Posted by TrueBlue:

I wonder how much up front money did Marbury give to get this going? I'll take a factual
guess in a rap Jay-Z style

Zip Zero, Stingy Wit Dinero,

Might Give Away A Free Pair, But That About It,
Might Sign Your Kicks, But That About It
Awww Heck, I Might Sign An NBA Player And Give Him A Potion Of The Profits

You Already Know How Far I Wanna Go
I Want My Name All Over The Ghetto

And Maybe Even The Suburbs......Word!

Posted by codeunknown:

Some people are a little unclear on the definition of charity. That is, helping the public at large
either at one's own expense or, at the very least, despite the lack of personal marginal benefit. How you define expense can make for an interesting debate - but really, here, we're talking about how much Marbury is pocketing. You can't get away from that. Ultimately, the question is did Marbury sacrifice
profits to make a cheaper product available. If the current price comes close to maximizing profit, which due to the increased volume of sales is entirely possible, and Marbury gets a standard cut off that - then Marbury is a hypocrite. He wouldn't be wrong for selling sneakers, but wrong for calling it charity.

Regardless, this doesn't alter what he did for Katrina victims etc. So, needless to say, this particular venture isn't the final judgment of his character. But, it also doesn't fall into the saintly category until we find out the Marbury bottom line.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by codeunknown:

Some people are a little unclear on the definition of charity. That is, helping the public at large
either at one's own expense or, at the very least, despite the lack of personal marginal benefit. How you define expense can make for an interesting debate - but really, here, we're talking about how much Marbury is pocketing. You can't get away from that. Ultimately, the question is did Marbury sacrifice
profits to make a cheaper product available. If the current price comes close to maximizing profit, which due to the increased volume of sales is entirely possible, and Marbury gets a standard cut off that - then Marbury is a hypocrite. He wouldn't be wrong for selling sneakers, but wrong for calling it charity.

Regardless, this doesn't alter what he did for Katrina victims etc. So, needless to say, this particular venture isn't the final judgment of his character. But, it also doesn't fall into the saintly category until we find out the Marbury bottom line.

It's a given Ben Wallace isn't doing this for charity for Marbury, then it's more than logical to think Marbury's bottomline is tied heavily to profits.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2815118


Marbury said adding the four-time defensive player of the year "gives the brand some credibility," and he plans to get more players involved.


Marbury and Wallace are not paid to endorse the products. Instead, they earn royalties on sales.


Marbury said: "It's not that they're cheap; they're just affordable. Now, as we begin to sign more players, kids won't feel that burden."


______________________________________________________________________________________________________


I never have to sign anything to do charitable work/services or giving of materials to the less fortunate.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 03-27-2007 11:39 PM]

Trueblue, cheap is a relative term. Cheaper is an absolute term. And the sneakers are definitely cheaper than the competition.

The "affordable" quote can be interpreted favorably. Or unfavorably if you were inclined to spin the situation.

That Steph earns royalties doesn't disqualify it as a charitable act. The amount of those royalties are what matter.

I think the point about signing things is utterly irrelevant. Simply because you signed something doesn't mean you haven't done something charitable. If I sign a $15 million check over to Memorial Sloan Kettering, I'd call that charity.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Michael6835:

Since when is it bad to make money selling sneakers ? I like the sneakers, I wear them to work and they are quite comfortable. If I had younger kids, then I would buy them a pair. Why do we care about how much money is being made per shoe. In business, you take risks, they took one and were extremely successful. Last time I checked, that was called good business. What makes it even more crazy, is that everyone benefits from the Starbury line. People can afford to buy them and Steph and the store makes money. Makes you think if Steph and store can turn a profit by just selling sneakers for 15.00, what in the world is the profit margin with NIKE.

It's not a charitable venture if you're pocketing the profits.

It's a business. That's all it is.

[Edited by - islesfan on 03-27-2007 10:13 PM]

Last week Footwear News an industry magazine recognized the impact Marbury’s product launch had on the industry by awarding Marbury its “Launch of the Year”. Footwear News who also publishes Women’s Wear Daily awards is thought to be the “Oscars of the shoe industry”. Marbury and his partners retailers Steve & Barry's last week also announced they are donating a free pair of Starbury One high performance basketball sneakers to every varsity high school boys basketball player in New York City. The donation of 3,000 pairs of Starbury Ones is part of a new agreement that makes the Starbury brand a Partner of the Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL). The PSAL directs all athletic competition among the 193 public high schools in the five boroughs.

Stephon played in the PSAL while growing up in Coney Island and attending Lincoln High School. As a senior, he averaged more than 28 points and 9 assists per game while leading his team to the 1995 PSAL championship.

"The PSAL helped me get to where I am today and I am real excited to be able to supply free sneakers to all of these kids," Marbury said. "I hope it inspires them to become better players, and even more important better men."

"We are very proud of Stephon Marbury's accomplishments on and off the court," said Donald Douglas, Executive Director of the PSAL. "Our PSAL basketball players will benefit greatly from Steve & Barry's generous gift of Stephon's Starbury Ones basketball sneaker and we are very appreciative of their support. We look forward to future endeavors that bring Stephon, Steve & Barry's, and the PSAL together for the benefit of our student-athletes."

Sporting Business News

So you agree with me.

I heard some of the better programs said no thanks to the sneakers because they already have shoe deals with other brands.

Giving away the shoes is all about marketing your business. Free samples is 101.

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by Nalod:

Car companies make "inexpensive" cars and no body hails them as a "movement", Taco bell can sell a taco for .$39 and they are not feeding the poor, and TGF fridays is now downsizing the portions to reasonable levels. Should they be applauded for some benevelent gracious act of corp. selfless practice or admired for savvy manuvering within the market place to satisfy a need in the target market? I say the latter!

I think the main disanalogy is that for some reason, a big part of what makes basketball sneakers appealing to kids is image, i.e. star power. Kids probably could have bought a pair of Keds or something for $15 before Marbury's shoe, but it wouldn't have been endorsed by an NBA player. There is social pressure on these kids (often financially disadvantaged) to buy into an image rather than just buying into a pair of shoes. By contrast, these kids probably do not feel social pressure to buy caviar instead of taco bell.