Image is everything May 7, 2005 11:15 AM Subscribe
Nikedoesn't want poor people to buy its shoes. Funny, you'd think K-Mart and Nike would have a lot in common.
posted by mrgrimm (60 comments total)
Nike needs poor people to buy its shoes. But poor people will only buy the shoes if they think that they are shoes that poor people can't buy. It's sad, and twisted, and cynical, and horrifyingly successful. posted by gurple at 11:35 AM on May 7, 2005
K-Mart tennis shoes suck Ray.
Yeah. Yeah, definitely Starters. Definitely Starters Tennis Shoes, $29.99 at K-Mart while supplies last. Definitely, while supplies last.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/220212_cheapnike15.html posted by nervousfritz at 11:52 AM on May 7, 2005
Ah, Nike ruined sneakers by making them overdone and overpriced. Stick with Chucks and Puma Clydes. posted by jonmc at 11:57 AM on May 7, 2005
I don't personally have problem one with this. Nike did not ruin sneaker markets and has every right in the world to place product where it wants. There is no examination of your financial history at the checkout stand when you have your shoes and, obviously, you are free to buy Chucks or Keds or Converse or whatever else you want instead of the swooshes. The shoes are not overpriced for the market since they are being purchased at that price. This is just basic marketing and nothing more sinister to it than that. posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 12:18 PM on May 7, 2005
I can see a perfectly rational argument that K-Mart doesn't offer the margins, service (have you ever see the piles of mismatched shoes at a K-mart), and atmosphere that Nike wants to project. I think they also have a pretty good case that if the start selling to K-mart then K-mart is going to undercut other retailers. Other retailers would then have to cut prices to match or lose volume.
I don't think Nike doesn't want to "sell to poor people". Go to the streetball courts in New York City and you see a LOT of $200 Nike shoes on people who can't afford $200 shoes. Nike just wants them to pay $200 for the experience of buying the shoes. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:20 PM on May 7, 2005
I hate blow the "iconographic, small sneaker company" bubble, but converse was bought last summer.. by nike. posted by threehundredandsixty at 12:23 PM on May 7, 2005
The $20 shoes I buy at PayLess last longer than $200 Nikes or Reeboks. I know - I've tried buying more expensive "cool" shoes, but they just don't hold up.
Why *should* they design them to last? If they wear out, by then the next $200 design will be out! posted by mrbill at 12:24 PM on May 7, 2005
Go to the streetball courts in New York City and you see a LOT of $200 Nike shoes on people who can't afford $200 shoes.
Boxes fall off trucks. Counterfiets get sold out of the back of vans. Of course it's also a bit of a racist assumption to assume that black people can't afford expensive sneakers. posted by jonmc at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2005
Of course it's also a bit of a racist assumption to assume that black people can't afford expensive sneakers.
I can hardly wrangle the stupidity and intentional misunderstandings critical to writing the above.
"Can't afford" often means "Can't afford to purchase (Jordans or whathaveyou) and eat/pay bills" instead of lacking the cash in any form to cover the retail price.
It's not racist to state that many people who play sports exclusively on ramshackled courts or fields are probably also poor, and therefore can't really afford (by the modern definition) to buy top-shelf shoes.
**that said, my New Balance kicks from JC Penney are holding up better than any Nikes I have owned, but that's only my limited experience. posted by Joybooth at 1:11 PM on May 7, 2005
you can buy spaldings or rawlings tennis shoes for 30$ or less ... who the hell needs nikes? posted by pyramid termite at 1:16 PM on May 7, 2005
Ah, Nike ruined sneakers by making them overdone and overpriced. Stick with Chucks
jonmc, you know that Nike bought Converse quite a while ago and have been making all kinds of variations on the classic design, right? Chucks = Nike. posted by mikeh at 1:27 PM on May 7, 2005
No big news here. Everyone has their target customer: it's those who will pay the most for their product. There are high-end barbershops, high-end call girls and high-end sneakers. Hell, ya even gots yer high-end interaction designers.
They're high-end not because of who they don't want to sell to (it's not about the buyer), but because as the seller charging a premium, they can put less work into making more money. That's all: less work, more money. Kind of how we all sorta would like to be. Nike's rep is protected by moves like this. You and I make similar choices in our own lives every day. posted by diastematic at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2005
Go to the streetball courts in New York City and you see a LOT of $200 Nike shoes on people who can't afford $200 shoes.
Boxes fall off trucks. Counterfiets get sold out of the back of vans. Of course it's also a bit of a racist assumption to assume that black people can't afford expensive sneakers.
posted by jonmc at 12:45 PM PST on May 7 [!]
Racist?
