Jordan IV RM

[frenchbreadbuilds]

They have a long history of take down models. To think they actually believe they’ll trickle hype down and sell this shoes goes against history and what they know has happened. 312 trash all over again and we know those weren’t moving big numbers.

Do you thing getting this release out on people’s feet would hurt the sales of future RMs?

 

[trappedintime]

Do you thing getting this release out on people’s feet would hurt the sales of future RMs?

No but I don’t think it helps much either. I think Nike would be in a much better position today if they didn’t push unnecessary trash like this to begin with. It shows where their innovation is severely lacking. You’re never going to push sales with takedown models, especially in 2024, because there’s nothing compelling about it.

Nike’s reliance on “storytelling” to move product covers for the product being subpar. And even then they won’t invest in storytelling properly either or as I said they’d have a full lineup of collabs on this model. They used their terrible TS model with Nigel on this shoe and it’s even less compelling than a Jumpman Jackoff.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

No but I don’t think it helps much either.

I guess it all boils down to what you see as helping. I would think that when it comes to shelf filler take downs, selling more is better than selling less whether it’s 10 more or 10,000 more. There’s no good reason for these to not be more widely available. The shoes are here and they exist. So why throw money at marketing, story telling, and contracting an athlete and not use it to sell more shoes? The money is already spent, people are already paid. The buzz is generated. All the things you said can be and are true about Nike as a company, especially when it comes to innovation. But to me, this is more of Nike failing to understand the changing voice of the customer.

 

[watermelondeity]

Gentle reminder that hype shoes/special projects are not the primary financial driver for nike, which is why their declared renewed focus is reclaiming market share in the performance running space. Sneakerheads are a VERY vocal minority, and the models that that they turn their noses up at sell in volume to regular people.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Gentle reminder that hype shoes/special projects are not the primary financial driver for nike, which is why their declared renewed focus is reclaiming market share in the performance running space. Sneakerheads are a VERY vocal minority, and the models that that they turn their noses up at sell in volume to regular people.

In general, that’s true. In this specific case having this SP release more available only helps a shoe that hasn’t really even gotten off the ground yet. Nike has bigger fish to fry in other market segments for sure but people walking a way from the debut of a new shoe with the idea that the release was pointless doesn’t bode well for something that probably are already wasn’t predicted to move a lot of units.

 

[trappedintime]

I guess it all boils down to what you see as helping. I would think that when it comes to shelf filler take downs, selling more is better than selling less whether it’s 10 more or 10,000 more. There’s no good reason for these to not be more widely available. The shoes are here and they exist. So why throw money at marketing, story telling, and contracting an athlete and not use it to sell more shoes? The money is already spent, people are already paid. The buzz is generated. All the things you said can be and are true about Nike as a company, especially when it comes to innovation. But to me, this is more of Nike failing to understand the changing voice of the customer.

I don’t think the voice of the customer at any point in Nike’s history has appreciated this kind of release strategy regardless of model. I think if you’re looking at it from a product standpoint the product mgr wants a successful launch and sales to roll in for the product they’re responsible for. 10 more pairs isn’t moving the needle for the success of the product. That’s why I said they should have had a collab series ready to go.

But I brought up innovation cause it’s absolute horse **** that a pair of shoes needs a story behind it. AE1’s are moving just fine without detailed narratives around every cw. Ultimately the consumer wants to wear the shoes and Nike’s strategy continues to discount that in favor of narrative and hype which does nothing.

I guess from where I’m standing the biggest issue is they have a BMX athlete and they release a takedown model rather than Nike or JB developing an actual new product that moves the product line forward or creates a new space in their lineup. This achieves neither so whether there were 10,000 or 200 pairs of these release it really wouldn’t make much of a difference when the entire premise of the product existing is flawed.

Gentle reminder that hype shoes/special projects are not the primary financial driver for nike, which is why their declared renewed focus is reclaiming market share in the performance running space. Sneakerheads are a VERY vocal minority, and the models that that they turn their noses up at sell in volume to regular people.

