- 7,325
- 28,714
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Quote:
I only have one question....And it's fairly straight-forward and I'm not expecting anyone to answer, just think:..if JB is no longer a division of NIKE...then why did the recent patent-leather one's have a swoosh on them??
Thats an easy one: Theyre hypocrites.
The 2004 white/black/red Air Jordan II retro had the word NIKE at the heel.
What happened? I thought Nike was four-letter word to those people.
Go read some of the comments by Jordan employees in old issues of Kicks and the Jordan issue of Slam. Youll be surprised at how committed they are to delivering exact replicas of classic sneakers. Speaking of the Jordan II, I believe it was Gentry who was quoted as saying that the II would NEVER again be given the retro treatment since they didnt feel they could ever recreate it to the EXACT specifications of the original. He made it seem as though the Jordan II released in 1994 was an abomination since it couldnt compare to the originals, which utilized genuine Italian leather. Obviously hes waved goodbye to his commitment to quality and integrity since then.
Quote:
Comparing shoes to cars? I remember someone doing that in the General Forum and Bastitch shot that down quickly. I've seen bums in jay's, its really not the same thing.
So, you can't even remember the context of Bastich's comments, but you just don't like the IDEA of comparing shoes to cars because they're so much less expensive. Is that right?
I don't see why the price difference has so thoroughly confused you. We're talking about product image here. We could just as easily talk about the image of brands like Cristal and Jay Z's "boycott" or discuss how companies can charge so much more for "top shelf" vodka when the average consumer can't taste the difference. You could look electronics brands and how important it is for high end speaker manufacturers to win over audiophiles. Pick an industry and you can probably conjure a relevant example.
I chose cars because I feel it's an example that most of us are familiar with. In the past, I've used "urban" clothing brands like Fubu as an illustrative example - and that's in the same price range. In short: just think about what happened to Fubu's sales after they "sold out" to the suburbs. They went from experiencing their best sales EVER to falling right off the face of the earth within about 6 months. It's not a coincidence. The explosiveness of their growth was DIRECTLY related to their equally impressive downfall.
The point is, there are commonalities among "image" oriented brands that transcend proudct categories.
Quote:
Good post as usual, but you're comparing the effect celebrities have to the effect brand afficionados/loyalists have.
Celebrities are an extreme example of the concept I'm talking about. It's often argued that NikeTalk members account for an infinitesimal proportion of Jordan brand's overall sales - as though our support doesn't matter in the least. This logic treats all consumers as equally influential. We know thats simply not true. How much of a given product's sales are celebrities DIRECTLY responsible for? Now, what percentage are they INDIRECTLY responsible for?
It's a simple matter of influence.
If celebrities indirectly influence sales in a manner that is INCREDIBLY disproportionate to their own purchases, the same may be said for the aficionados albeit on a slightly different scale. Of course, there are tens of thousands of times more sneaker heads than there are celebrities.
With Michael Jordan in retirement, who's really convincing young consumers that Air Jordans are the coolest sneakers? Mike Bibby?
Yes, advertising and marketing has its role - but ask yourself: how do today's young kids really get the idea that Air Jordans are cool?
Carmelo Anthony doesn't come to your kid's school and promote Air Jordans, but virtually every school has its share of sneaker enthusiasts who perform this role every single day. These are the guys (and gals) who DO care about something as trivial as "nike air" on the back of a sneaker. They're the ones who market the product at the NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL - and on top of everything else, they're loyal customers as well. Unlike paid sponsors, they're CREDIBLE. Their loyalty hasn't been paid for, but earned. Its the best advertising you could POSSIBLY have.
Since we're all on the Internet, I'm sure we all know someone who's very knowledgeable when it comes to computers. When we're considering an upgrade, we value their opinions. If they tell you that such and such makes the BEST hard drive and can cite a dozen complicated reasons why, odds are you'll wind up buying one. Some of us remember the 'Seinfeld' episode where Jerry purchases an expensive tennis racquet because the manager of the pro shop at his tennis club recommended it. When we're unsure about a product, we look to those with greater expertise to help us determine which products and brands are the best.
Most of us will never own a Mercedes, but if automotive enthusiasts have been touting the company since before we were even BORN - odds are that's going to influence our perception more than an advertising campaign. Somehow, people feel they know that Mercedes has always made great cars. So, when they see that C230 they feel confident in its quality when compared to, say, a Saturn. Why? Is it because of ADVERTISING?
