Now there’s an idea I wish I’d thought of: Shoes that are foot shape(d).
Linguistic quibble. If it was OK to use “balanced” — albeit in a form that requires the reader to fill-in missing letters — why not “shaped”? Both manglings arise from the challenges in trademarking regular words, I expect, which leads us to the next quibble.
Marketing quibble. The benefit of Foot ⁄ Shape™ is stated clearly, although “comfortably” seems to be more to the point than “naturally”. But what’s the benefit of cushioning “balanced from heel to forefoot”? Better stability? Fewer foot injuries? More-comfortable walks? Or don’t they, you know, actually know? Did they just want a second something?
Arithmetical quibble. Do these two features really add up to something? If so, why leave us hanging?
Foot / Shape™ + BAL / NCD = What Exactly?
Anyway, if designers are (now? finally?) onto foot-shaped shoes — now that we have a recognizable foot in the door — what can we expect next?
Hand / Shape™ phones, building on the success of computer-mouse design?
Human-Brain / Shape™ user interfaces on websites? On instructions? Oh, the joy.
Community / Shape™ service organizations?
But let us not reach too high. Me, I would settle for Old-Butt / Shape™ seating.