NYC=full of black people?
Black people are the only ones that buy counterfit illegal shoes because (naturally) thay're the poor ones?
What are you trying to say? posted by Balisong at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2005
Stick with Chucks and Puma Clydes.
Only if you want to do irreversible damage to your plantar fascia and your knees. All kidding aside, I love my Chucks (actually, I wear Jack Purcells, but same diff) as they are like walking around barefoot (very comfy!). But, for the life of me I can't believe the NBA guys in the 50s and 60s wore these shoes without doing permanent damage to their feet.
Back on topic, for the life of me, I cannot understand who people would pay that much for athletic shoes that just don't stand up. As an active tennis player (play hard 3-4x per week), I go through a pair of Wilsons about every 2-3 months before they break down. More expensive Nikes breakdown in about half the time. I have heard similar stories from people who use Nikes in other sports... they're pretty much disposable shoes. Bottom line, people wear what they want, but if they're buying Nikes for more than just kickin' it around the house, they're suckers. posted by psmealey at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2005
The last pair of low top shoes were Doc Martins. (or Tevas <- those will last you!)
Everything else I have is a boot, hiking, snow or combat.
Haven't had "sneakers" since high school... Red and Black Air Jordans... Probably worth $500 now, if I hadn't trashed 'em. posted by Balisong at 1:38 PM on May 7, 2005
low top shoes (I have purchased) were.. posted by Balisong at 1:39 PM on May 7, 2005
Actually, I didn't know that, mikeh, but it dosen't really change a thing to me. I don't not wear Nikes because of their labor practices(despicable though they are), I don't wear them because a)I don't have the money to spend $200 bucks on a pair of shoes that'll last less than a year. and b) I just don't like the way they look.
And anyway, originally sneakers were all about casual, I-don't-give-afuck-about-fashion utilitarian footwear. Now their just another bling-bling status symbol. It's like what happened to bluejeans when all those designer brands showed up in the 70's.
It's not racist to state that many people who play sports exclusively on ramshackled courts or fields are probably also poor,
Serious ballplayers of all races and income brackets come to playground courts of New York because that's where the best pickup ball is being played, from what I've seen.
"Can't afford" often means "Can't afford to purchase (Jordans or whathaveyou) and eat/pay bills" instead of lacking the cash in any form to cover the retail price.
And I repeat, there's plenty of urban black people who can afford to have Nikes and eat/pay rent, too. I've known plenty.
on preview: balisong, people of all kinds buy counterfiet knockoffs of goods. Hell, I have. posted by jonmc at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2005
I have a distinct impression that most people who buy Nikes do so because of what other people will think of that choice, than because of the fundamental qualities of the shoes themselves.
I can't speak about the shoe quality itself, because I can't wear Nikes -- they don't make widths other than D. posted by clevershark at 1:44 PM on May 7, 2005
I imagine Nike's other distributors would raise hell if they signed a deal with K-Mart. Pretty standard in any industry not to sell to someone who will undercut the rest of your customers. Besides you can buy them from Sierra Trading Post for about 40% of retail.
As an aside I'm not completely convinced that "supportive" athletic shoes are that much better for your than simple flat shoes (the impacts of running on tarmac or concrete aside). I know that my running shoes have a wedge heel at least 1" higher than the toe, and different levels of stiffness throughout. All the years I spent running miles and miles in crappy cleats playing soccer and hockey led to less muscle tighness and niggling injuries than I've had since I switched to running in expensive trainers. I think the athletic shoe needs a rethink. posted by fshgrl at 1:47 PM on May 7, 2005
fshgrl writes" As an aside I'm not completely convinced that 'supportive' athletic shoes are that much better for your than simple flat shoes (the impacts of running on tarmac or concrete aside)."
er, countering the impact of running on tarmac or concrete is the whole point of buying $100+ "supportive" shoes, isn't it? posted by clevershark at 1:48 PM on May 7, 2005
And I repeat, there's plenty of urban black people who can afford to have Nikes and eat/pay rent, too. I've known plenty.
I don't think I mentioned anything about race when I was talking about the streeball courts. I haven't lived there in a couple of years, but last time I looked it was a pretty mixed-race scene. Black guys would school white guys, white guys would school black guys, and hispanics would school them both. Not very many asians or middle-easterners, but the scene was never exclusively black.
So anybody making racist accusations needs to look pretty hard at themselves as to why they're assuming who is playing ball on what courts.
