But we recognize, as our About page says, that most people in the end are not going to choose to run barefoot, but at least we hope we can get them to choose healthier footwear. That's one of my biggest goals with the BRS...prevent people, as much as is possible, from screwing their feet up with the wrong footwear choices, as I have done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW and Bare Lee