The moment someone opens his or her mouth and the words "foot strike" come out, just tell whoever it is to get to the part where they try to sell you something. It's inevitable, so do away with the preamble and get right to it. Why waste time? There are miles to be run.
Whatever it is, you probably don't need it. If there was one thing in the running industry that has been wildly overstated in value, it is foot strike; what used to be of passing interest to coaches and the odd eccentric is now a magical unicorn that every single runner seems obsessed with to the point of fetishism. We have almost become proud of needing to change our foot strike beyond the point of considering if we even need to in the first place.
You don't. Really and truly. I do not even know you, but I am 99% certain your foot strike is just fine assuming you aren't overstriding. Your ankles? Well, that's a different story.
When was the last time you actively trained your ankles in any meaningful way? My guess is that, unless you have suffered a sprain or two, almost never. Direct ankle training is one of those things athletes rarely consider until they are suddenly sitting in a physio's office getting advice on how to properly rehab a buggered one.
Your ankles will handle all your foot strike considerations, provided they are (a) healthy and (b) not suffering from a lifetime of neglect. If you understand the function of the ankles and, to a lesser extent, the anatomy, that will help you understand what is normative function and what is possibly dysfunctional. From there, you can make informed decisions about training advents that increase proprioception at the ankle and, believe it or not, foot strike suddenly becomes a moot point. Your ankles are smarter than you give them credit for, but you have to let your ankles be ankles in order for them to shine.
Now, dysfunction is a broad term; it needs to be applied specifically and only a qualified medical practitioner can do that. You, as an athlete, need to understand it generally — just don't apply it indiscriminately. That being said, with healthy ankles, foot strike can be relegated to "majoring in the minor" for the vast number of runners. Trying to manipulate your landing with gimmicks and tricks is more likely to injure you in the long run (yup, I went there) than not, which is not conducive to a happy runner. Speaking of gimmicks...
Your shoes matter, but only insofar as they alter your ankle mechanics, which should be not at all. Yes, you can buy shoes that encourage a forefoot strike, midfoot strike, or even ones with extra cushioning for heel striking. But when was the last time you thought about your ankle when buying shoes? Never. Because you want a unicorn (or a reasonable facsimile, thereof).
One of the first things I notice when I try on a shoe is whether I feel like my ankle is being affected. I don't want that and neither do you. A good example for me are Inov-8. Nearly every pair makes my ankle roll inward and, although the foot strike feels good, I can tell that something is just "off" in my ankle mechanics. That's why I don't run in them, even though I think they are a great brand; my ankles are more important to me than foot strike or brand loyalty. As a result, I run in about a half dozen pairs of shoes from 0-10 millimeters, with various stack heights from yoga mat to Sealy Posturepedic.
The point being, my shoes don't matter past providing the type of comfort, responsiveness, and ride that I want. I don't want my foot strike altered and I most definitely do not want my ankles to do anything differently because of the shoe I am wearing. End of story.
Well, not quite.
Speed will dictate foot strike more than shoes will, regardless of what the manufacturers tell you. A 50 meter sprint will elicit forefoot landing, whereas a 50 km ultra will likely see a preponderance of heel striking. Speed is more of a factor than we like to believe, but it is; the difference in striking can change dramatically with pace. I take that into consideration when I pick my training shoes for that training session, but I can sprint in every pair of runners I own. I could run an ultra in any pair, too, but I probably won't enjoy it as much in my favorite pair of middle distance kicks.
Cushioning matters, but only insofar as surface influences need. I can run any distance in any shoe, but there are definitely sweet spots for different models. The sweet spot is usually, but not always, a matter of comfort over the long haul; the ride of a shoe is always worth considering and certain shoes just do better at certain distances. Again, foot strike makes no difference to me. I just want happy ankles and the right shoes can facilitate that if I am savvy in my selection. Whatever the decision, I know that I don't want a shoe that mucks with my ankle or tries to "encourage" or alter my foot strike. I just want to let my ankles be ankles - as long as I don't overstride or keep a lazy cadence, I know that my ankles will find the ground for my foot and all will be well.
There really isn't a consensus on foot strike. Joint angles, pace, stride length, and posture all seem like way more important factors at this point, but nobody has invented a shoe that addresses those things in a marketable way. Sad when you think about it, because those innovations could provide solutions to the very injuries that tampering with foot strike distracts you from realizing.
I suppose that's the punchline. The problem is, the joke ends up being on you.