Air Jordan XXXIII first info

[staffsgtdignam]

The difference is I can make an insightful point in 1-3 sentences. You take 5 paragraphs to talk in circles.

How exactly did I “talk in circles”? I made my point and used specific examples to defend it.

Also, you never answered my question-why did you feel the need to make that initial comment?

 

[staffsgtdignam]

With all due respect, and I know where you are coming from, but in my opinion you're looking at it a bit wrong in the long-term picture. This idea that Jordan Brand is suffering because MJ hasn't played in 15 years, and even longer when we're talking about the REAL MJ years with the Bulls, isn't necessarily a thing. "Jordan" has become a multi-billion-dollar brand. That doesn't happen because it is just living off of the player wearing the shoes in games during his career. Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the retro business drives a huge chunk of its revenue, but the brand must sell a boatload of non-retro product to achieve its reported revenue.

Enzo Ferrari has been dead for the 30 years. His death impacted that company for a while afterward, but today no one cares. People buy the cars because they are FERRARIS. Brand recognition and image carry the day. It certainly isn't because they are all the best-performing or best-looking cars (I work in automotive, and drive them all, so I'm not just blowing smoke.) When you ask how the brand can build ties with newer models, the answer is simple: great design, great product. Just like Nike itself did. "Jordan" the brand is now no different than any other company in the sneaker space, except it does have the huge retro nostalgia and sales as a result. That's a huge ace in the hole to be sure. But the brand also moves a boatload of product not associated with retro, worn by kids and adults alike because it is "Jordan" branded. No one has a connection to Phil Knight or Nike like they do with MJ, yet that didn't stop Nike's success or stop it from producing highly coveted shoes, many of which weren't and aren't tied to one single athlete.

For the annual signature Air Jordan, I honestly believe that all it takes is a sick shoe. I agree, that means it has to have off-court appeal as well. And they haven't done that much in the past 10-plus years. But it's really that simple. The rest is a foundation that has already been laid. The Jumpman is, along with the Swoosh, the sneaker equivalent of Ferrari's prancing horse.

You bring up a good point about Enzo Ferrari. I’d argue that a massive part of the allure of Ferrari’s automotive products though is how rare they are. AFAIK, much of the reason for this is due to the attention to detail each vehicle is given. “Ferrari” became a seal of quality for the products, moreso than any ties to Enzo himself. You could say the same for JB’s products and the Jumpman to an extent however they produce a vast array of products-some awesome and some, quite frankly, pretty bad.

While you have a point about them simply designing a “sick shoe” to carry the brand forward, I’d ask that if this is the case-how come none of the post-NBA MJ models have been able to accomplish this? Do you think the brand has simply focused too much on retros? I’m genuinely curious to hear opinions on this.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[Magic33]

Always get excited about the new model. Jordan brand has been trying to eliminate laces for years. They may have pulled it off. I hate shrouds though. Frfr

I hate shrouds also. I haven't gotten any shroud Jordan's.

 

[gundamzaku]

I actually think you have a solid point but my main question is-how is a new model ever going to feel refreshing when it carries the name of someone who hasn’t played in a decade and a half? The ties of the brand’s popular products to consumers is strong, which is why retros have become a streetwear staple but how do you build those ties with newer models and especially with younger kids who have only grown up seeing classic retro models being worn?

Hell, even the most popular existing players like LeBron, KD, and Steph have trouble selling the fashion aspect of their shoes for offcourt wear (although, especially with the recent LeBron line-they are really trying hard to change that). AFAIK (or can remember) Jordans sold while MJ was playing had huge offcourt appeal.

Great Questions

With all due respect, and I know where you are coming from, but in my opinion you're looking at it a bit wrong in the long-term picture. This idea that Jordan Brand is suffering because MJ hasn't played in 15 years, and even longer when we're talking about the REAL MJ years with the Bulls, isn't necessarily a thing. "Jordan" has become a multi-billion-dollar brand. That doesn't happen because it is just living off of the player wearing the shoes in games during his career. Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the retro business drives a huge chunk of its revenue, but the brand must sell a boatload of non-retro product to achieve its reported revenue.

