Should these shoemakers capitalize on consumers who want to be fit without doing the work to achieve that goal? Do you think that basing claims on research sponsored by the company is ethical? Explain your reasoning.
With 64 percent of the women in the United States overweight or obese and less than half participating in regular physical activity, athletic shoe marketers saw an opportunity: “toning shoes.” Marketers tout these shoes as revolutionary; you can tone your muscles, lose weight, and improve your posture just by wearing them and going about your daily business. The claims are based on shoemaker-sponsored studies, and the Podiatric Medical Association agrees that toning shoes have some health value. They purportedly perform their magic by destabilizing a person’s gait, making leg muscles work harder. Consumers, particularly women, are buying it. Toning shoe sales reached an estimated $1.5 billion in 2010. Sketchers saw a 69 percent increase in sales due to its shoe that looks like a rocking chair on the bottom. Reebok expected toning shoe sales to increase tenfold to $10 million in 2010. Toning shoes accounted for 20 percent of the women’s performance footwear category in 2009, with prices ranging from $80 to more than $200. However, these shoes have their critics, who claim a shoe that comes with an instruction booklet and an educational DVD to explain proper usage should wave warning flags to consumers. Some doctors claim the shoes are dangerous, causing strained Achilles tendons or worse; one wearer broke her ankle while wearing them. A study by the American Council on Exercise found no benefit in toning shoes over regular walking or other exercise. Noticeably absent from the toning shoe feeding frenzy is Nike, which thinks it’s all hype and is sticking to traditional performance athletic shoes. This leader in the women’s shoe market, however, is losing market share to competitors.