How is that applicable here? They created a new shoe, new mold, and undoubtedly have hundreds of thousands of pairs to sell. More than a special project budget to recoupe. Doesn’t matter the market they’re aimed at, sitting shoes is lost dollars and rollout of any new product is critical to its success. This rollout will be the peak of the product’s success and they’ll have sold a few hundred pairs directly? That’s a loser from a business standpoint.

 

[staffsgtdignam]

I guess it all boils down to what you see as helping. I would think that when it comes to shelf filler take downs, selling more is better than selling less whether it’s 10 more or 10,000 more. There’s no good reason for these to not be more widely available. The shoes are here and they exist. So why throw money at marketing, story telling, and contracting an athlete and not use it to sell more shoes? The money is already spent, people are already paid. The buzz is generated. All the things you said can be and are true about Nike as a company, especially when it comes to innovation. But to me, this is more of Nike failing to understand the changing voice of the customer.

If we’re being honest, these would be rotting on the shelves at Marshall’s, etc. if they weren’t limited. These have takedown and fusion DNA all over them and unlike mainline Jordan retros, there is absolutely no nostalgia factor with the model to help it.

The design strategy here really remind me of 2014 Jordan Futures but with 4s instead of 11s-retain the tooling that everyone knows but essentially create a fusion by drastically altering the design of the upper.

 

[watermelondeity]

In general, that’s true. In this specific case having this SP release more available only helps a shoe that hasn’t really even gotten off the ground yet. Nike has bigger fish to fry in other market segments for sure but people walking a way from the debut of a new shoe with the idea that the release was pointless doesn’t bode well for something that probably are already wasn’t predicted to move a lot of units.

Oh I don't disagree with the desire for these to be more available. If more collabs were as accessible as the undftd terra humaras I'd love it, but special projects are more like a game of perception played against the internet. If a new collab shoe sells out, people that wanted the first might try for the next colorway. If a new collab shoe sits, there's significant momentum lost and that might kill the silhouette entirely. That's a risk/reward approach that every brand is using, not just nike.

How is that applicable here? They created a new shoe, new mold, and undoubtedly have hundreds of thousands of pairs to sell. More than a special project budget to recoupe. Doesn’t matter the market they’re aimed at, sitting shoes is lost dollars and rollout of any new product is critical to its success. This rollout will be the peak of the product’s success and they’ll have sold a few hundred pairs directly? That’s a loser from a business standpoint.

It's a "new" shoe on reused tooling which already lowers the initial cost and has been nike/jordan product line strategy for decades. The goal is likely to build some momentum with a couple special projects to achieve sell-through on a couple early GRs and hold shelf presence until they phase the shoe out in a year or two. It also serves to protect the value/perception of their legacy product (jordan 4s), because they can sell/use the tooling and they don't wind up saturating their retro line further. Shoes sitting are not money lost for nike unless they reach a return to vendor level, and having these fill space on shelves instead of having 20 retros sitting prevents the retros from further losing their appeal as a premium/desirable product.

I also like these shoes, both the SPs and some of the GRs, but that's me

 

[watermelondeity]

If we’re being honest, these would be rotting on the shelves at Marshall’s, etc. if they weren’t limited. These have takedown and fusion DNA all over them and unlike mainline Jordan retros, there is absolutely no nostalgia factor with the model to help it.

The design strategy here really remind me of 2014 Jordan Futures but with 4s instead of 11s-retain the tooling that everyone knows but essentially create a fusion by drastically altering the design of the upper.

it's exactly the same strategy as the jordan futures, and those did well for a while, especially for a non-retro jordan

 

[trappedintime]

It's a "new" shoe on reused tooling which already lowers the initial cost and has been nike/jordan product line strategy for decades. The goal is likely to build some momentum with a couple special projects to achieve sell-through on a couple early GRs and hold shelf presence until they phase the shoe out in a year or two. It also serves to protect the value/perception of their legacy product (jordan 4s), because they can sell/use the tooling and they don't wind up saturating their retro line further. Shoes sitting are not money lost for nike unless they reach a return to vendor level, and having these fill space on shelves instead of having 20 retros sitting prevents the retros from further losing their appeal as a premium/desirable product.

I also like these shoes, both the SPs and some of the GRs, but that's me

They’ve seen this strategy of takedown models failing to move for over a decade. Sure they saved some money with the sole but it’s an entirely new mold and doesn’t change the fact that there’s 7 figures involved in production costs.

