|
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
|
Posted by bigbeast:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by bigbeast:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by bigbeast:
Blue- aint no kids in the projects wearing no skips from K-mart. The ones that do get teased unmercifully. Addidas was the most popular brand of sneakers during the mid 80's in the projects mainly because RunDmc endorsed them. When Jordan became huge, he gave his name to Nike and all of a sudden, Nike became the number one sneaker in the projects to wear.
Take those same sneakers off of the KMart racks, slap Marburys name on them, or Wade or (pick a star BB player), and all of a sudden, they are cool to wear in the projects. I'm speaking from the prospective of a man who has lived in the projects for 30 yrs.......
Understood. So we're talking about a brand change, not a social change. A social movement would be where people are encourage to be less brand conscious overall, and that includes brands like Sean John, Gucci, Cadilac and whatever else people might be buying against better fiscal judgment.
S&B were very clever to tap into this "brand appeal" as a way to carve a niche for themselves in the urban market among discount merchants. And the extra amount they pay to Steph for his name gets passed on to the consumer in higher prices, so it's all no risk to them.
Anyway, no harm, no foul - there's nothing wrong going on here, all parties seem well served - S&B expands their customer base, Steph keeps his endorsement name alive and pulls in a mint, and the buying public is more than satisfied with the product. Good business all around.
The real genius, however, is in the marketing campaign, which has paying public think they're being done a favor. Truly, I expect this to make the "best of" advertising journals. Anytime you can successfully convince people that spending money is like saving money, and that those who profit are doing you a favor, you're onto something.
It is a social change because this could save lives and change others. I knew of many teens growing up who were robbed, shot and even killed over a pair of Jordans. I highly doubt anyone is getting robbed over a pair of $15 Starburys.
Did you really?
I have a feeling this business about people getting killed over a pair of Jordans is 99% urban legend. I'm sure it happened once or twice way back in the day and the legend took off. This was when the streets were meaner, like when the Central Park jogger got "wilded", high school girls were groped in the public pools and people were rioting over Rodney King.
But the kind of people who'd kill for Jordans more than likely did the same far more frequently for a watch, pocketbook, gold chain, wallet, iPod, or a pack of cigarettes.
People still wear Jordans (and Lebrons, Iversons, Wades, Carmelos, et al) and those few who want to kill for them will still do so.
Marbury is saving no more lives than any other popular discount brand, but if you want to now credit him for bringing down violent crime, be my guest.
Heck, I guess Models is saving lives by selling cheap Marbury jerseys so people wont get killed for authentic Jordans. Timex is a lives saver as people wont get killed for Movado watches. Hyundai is a lives saver as people wont get killed for BMWs. There is just sooo much ennobling social work the world today...
I actually feel Marbury could do more to bring down bling-killings by modeling a humble face and keeping his ostentatious Escalade, earrings, and million dollar watch locked out of sight. But he only does that when he wants to look like a man of the people; when he's his normal hobbyist self it's BLING city.
Dont patronize me, Blue. Sometimes you come off as a snobbish, know-it-all. YES, I knew of 2 people 1 in Edenwald projects, Bronx, the ohter in the Valley (Bronx)who was killed because they refused to give up thier Jordans. True, thier were others who were robbed over chains, Cazelles (glasses), Suede Addidas, Sheepskin-coats, Leather-bombers, Starter-hats etc. But this thread is speaking of Sneakers.
I'm sure most of the stories of people getting killed over Jordans are made up by most. Just like there was a million people in the stands of Yankee stadium who saw Babe Ruth point to the bleachers before he delivered the ball over the fence. Were there a million people in the stands, obviously not. But someone was there. And I'm one of the someones who was around when 2 people I knew of were killed over Jordans.
I, myself had a gun jammed into my back for walking through the projects, late at night with a Halle Hanson jacket and a pair of brand new Filas. Luckily for me, I knew someone who knew someone if you know what I mean. Beast, I had no intention of patronizing you. Try not to confuse my clumsiness with malice. It's like basketball, if we're playing hard, fouls are to be expected. I think one is most patronizing when they assume (or pretend to) that someone is not capable of understanding something obvious, and they therefore be overly delicate with them. I hope I don't do that. I think most people on this board are waaaay ahead of the pack, and I struggle to raise my game to keep up with the rest of you. But in the end I don't see us as all that far apart on the matter. There are people who wanted Jordan to feel bad that folks were being robbed for his sneaks, as if he were responsible for bad people doing bad things. Ultimately, expensive sneakers are like any other luxury items, and often people want them specifically because they are expensive, and hard to come by. I'm actually surprised that with the popularity of the Starbury's, and the initial shortages, people didn't get roughed up for them too. I think they were especially hot when they were a rarity, and I have a feeling that interest in them will wane as the market gets saturated. Then interest will return to the expensive stuff being hawked by others. [Edited by - blueseats on 05-19-2007 12:10 PM] |
5/19/2007 10:10 AM