My assertion that not everybody could afford the shoes they were wearing was based on how much housing in NYC costs, the average income in the city, and the fact that a lot of the guys have new shoes every other week. I have no reason to suspect that the shoes are counterfeit or stolen, but just that they are prioritizing their spending on shoes over a lot of other things. Good for them for making the choice that makes them happy.
people of all kinds buy counterfiet knockoffs of goods
I own some fake "Oakleys" and a "Rolex" from Chinatown. Both are great. You don't know what race I am (since it's entirely irrelevant), but walk down Canal St sometime and you'll see people of every race known to God buying knockoff Louis Vuitton bags. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:49 PM on May 7, 2005
OK, Jonmc,I agree.. just pointing out that you were the first one to bring up black people at all in this thread, implying poor ones.
But the sneaker market is really a marketing sham.
Sneakers, sport of casual, are not meant to last.
It's just made to make sure that you have to account for an anual shoe budget. They blow out. In three weeks, or 8 months. for 14.99 or 187.50.
Much of the "blame" goes to the image from marketing and endorcements of the winners in sports.
Is there a shoe producer that actually puts out a WELL MADE product that WILL stand up to abuse? Redwing? Anything made in USA? (haha)
Or is this another foothold (heh) that China, Mexico, Brasil have over us? posted by Balisong at 1:51 PM on May 7, 2005
Serious ballplayers of all races and income brackets come to playground courts of New York because that's where the best pickup ball is being played, from what I've seen.
Exactly. On a weekend afternoon there will be a guy who runs a hedge fund and a guy who delivers produce playing against each other. Maybe one's a (black) Harvard graduate and the otehr is a (white) eastern-european immigrant. They'll both be wearing $200 Nikes. The point is that Nike doesn't care who you are so long as you're willing out to shell out the sticker price (not a heavily discounted K-mart price). Nike is perfectly happy to have the produce guy buy Nikes. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:53 PM on May 7, 2005
Fair enough, I was overreaching a bit and assuming too much. I just get a little irked at the assumption that black=destitute, which to be fair nobody actually made.
but walk down Canal St sometime and you'll see people of every race known to God buying knockoff Louis Vuitton bags.
I work about 3 blocks from the west end of Canal Street and have seen counterfiet everything being sold there. My point, such as it was, is that that's where a lot of the bling-bling merchandise you see people in the city displaying comes from. posted by jonmc at 1:55 PM on May 7, 2005
balisong ... i've been wearing my spauldings for almost 4 years ... but i haven't been playing sports in them, so ymmv ... posted by pyramid termite at 1:57 PM on May 7, 2005
This is a smart move for Nike. There is no way you are going to convince me that your brand cachet is going to improve if your product ends up at K-Mart. And as everyone has pointed out, it's the brand that sells the shoes, not quality/price. If Nike didn't do this and I was a stockholder, I'd be pissed. posted by sexymofo at 2:00 PM on May 7, 2005
jonmc - Sorry for accusing you of accusing people, no worries. MeFi has a way of quickly getting derailed into race/gender issues sometimes.
I'm jealous of your location w/r/t Canal St and Chinatown. That puts you pretty much in JOHnTESH? posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:23 PM on May 7, 2005
Actually, I work on Hudson Street near Spring. It's more or less yuppieland over there now, but it's convenient to everything. I have no idea what "JOHnTESH" is. posted by jonmc at 2:25 PM on May 7, 2005
So you're saying if I want sneakers that last, I should buy Wilsons and Spauldings? posted by gohlkus at 2:27 PM on May 7, 2005
JOHnTESh was the reaction to DUMBO and the sudden proliferation of new Brooklyn neighborhood names when I was living there.
So will somebody recommend a pair of athletic (-type) shoes, preferably canvas or maybe nylon (not leather or plastic) that I could comfortably walk for hours in, sprint for the bus when I have to, and that might not fall apart the first time I tried to jog a few blocks? I'm on my feet much more than you'd think, I'd like to spend less than $50 including tax, and I don't want them to wear out till it's cold out again. posted by davy at 2:34 PM on May 7, 2005
My girlfriend lives right by Canal and Lafayette. It's hell leaving her place on Saturday mornings; a billion people from Long Island, all buying knockoff purses. posted by 235w103 at 2:34 PM on May 7, 2005
I have a distinct impression that most people who buy Nikes do so because of what other people will think of that choice, than because of the fundamental qualities of the shoes themselves.
Sounds like the iPod craze. posted by soulhuntre at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2005
soulhuntre lol
I'm pretty sure this is also the case in the 'States but there have been a lot of Nike stores opening up in boutique areas of Vancouver. Overstaffed, over decorated, and overpriced Nike stores...