And them not moving at a vendor level is just as bad. It compounds crap releases vendors have to take on and is a big part of the problem Nike has right now, as well as a leading factor in why a lot of boutiques can’t stay in business. Can’t dump your garbage on retailers forever and expect it to not catch up.

 

[watermelondeity]

They’ve seen this strategy of takedown models failing to move for over a decade. Sure they saved some money with the sole but it’s an entirely new mold and doesn’t change the fact that there’s 7 figures involved in production costs.

And them not moving at a vendor level is just as bad. It compounds crap releases vendors have to take on and is a big part of the problem Nike has right now, as well as a leading factor in why a lot of boutiques can’t stay in business. Can’t dump your garbage on retailers forever and expect it to not catch up.

Takedown shoes are a failure by what metric? Because they're made with an understanding that they're not going to sell like legacy/premium/limited product, and money still gets made after they're discounted.

Every brand is forcing GRs on vendors/boutiques for them to get the limited/premium product, it's not a unique jordan/nike thing, because only selling premium/legacy/high price product doesn't get you sales volume as a large company.

 

[mkj]

screw nike

 

[Magic33]

They’ve seen this strategy of takedown models failing to move for over a decade. Sure they saved some money with the sole but it’s an entirely new mold and doesn’t change the fact that there’s 7 figures involved in production costs.

And them not moving at a vendor level is just as bad. It compounds crap releases vendors have to take on and is a big part of the problem Nike has right now, as well as a leading factor in why a lot of boutiques can’t stay in business. Can’t dump your garbage on retailers forever and expect it to not catch up.

I see plenty of people actually wearing takedown models that NT looks down upon

 

[picasso swerve]

These kicks too mid to be having this kinda discussion about em.

 

[Public Enemy]

The Black Cats are nice. Looking forward to those too.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I see plenty of people actually wearing takedown models that NT looks down upon

im sure sales for true flights have dwarfed the life time sales of the retro 7s ten fold. and theyre still selling them almost 15 years after the initial drop.

I don’t think the voice of the customer at any point in Nike’s history has appreciated this kind of release strategy regardless of model. I think if you’re looking at it from a product standpoint the product mgr wants a successful launch and sales to roll in for the product they’re responsible for. 10 more pairs isn’t moving the needle for the success of the product. That’s why I said they should have had a collab series ready to go.

But I brought up innovation cause it’s absolute horse **** that a pair of shoes needs a story behind it. AE1’s are moving just fine without detailed narratives around every cw. Ultimately the consumer wants to wear the shoes and Nike’s strategy continues to discount that in favor of narrative and hype which does nothing.

I guess from where I’m standing the biggest issue is they have a BMX athlete and they release a takedown model rather than Nike or JB developing an actual new product that moves the product line forward or creates a new space in their lineup. This achieves neither so whether there were 10,000 or 200 pairs of these release it really wouldn’t make much of a difference when the entire premise of the product existing is flawed.


How is that applicable here? They created a new shoe, new mold, and undoubtedly have hundreds of thousands of pairs to sell. More than a special project budget to recoupe. Doesn’t matter the market they’re aimed at, sitting shoes is lost dollars and rollout of any new product is critical to its success. This rollout will be the peak of the product’s success and they’ll have sold a few hundred pairs directly? That’s a loser from a business standpoint.

If we’re being honest, these would be rotting on the shelves at Marshall’s, etc. if they weren’t limited. These have takedown and fusion DNA all over them and unlike mainline Jordan retros, there is absolutely no nostalgia factor with the model to help it.

The design strategy here really remind me of 2014 Jordan Futures but with 4s instead of 11s-retain the tooling that everyone knows but essentially create a fusion by drastically altering the design of the upper.

i think you guys take more issue with the existence of the shoe in the first place (which is valid). Im just saying the shoes are already here. you can view them and whether you guys like them personally or not, we've got one pair on the market that a number greater than zero amount of people want, and nike is choosing not deliver. my only argument is that releasing more of the shoe people want, in this particular case ONLY has positive impacts. The only thing had to do was release more pairs even if nothing else about the release changed.