Enzo Ferrari has been dead for the 30 years. His death impacted that company for a while afterward, but today no one cares. People buy the cars because they are FERRARIS. Brand recognition and image carry the day. It certainly isn't because they are all the best-performing or best-looking cars (I work in automotive, and drive them all, so I'm not just blowing smoke.) When you ask how the brand can build ties with newer models, the answer is simple: great design, great product. Just like Nike itself did. "Jordan" the brand is now no different than any other company in the sneaker space, except it does have the huge retro nostalgia and sales as a result. That's a huge ace in the hole to be sure. But the brand also moves a boatload of product not associated with retro, worn by kids and adults alike because it is "Jordan" branded. No one has a connection to Phil Knight or Nike like they do with MJ, yet that didn't stop Nike's success or stop it from producing highly coveted shoes, many of which weren't and aren't tied to one single athlete.

For the annual signature Air Jordan, I honestly believe that all it takes is a sick shoe. I agree, that means it has to have off-court appeal as well. And they haven't done that much in the past 10-plus years. But it's really that simple. The rest is a foundation that has already been laid. The Jumpman is, along with the Swoosh, the sneaker equivalent of Ferrari's prancing horse.

Great Answers

Thank you both!

 

[tonytobacco]

these stupid things havent leaked yet?? christ

 

[dmoney23444]

I kinda hope they don’t, and they live stream the Unveil.

 

[tonytobacco]

yeah im kind of with you. Thatd be cool to come here and everybody gets to clown at once.

 

[downyboy]

I wish NT had a feature where they automatically put these paragraph responses in spoilers.

 

[barrebaby]

I kinda hope they don’t, and they live stream the Unveil.

At this point I'm with you, JB did a hell of a job keeping this shoe under wraps this long. I think it's a good thing for the shoe, if was a weaker model I dont think they'd have kept it hidden so well.

 

[rainking]

these stupid things havent leaked yet?? christ

 

[spoonmanofthehour]

these stupid things havent leaked yet?? christ

You already know what they look like, Gentry. Cut the crap.

 

[GrizzlyAnimal]

That man cant wait to bash it lol

 

[rainking]

You bring up a good point about Enzo Ferrari. I’d argue that a massive part of the allure of Ferrari’s automotive products though is how rare they are. AFAIK, much of the reason for this is due to the attention to detail each vehicle is given. “Ferrari” became a seal of quality for the products, moreso than any ties to Enzo himself. You could say the same for JB’s products and the Jumpman to an extent however they produce a vast array of products-some awesome and some, quite frankly, pretty bad.

While you have a point about them simply designing a “sick shoe” to carry the brand forward, I’d ask that if this is the case-how come none of the post-NBA MJ models have been able to accomplish this? Do you think the brand has simply focused too much on retros? I’m genuinely curious to hear opinions on this.

EDIT: Spelling

I just used Ferrari as one clear example to illustrate the bigger point I intended, which is the fact that "Jordan" the brand at this point is bigger than Jordan the guy. It clearly derives huge revenue from people who weren't even born, or were barely born, when he was doing his thing. In that sense, my observation has already been proven in the marketplace. People now recognize the name and logo as "cool" and "good" and "desirable" products in the sportswear space, just as they recognize Nike and the Swoosh, Adidas and the three stripes, etc. Even the retro product is purchased by millions of people who never saw MJ wear it live and who never owned that product originally. So again, by definition they are buying them because the product and the brand have become style staples independent of anything MJ ever did in those shoes. In other words, if the majority of Jordan's business came from people like me who were there at the time and are buying because of nostalgia, you'd see the brand's revenue coming in at a fraction of what it actually does. Now, I think we all agree that it's been a long time since a new Air Jordan became a classic, and FOR SURE MJ's exploits in earlier models gives them something extra. But the designs have been the big issue, at least in my opinion. I can't answer for why most of the modern designs have sucked, that's one for the actual designers LOL. That said, they still seem to sell a lot of each year's shoe.

PS: Just since you asked, there are for sure differences in Jordan's and Ferari's business MODELS and clientele, but the basic point about each brand standing on its own regardless of the "founder" at this stage is what is relevant to this topic. And also since you asked, Ferrari's aren't rare because of the attention each is given. Ferrari could make thousands more cars per year if it wanted, but much like Rolex (another monster brand), it limits production intentionally to create mystique and maintain demand--something not foreign to Jordan not too long ago ...