/hates the look of the new Nikes - here's a second/third/fourth for some good recommendations for casual/sport shoes posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2005
Is there a shoe producer that actually puts out a WELL MADE product that WILL stand up to abuse? Redwing? Anything made in USA? (haha)
New Balance are made in the US (Maine) and England (Cumbria). They are excellent sneakers for running. You should buy some and help keep people employed in Maine, a blue state.
Also consider buying Maine potatoes. Or PEI potatoes because those are usually a bit better, frankly. posted by Mayor Curley at 4:21 PM on May 7, 2005
New Balance are made in the US (Maine) and England (Cumbria).
Most New Balance shoes these days are made in China. (obviously a red state) Only about 25% of New Balance shoes are made in the US these days.
They're probably the best of the big shoe makers, but it's still outsourced. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:46 PM on May 7, 2005
Chicks who wear sensible shoes and inexpensive canvas Converse sneakers are the hawt! posted by orthogonality at 4:49 PM on May 7, 2005
orthogonality: agreed. a pair of black Chucks are much sexier than slutheels, in much the same way that white cotton undies are much hotter than thongs and victoria's secret.. posted by jonmc at 4:55 PM on May 7, 2005
IMHO New Balance and Brooks make just about the best sports shoes you can buy. Often they're not much to look at, but then that's not supposed to be the point. posted by clevershark at 5:02 PM on May 7, 2005
If you don't do run or do sports, and you are trying to find shoes that last, then it is a good idea to get away from trainers altogether. I wear parade boots now - they are waterproof (when protected), shine up real nice, come in many widths and with your trousers over top, no one knows they are boots. For better occassions, I have a pair of leather soled black dress shoes - $20 Canadian from a military surplus store.
That said, I bought my last pair of trainers at the Sally Ann for $2 (they were on sale from $5 - but seemed brand new). They've lasted well because I only ever wear them at the gym, rather than all around as when I was a teenager. Then trainers would only last me 6 months. I switched to combat boots not because they were cool, but because I was desparate. Payless has done alright by me in the past, but again, no more than 6 months, whether the shoes were $30 or $100 from an expensive store. But boots last me 3 years (even after abusing my last pair). posted by jb at 7:50 PM on May 7, 2005
davy - in case you're wondering, parade boots are shorter than combat boots, and quite comfortable for a lot of walking (which after all, is what they are designed for). I've gone for three hour walks in my boots around the city, and my legs hurt more at the end than my feet. My last pair cost me $50 CND, but that was from the cheapest army surplus store in Toronto (Dufferin and Yorkdale).
I've also had good reports on Doc Marten boots or shoes - but those reports are 15 years old. Are they still as high quality as they were? posted by jb at 7:55 PM on May 7, 2005
I am shocked by the lack of sneaker knowledge here. I thought everyone knew that Puma is the hot brand for "not really for sports" sneakers. Puma Mostros are everywhere, and the New Yorkers here should take a little trip north of Canal St to check out the Puma store in Soho. We could do with one of those here in Vancouver, though GravityPope seems to carry some of the best stuff.
I can totally understand Nike's position*, BTW - Nike seems to have been investing a program of creating rather flash Nike-only stores, though I believe they are franchised rather than corporately owned - and this will look pretty silly if all the same gear is in K-Mart.
( * questionable manufacturing practices aside. ) posted by pascal at 10:32 PM on May 7, 2005
Oooh, parade boots. I still have mine after years of use (hole in the top, though, so no longer waterproof).
Yep, $20 at Army Surplus, in Winnipeg. posted by dreamsign at 10:41 PM on May 7, 2005
Why do Americans hate Adidas? posted by nthdegx at 3:57 AM on May 8, 2005
Adi Dasslers are my personal favourites. In Europe they seem to dominate the market. Nike trainers look overgrown, plasticky and cheap in comparison. Why anyone would want to spend £150 on a pair of high-end Nikes hell knows. But plenty do...
Puma seem to be going for high end (fools?) with their latest efforts
$300 for sweat pants? posted by ClanvidHorse at 4:19 AM on May 8, 2005
So, Nike wants to maintain a certain price level for its product to continue instilling the brand name into the hearts and minds of the great unwashed, guaranteeing more shootings and robberies by the "poor" to achieve this lifestyle. All done to perpetuate the idea that you have to look like the amount of money you want to make.
Of course it's also a bit of a racist assumption to assume that black people can't afford expensive sneakers.
I can hardly wrangle the stupidity and intentional misunderstandings critical to writing the above.
Well, how can you tell how much disposible income they have just by looking at them? posted by delmoi at 12:18 PM on May 8, 2005
Fair enough, I was overreaching a bit and assuming too much. I just get a little irked at the assumption that black=destitute, which to be fair nobody actually made.
