Latest / Brand Storytelling with Fexingo: Narrative, Mission, and Stories That Sell / How On Running Built a Performance Brand Through Design
Transcript
- Lucas: So let's talk about a brand that, in less than fifteen years, went from a Swiss startup with a weird-looking sole to a public company worth north of ten billion dollars. Luna: On Running. I have to admit, when I first saw those little holes in the bottom of the shoe, I thought it was a gimmick. Lucas: Right, that's the CloudTec sole. And that's exactly the reaction most people had. But the founders—former pro athlete Olivier Bernhard and two engineers—they didn't set out to make a fashion statement. They wanted to solve a real mechanical problem: how to land softly and push off explosively. Luna: And they did it with those hollow pods that compress on impact. It's actually clever engineering, not just aesthetics. Lucas: Exactly. And that engineering-first mindset is the thread that runs through everything On has done. From the beginning, they positioned themselves as a performance brand, not a lifestyle brand. That meant they had to win on runability first. Luna: But how do you break into a market dominated by Nike, Adidas, Asics, New Balance? Those companies have decades of R&D and marketing muscle. Lucas: Well, they did a few things really deliberately. First, they focused on a very narrow product line initially—just a few running shoes. Second, they leaned hard into their Swiss heritage. 'Engineered in Switzerland' became a badge of precision and quality. And third, they controlled distribution tightly. Luna: That third point is interesting. Most startups want to be everywhere. On was selective. Lucas: Very selective. They sold through specialty running stores and their own website. They refused to do the big department store markdown cycle. If you're a runner who walks into a shop that carries On, you're already primed to pay a premium. The average selling price of an On shoe is over a hundred and fifty dollars. Luna: That's higher than most Nike Pegasus or Adidas Ultraboost models. And they held the line on discounting. Lucas: They did. And that pricing discipline created a halo effect. If the shoe costs more, it must be better. But the real genius was in how they used design as a signal. That perforated sole isn't just functional—it's instantly recognizable. You see someone wearing On from across the street. Luna: So the design is a differentiator, but it's also a risk. It could have been dismissed as a novelty. Lucas: Sure, and early on, there were plenty of skeptics. But they got early validation from serious runners. The shoe won the ISPO Award in 2010, and that gave them credibility in the industry. Then word of mouth among marathoners and triathletes took over. Luna: And the visual distinctiveness helped them stand out on social media. I remember seeing photos of the soles on Instagram before I ever saw a pair in person. Lucas: Yeah, that's a classic brand insight: if your product is photogenic in a way that communicates a benefit, you get free marketing. Every runner posting a photo of their shoes is an ad for your engineering story. Luna: But the real inflection point, I think, was the Roger Federer partnership in 2019. That moved them from a runner's brand to a general awareness brand. Lucas: Massive moment. And it wasn't just an endorsement deal. Federer became an investor and collaborator. He actually had input on the design of his signature shoe, The Roger. That's a different level of commitment. It also signaled to the broader public that On wasn't just for triathletes—it was for people who appreciate elegance and craftsmanship. Luna: And it worked. Their revenue went from about two hundred million in 2019 to over a billion by 2023. Lucas: Right. But that growth brings challenges. When you scale that fast, you risk diluting the brand's core identity. On started expanding into apparel, which is a whole different game. And they're now sold in more mainstream retailers. Luna: Is that a problem? More distribution usually means more sales. Lucas: Yes, but it can erode the premium perception. The question is whether they can maintain the same design rigor and price integrity as they widen the funnel. So far, they've done a good job—their apparel is minimalist and technical, not logo-heavy. But the temptation to chase volume is real. Luna: And they're also facing competition now. Everyone has noticed their success. Nike has the SuperRep, Hoka has its own maximalist cushioning. The differentiation isn't as stark as it was ten years ago. Lucas: That's true. But I think On's moat isn't just the product—it's the brand system built around Swiss engineering, design minimalism, and athlete credibility. Competitors can copy the sole, but they can't copy the story. At least not easily. Luna: And having Federer as a long-term partner helps keep that story alive. He's synonymous with elegance and precision. Lucas: Exactly. So the lesson for marketers is: if you can't outspend the giants, out-design them. Make your product visually distinctive in a way that communicates a functional benefit. Control your distribution to protect your price point. And find a credible ambassador who genuinely believes in what you're building. Luna: You know, it's funny—when I think about brands that have done this well, On comes up alongside companies like Dyson or Yeti. They all made a functional improvement that was also visually iconic. Lucas: Great comparison. Dyson's bladeless fan, Yeti's heavy-gauge coolers. The form is the function, and the function is the story. On did the same with a running shoe. Luna: And they're now expanding into tennis and trail running. It'll be interesting to see if they can maintain the focus. Lucas: I think that's the central tension for any design-led brand: how do you grow without becoming generic? The answer, I believe, is to keep the design team central in every decision. Not the sales team, not the finance team. The designers. Luna: That's a rare corporate culture. Most companies put finance in the driver's seat once they go public. Lucas: And that's why most brands don't stay premium forever. On is still relatively young. They went public in 2021. The pressure from shareholders to maximize margins is real. But their co-founders still hold significant control, and they've shown a willingness to invest in long-term brand building. Luna: I hope they keep it up. I'd rather not see them in every discount bin five years from now. Lucas: Speaking of keeping things going—if these marketing conversations have sparked something you've actually used in your work or just made you think differently about a brand, a couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these episodes ad-free and coming. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it's a small way to support the work, and it makes a real difference for us. No pressure, but if you've gotten value, it helps. Lucas: Right. So back to On—one last thought. I think the real test will be their next product category. Are they going to launch a lifestyle sneaker that everyone wears casually? Or will they stay true to performance? Luna: They already have The Roger, which is a lifestyle shoe. But it's still rooted in tennis. I think they can walk that line if they keep the design principles intact. Lucas: Agreed. The Roger works because it's not a running shoe trying to be a fashion shoe. It's a tennis shoe that looks good off the court. That distinction matters. If On ever releases a generic 'fashion sneaker,' they'll lose the plot. Luna: So it's about staying in your lane, but expanding the lane carefully. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the brand lesson from On Running: know what you stand for, make it visible in every product, and protect the story even as you grow.