 

[rainking]

Anyway, enough of all that but it's an interesting discussion for sure. None of it actually matters much to me, though. Like I said, I just want a sick-*** new Air Jordan for once LOL

 

[staffsgtdignam]

I just used Ferrari as one clear example to illustrate the bigger point I intended, which is the fact that "Jordan" the brand at this point is bigger than Jordan the guy. It clearly derives huge revenue from people who weren't even born, or were barely born, when he was doing his thing. In that sense, my observation has already been proven in the marketplace. People now recognize the name and logo as "cool" and "good" and "desirable" products in the sportswear space, just as they recognize Nike and the Swoosh, Adidas and the three stripes, etc. Even the retro product is purchased by millions of people who never saw MJ wear it live and who never owned that product originally. So again, by definition they are buying them because the product and the brand have become style staples independent of anything MJ ever did in those shoes. In other words, if the majority of Jordan's business came from people like me who were there at the time and are buying because of nostalgia, you'd see the brand's revenue coming in at a fraction of what it actually does. Now, I think we all agree that it's been a long time since a new Air Jordan became a classic, and FOR SURE MJ's exploits in earlier models gives them something extra. But the designs have been the big issue, at least in my opinion. I can't answer for why most of the modern designs have sucked, that's one for the actual designers LOL. That said, they still seem to sell a lot of each year's shoe.

PS: Just since you asked, there are for sure differences in Jordan's and Ferari's business MODELS and clientele, but the basic point about each brand standing on its own regardless of the "founder" at this stage is what is relevant to this topic. And also since you asked, Ferrari's aren't rare because of the attention each is given. Ferrari could make thousands more cars per year if it wanted, but much like Rolex (another monster brand), it limits production intentionally to create mystique and maintain demand--something not foreign to Jordan not too long ago ...

Interesting, I didn’t know that about Ferrari-I always assumed they ran a pretty small shop in terms of production but I don’t really know much about the industry.

I think what you’re saying is that retros have become a modern streetwear/fashion staple, even among younger consumers who care little about MJ. However, newer designs simply fall short of having any kind of relevance except to those who use them for performance.

I don’t know how the brand fixes this problem, or if it’s even capable of being fixed given how far gone the line has become, fashion-wise. People immediate write off new, non-retro Air Jordans as court-only models and certainly nobody in the fashion industry or prominent social media fashion influencers/bloggers takes them seriously.

 

[rainking]

Interesting, I didn’t know that about Ferrari-I always assumed they ran a pretty small shop in terms of production but I don’t really know much about the industry.

I think what you’re saying is that retros have become a modern streetwear/fashion staple, even among younger consumers who care little about MJ. However, newer designs simply fall short of having any kind of relevance except to those who use them for performance.

I don’t know how the brand fixes this problem, or if it’s even capable of being fixed given how far gone the line has become, fashion-wise. People immediate write off new, non-retro Air Jordans as court-only models and certainly nobody in the fashion industry or prominent social media fashion influencers/bloggers takes them seriously.

If Ferrari seriously boosted its production numbers like it could, its cars would soon become as common as 911s. And Ferrari doesn't want to become Porsche, it wants to remain a level above.

I know what you mean about the shoes but that's why I personally think the designs have been the main problem as far as casual goes. But in fairness, at least for the past few years, very few of these flyknit bball shoes have had much casual appeal except for some of the Kobes. All these flyknit sigs that look alike ... none of them seem to be viewed by most of us as amazing future classics, be they Jordans, LeBrons, KDs, Kyries, PGs, etc. Then there's the question of, does Jordan feel like its sig models aren't doing what the company intended them to do in the marketplace? They've clearly focused on performance for the annual Air Jordan, so I would expect that the internal sales projections when the business plan is concocted reflect that. I'd be surprised to hear that the Jordan planners expect to sell 2 million pairs of an expensive high-top flyknit shoe that clearly wasn't ever intended for casual in the first place.