EVERY company simultaneously declares themselves the best in the business. If you talk to somebody at Kia, they'll tell you why you're better off buying an Optima than an Accord, Camry, 325i, etc. etc. You're naturally wary of anything a salesperson or spokesperson tells you about a product.
Its become part of our culture to associate Mercedes with quality luxury cars. Yet while one might feel as though this has "always" been true, it doesn't necessarily mean that this perception will endure. Negative word of mouth spreads further and faster than positive word of mouth so these associations can quickly change. Our generation has a VERY different perception of the Cadillac brand than our parents or grandparents generations.
If the automotive enthusiast community TURNS on Mercedes due to the diminishing quality of their high-end luxury sports cars, this ultimately damages consumer perception of the lower end vehicles even if these models NEVER experience similar problems.
Again, take the declining image of American car manufacturers, for example. Our parents or grandparents were familiar with the phrase _______ is the Cadillac of _______. Just as, when we refer to a person at the top of his or her field, we might say, _______ is the MICHAEL JORDAN of ________.
Jordan brand has arguably the best foundation to build on of any current sneaker manufacturer given its heritage and the current aura that surrounds the product. This is an incredible advantage, but its one that can be easily squandered. Even at the peak of his popularity, Michael Jordan wasnt moving much cologne, for instance. The product never had ANY credibility among those who took fragrance purchases seriously. Most bottles of Michael Jordan cologne were purchased as a novelty or as an ill-conceived gift for Jordan fans. Many of us have unopened bottles lying around to prove it.
For an image product to work, it must have currency among influential consumers. When Nike first launched the Air Jordan, they engaged in guerilla marketing. To ensure that the right people would wear the shoes, they actually began PAYING influential inner city residents to wear them in hopes that their example would effectively set the trend and help make Air Jordans cool. Most of us who are familiar with the history of the brand have heard about this in one form or another. Its a concept that helped them get to where they are today.
Simple advertising isnt enough. Our society is steeped in advertising most of it conflicting. Drink Coke. Drink Pepsi. Cigarettes are cool. Cigarettes will kill you. Drink beer. Drink rum. Drink vodka. Dont drink and drive. Weve been promised everything by everyone and early in life we learn that companies break almost as many promises as they make. By the time we reach elementary school, were cynics.
If advertising influences us, it generally occurs within the subconscious. Our rational minds arent particularly accepting of P. Diddys claims that Proactiv preserves his sexy.
No one actually looks at the ad for Icy Hot back patches and thinks, Wow, they MUST be great if SHAQ uses them! We know hes been paid to appear in the ad and, as such, we dont take his endorsement very seriously. For the company, its enough that Shaq causes you to pay attention to the ad long enough to simply acknowledge that Icy Hot back patches now exist and that, if by chance youre ever in the market for a disposable back relief patch, youll remember it.
Jay Z has a sneaker line he generally only wears at publicity events arranged by Reebok. Kids are more strongly influenced by what he CHOOSES to wear than what hes PAID to wear.
If a kid trusts Pharrells fashion sense above his or her own, theyll rush out and buy whatever outfit he had on in his latest video. If Pharrell pops up on TV to advertise a new line of hip hop themed chewable antacids, they probably wont be as eager to follow his lead.
Influence is contextual. You probably dont get dating and computer advice from the same guy.
Perhaps nothing is more influential than the HONEST opinions of those we trust as experts in a given field.
If you as an "average" consumer encounter someone who owns 100+ pairs of sneakers and can not only recognize 10-year-old sneakers but also tell you about the cushioning technology they use - you're likely to hold their opinions in high regard. If all the teen and college age kids who are really into basketball and/or sneakers walk around in Air Jordans, thats going to influence an 8 year old far more than any advertisement.
So, if the suits at Jordan brand are saying, Hey, we OWN the 8 year old market right now. Who cares what those 25 year old geezers at NikeTalk think? theyd better hope and pray that todays 8 year olds dont become any more discerning about their footwear by the time theyre ready to inherit our position of influence. Otherwise, in 20 years all of the sneakerheads will be wearing other brands and when people ask Who was Michael Jordan? the answer could very well be He was famous for endorsing a lot of crap like underwear, hot dogs, batteries, cologne, and cheap shoes. A lot of people think he was the best basketball player ever. I dont know if hes better than OJ Mayo Jr., though. Kids can be vicious in that way. Years from now, they might mock the Air Jordan fad the way we laugh derisively at 8 track tapes, pet rocks, and mood rings.
It all depends on whether or not Jordan brand chooses to BUILD on their product's heritage or mortgage it.