Except for: YOU! posted by delmoi at 12:24 PM on May 8, 2005
My suggestion...buy BlackSpots.
Hah, blackspots are even more of a sucker's game. If they really wanted to be "anti corporate" they'd put no logs at all on 'em. All they're doing is selling you your own anti-consumerist feelings as a consumer product! posted by delmoi at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2005
Someone recommended Blackspots, yet not in jest. I'm floored. You have to go through a veritable lasagna of levels of irony to be able to buy one of those. Taking the piss out of taking the piss out of taking the piss.
I've had good experience with New Balance. I bought mine for no other reason than that they looked nice, but they're lasting forever. posted by Bugbread at 2:13 PM on May 8, 2005
I have 2 identical pairs of Saucony Grid Stabil running shoes, which are like running on air. I ran on the first set for the recommended 500 miles (I only run about a mile when I do), then bought the second set to keep running on, while using the older set as kicks.
About $90 a pair, and well worth every penny; these particular shoes work perfectly for my running style and I've never had any foot or knee pain at all from running since getting them. YMMV. posted by zoogleplex at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2005
parade boots are shorter than combat boots, aka monkey boots. posted by thomcatspike at 11:50 AM on May 9, 2005
I just noticed the thread title - "Image is everything" - and realized how apt it is. Logo aside, Nike actually was the originator of a lot of shoe design, for better or worse. Anytime their shoes appear with generic knockoffs or cheap store brand shoes (I'm unsure what K-Mart's house line is, but they undoubtedly have one), it dilutes their image and trademark a little.
They're not stupid and want to keep their prices and quality at a certain level. I'd imagine if they wanted to stay in the K-Mart/Wal-Mart/Target game, they'd have to come out with a sublabel the way Levi's jeans did. Nike has little interest in making a cheaper, even less quality version of their product. That's their choice.
I still find it funny that people (jonmc! alert!) will repeatedly claim that the simple, utilitarian Converse Chuck Taylor models are contrary to this trend. Look again: the suggested retail on plain old Chucks is $45, and they come with no arch support or reinforcement. Not only that, they're the most iconic shoe I know of. Maybe original Air Jordans are more prestigious, but can you name any other sneaker that's been continuously made for so many years without modification to the base design? This is part of why the original Blackspot sneaker is so laughable: it's the most obvious Converse design copy ever. You could make the argument that pre-Nike, Converse was the iconic, frill-less everyman's shoe, but I'm not sure how much mileage you'd get. It's a decent shoe at a moderate price, but everyone will recognize it. posted by mikeh at 2:20 PM on May 9, 2005
Full disclosure: I own a pair of hi-top black Chuck Taylors. I completely buy into the image. I'm also prone to wearing a plain black t-shirt and jeans. posted by mikeh at 2:25 PM on May 9, 2005
Maybe original Air Jordans are more prestigious, but can you name any other sneaker that's been continuously made for so many years without modification to the base design?
The fact they haven't ever changed is why I like them. It's a "fuck you" to trendiness. I wore them as a kid and I've worn nothing else, sneaker wise, since I was 15. They are contrary to the trend of overly designed, flashy, trendy shoes. And $38 is what I paid for my last pair a week ago, and that's still cheap compared to the Air Jordans. posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM on May 9, 2005
The fact they haven't ever changed is why I like them. It's a "fuck you" to trendiness.
No, you're just an idiot. posted by delmoi at 3:52 PM on May 9, 2005
mikeh writes"the suggested retail on plain old Chucks is $45"
Whoa. Inflation sticker shock. I used to wear them in high school (1990ish) because they cost less than $25. posted by Bugbread at 7:42 PM on May 9, 2005
So will somebody recommend a pair of athletic (-type) shoes, preferably canvas or maybe nylon (not leather or plastic) that I could comfortably walk for hours in, sprint for the bus when I have to, and that might not fall apart the first time I tried to jog a few blocks?
I love my Adidas hemp shoes. Gazelles Naturale I don't think they make them anymore, and shipping will get you well over $50. I think I paid $60, but that was four years ago, and I still use them. One of the best (new) shoe bargains I've had. Converse low-tops don't last that long, and they're like $30-40 now. And that plantar fascia comment made me laugh. Too true.
Hah, blackspots are even more of a sucker's game. If they really wanted to be "anti corporate" they'd put no logs at all on 'em. All they're doing is selling you your own anti-consumerist feelings as a consumer product!
Not to mention that they look exactly like Chucks. If you're going to make a non-branded sneaker, don't make it look exactly like a branded one. posted by mrgrimm at 2:43 PM on May 10, 2005
Subscribe
posted by gurple at 11:35 AM on May 7, 2005