Note: This is not an affiliated post (though I wouldn’t mind teaming up with Nike). I’m just a fan.

My powerlifting shoes broke a few weeks ago. The tip tore clean through, leaving a hole so big my big toe would peek out during squats. I’d had them since university, so it was a real bummer. Needless to say, the hole meant I needed new shoes. 

Recently, my use case evolved. I’m now less into powerlifting and more about running and hybrid training (think: CrossFit and Hyrox). Buying another pair of powerlifting shoes felt like unnecessary clutter. I wanted to streamline.

Enter the Nike Metcon 10.

The Product Positioning

Nike markets the Metcon 10 as hybrid training shoes. They’re a jack of all trades designed to be used for powerlifting, Olympic lifting, and running. If you’re going minimalist and want one pair to do it all, they fit all of these needs.

This is classic market positioning. You identify a growing segment (despite all the memes, there are a lot of CrossFitters out there) and design specifically for them.

Testing the Value Proposition

I’ve used them for running for the past weeks. Now, I don’t really have a strong baseline to compare against, but they feel solid. My foot doesn’t hurt, my ankle doesn’t feel awkward. At least not compared to running in powerlifting shoes, which I did one time time.

But here’s where product tradeoffs become obvious.

I tried squatting in them and they are subpar compared to proper powerlifting shoes. I say that with confidence because squatting and benching has been my thing. 

I had more trouble than usual staying stable. My knees caved a bit during squats. You can definitely feel the heel isn’t as rigid, which makes sense because you can’t run in a rigid shoe. Naturally, my poor ankle mobility is a factor here. Yet it’s also a fundamental design constraint pertaining to the shoe itself: if you optimise for multiple use cases you end up compromising on each individual one.

The Jack of All Trades Problem

If an experienced runner tried these shoes, I’m sure they’d notice similar tradeoffs when running. Probably fine for shorter runs, less optimal for longer distances.

The Metcon 10 stays true to its marketing, though. It’s a jack of all trades, master of none.

And that’s not a criticism. It’s a deliberate product decision. Nike identified their target user and a growing market and built for them.

Most products face this same tension. 

You can build deep functionality for a narrow use case, or broad functionality for multiple use cases. Rarely both.

The play here is to be deliberate about your strategy and guide your efforts and focus accordingly.

Nike knows the Metcon 10 won’t replace dedicated running shoes or powerlifting shoes. They’re not trying to. They’re solving for the person (like me) who wants good enough across multiple activities without hauling an entire wardrobe of shoes to the gym.