With 64% of the women in the U.S. overweight or obese and less than half participating in regular physical activity, athletic shoe marketers saw an opportunity: "toning shoes." The marketers touted 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 were based on shoemaker-sponsored studies, but the Podiatric Medical Association agreed 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, bought into the idea and toning shoe sales by Sketchers, Reebok, and other producers soared.

However, these shoes had their critics, who claimed a shoe that comes with an instruction booklet and educational DVD to explain proper usage should wave warning flags to consumers. Some doctors claimed the shoes were dangerous, causing strained Achilles tendons or worse - one wearer actually broke her ankles 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 was Nike, who thought it was all hype. This leader in the women's shoe market, however, was losing market share to competitors.

1. What role does strategic planning play in marketing? How would you define or explain the marketing strategy of the toning shoes shoemakers?
2. 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 thoughts.
3. Should Nike have entered the product category instead of giving up market share to the competitors? Explain.