See, this is the other thing: WE might see these things as relative failures, but that's because we want them to be a certain way. That doesn't mean they ARE actual failures for the brand. The only way to know that would be to know what the projections were and what the production numbers were, and what the sell-through was. We might be very surprised to learn that a lot of these new Air Jordans have been considered extremely successful from a business standpoint and when compared to industry averages. In other words, I'm not even sure Jordan sees the retail performance of the annual sig as a problem it even has, even if we do.

 

[tonytobacco]

You already know what they look like, Gentry. Cut the crap.

Theyre keeping me in the dark because I kept saying 'needs more patent, baby' whenever I saw them. I have no idea what they look like now

 

[tonytobacco]

If Ferrari seriously boosted its production numbers like it could, its cars would soon become as common as 911s. And Ferrari doesn't want to become Porsche, it wants to remain a level above.

I know what you mean about the shoes but that's why I personally think the designs have been the main problem as far as casual goes. But in fairness, at least for the past few years, very few of these flyknit bball shoes have had much casual appeal except for some of the Kobes. All these flyknit sigs that look alike ... none of them seem to be viewed by most of us as amazing future classics, be they Jordans, LeBrons, KDs, Kyries, PGs, etc. Then there's the question of, does Jordan feel like its sig models aren't doing what the company intended them to do in the marketplace? They've clearly focused on performance for the annual Air Jordan, so I would expect that the internal sales projections when the business plan is concocted reflect that. I'd be surprised to hear that the Jordan planners expect to sell 2 million pairs of an expensive high-top flyknit shoe that clearly wasn't ever intended for casual in the first place.

See, this is the other thing: WE might see these things as relative failures, but that's because we want them to be a certain way. That doesn't mean they ARE actual failures for the brand. The only way to know that would be to know what the projections were and what the production numbers were, and what the sell-through was. We might be very surprised to learn that a lot of these new Air Jordans have been considered extremely successful from a business standpoint and when compared to industry averages. In other words, I'm not even sure Jordan sees the retail performance of the annual sig as a problem it even has, even if we do.

Interesting. You have my wheels spinning...

How would guys feel if I made the Air Jordan 34 like the ferrari FXX? You buy them from us and then you send in a request when you want to wear them, we review the date and event and decide whether or not its suitable for us, we ship them out to you overnight if approved and then you promptly return them back to us within a 24 hr period. The shoes will contain a chip inside that records your whereabouts and performance data that youd be entitled to look over if you wanted by contacting us via email. I love it

 

[rainking]

Interesting. You have my wheels spinning...

How would guys feel if I made the Air Jordan 34 like the ferrari FXX? You buy them from us and then you send in a request when you want to wear them, we review the date and event and decide whether or not its suitable for us, we ship them out to you overnight if approved and then you promptly return them back to us within a 24 hr period. The shoes will contain a chip inside that records your whereabouts and performance data that youd be entitled to look over if you wanted by contacting us via email. I love it

Hahahahaha. Yeah, Ferrari can be a real piece of work with some of its more precious policies. I'd tell it to pound sand if I were a customer it gave that BS to.

 

[GrizzlyAnimal]

 

[noblekane]

They tried to make forward looking designs and no one bought them. They are going retro because that’s the aesthetic that people want.

what was the forward looking designed jordans? a gloryhole on the side?

the futuristic designs fell off after the xv.

whoever designs all the current nike running shoes should be brought in to design the air jordan line

air jordan with zoom x

lebron xv and xvi look dope. have petrie design jordans now

 

[noblekane]

im
not seeing it lloyd!

 

[jacktown83]

So I guess this is the tension system maybe..?

 

[kingofeastnc]

With it's simplicity, I viewed the base model of the Air Jordan XX9 as the modern Converse All-star. It's nuts that they never hit Nike ID.

As far as these XXX3 – no matter what the design is – I'm just hopeful for dope colorways.

HYPOTHESIS: Considering the hints with the tech, I suspect this shoe has been many years in the making. Possibly dating back to the XXX when they rushed that design. Then the XXX1 and XXX2 were placeholders with throwback design concepts. I'm optimistic this will really be special.

 

[3god]

33 bout to top my list of trash for the year... pretty much every release besides BC 3, Red Toe and Gold toe 1s.