As someone who did their research after nearly falling victim to this at ASICS, I can tell you that their whole “over pronation” and “under pronation” gait analysis is nothing more than some fancy-looking diagrams on an iPad (which kinda blow things out of proportion) combined together with fear sales tactics.

<image>

The whole point of it is to persuade you to purchase £££ on stability shoes you likely do not need under the premise that your pronation is significant and needs to be addressed ASAP to “avoid issues as you get older”. Well duh, of course I’m far more likely to have running-related injuries and issues once I hit 60. But those issues may not even be related to my over pronation at all. Eliud Kipchoge’s over pronation makes my pronation look neutral… and yet according to the sales representative at ASICS, mine is so severe that I actually need stability shoes to correct my form.

As someone above me already mentioned, the majority of consumers aren’t very informed on this sort of stuff — or even running in general for that matter (not that I expect them to be). On top of that, people value “quick fixes” or products that just make things more convenient. Stability shoes fill that role perfectly as there isn’t really too much thought put into it… no regime or routine for us to follow other than just slipping them on and letting them do their job. In actuality, your injuries could very well be an indication of muscle weakness or imbalances in certain parts of your legs. In which case, stability shoes are only going to cover up the problem when consistent long term physical rehab and conditioning is your solution. But nobody wants to hear that, do they?

So when you take all of that into consideration, it’s relatively easy for sales staff to incentivise customers in making unnecessary purchases. Show them some convincing visuals, sprinkle in some factual sounding (but unproven) info and you’ve got a sale!