BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Stephon Marbury takes on Nike with a new brand of really cheap trainers.

 
 
Olulabelle
22:59 / 29.08.06
A U.S. basketball star called Stephon Marbury is endorsing a brand of trainer that costs under fifteeen dollars. Apparently he's very famous in the U.S. He's originally from the Bronx and he "understands how difficult it can be for families with children wanting the right sneakers".

There's an article about it here.

I think it's excellent, very altruistic and I wish more celebrities followed his lead. He is going to wear them next season for games so he really is endorsing them rather than just putting his name to them. If enough celebrities did this surely it would affect Nike?

Perhaps I might write to David Beckham. As if.
 
 
lekvar
00:58 / 02.09.06
I'd like to see how these shoes are going to get around the "poor kid's shoes" stigma. I'd also be curious to see wheter they can manage to produce quality shoes for that price without getting in trouble for poor labor or trade practices. Good luck to 'em though.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:33 / 02.09.06
Nice one, Olulabelle. A friend of mine is involved with a slightly similar, small UK company at the moment and I've recently passed on this info to hir, as I think ze (and others) will be able to benefit from it.

FYI: the philosophy statement of the company my friend works with includes the following words:


"... The United Kingdom is one of the most diverse nations in the world and XXXXXXXXX* believe that this is a fact that should be celebrated. This country has many different communities with their origins in all parts of the globe and this diversity is one of our greatest strengths. As a brand, our aim is to highlight this special aspect that the United Kingdom has to offer. We are one of the greatest nations in the world and XXXXXXXXX* earnestly believe that it’s about time we celebrate and take pride in our country of many colours ... "

and...

"... A percentage of [their*] annual profits will be donated to the Scarman Trust ... "


At present, I don't know much about the people behind Starbury (or indeed, the people my friend's involved with), but from the surface both of these projects seem worthy, in my humble opinion. Of course, there's always a danger of someone unscrupulous coming along and exploiting these community based projects for personal gain. But the fact that some genuine hearted people want to make life better for more people is a good thing.

However, that said, I also imagine some people might be more cynical of the notion of a sportswear company trying to be positive and support others in this way (others mght find it a bit patronising); and like lekvar, I'm not sure where and how both of these companies get their products made, which is also a very important consideration.

I also wonder if there's an argument to be had that all this does is advertise another brand, a catch-all label everyone can wear; whether this is therefore right of wrong; and / or that maybe we should be encouraging more individual artistic expressions of style, rather than more cloned commercialism? Although, it would take me years to make a pair of shoes, so...

Hmm...interesting...

__________________________

* I've edited the name of this particular company to avoid unnecessarily "plugging" their products, and as (of course) I am also personally involved with a member of this group, etc.
 
 
*
19:08 / 02.09.06
I presume these are made in sweatshops, yes? Using cheap child labor? After all, if they're made just like all the name brand trainers, they would have to be...

...veeeeery ethical.
 
 
pony
21:42 / 02.09.06
there are certainly still many players in the shoe industry (well, all international manufacturing, really) that are engaging is some very iffy labor practices, but you'll find that a number of the big players (nike, adidas, newbalance, just off the top of my head) have improved their practices to an extraordinary degree since nike's labor practices became a media issue. actually, between their labor practices, environmental initiatives (nike is the largest importer of organic cotton in the US) and a massive amount of arts funding both by the company and chairman or the board Phil Knight, i'd say that they're really at the forefront of what a large company should be doing, ethically.

that last paragraph was pretty much a prelude to this: at the moment, your high end nikes cost an average of $5 to manufacture. if you're simply going to rip off a quality design, you're company will have virtually no r&d expenses, and a $15 pair of basketball shoes that are top quality is totally possible.

also, from what i hear (i live in the same town as nike headquarters and hang out with a decent amount of industry folk), the starburys are selling out WAY faster than expected, and impressing the heck out of a lot of people.
 
 
*
03:58 / 03.09.06
Oh, well, v. cool then.
 
 
Olulabelle
16:25 / 04.09.06
id, my point was mainly about celebrity endorsement rather than the ethical policies of conglomirates.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:39 / 04.09.06
Sorry, Olulabelle. That was my fault. I side-tracked the thread, unwittingly, as I suppose I was thinking more about ethical clothing projects in general.

Back on topic, I think I like this particular example of celebrity endorsement, in a way; but my instinct tells me to distrust anything fronted by a celebrity as it just adds to our rampant celebrity culture. I also find it a little sad that we still have a culture where this can still happen or indeed needs to happen: where a celebrity and a bit of branding are still popular and powerful enough to earn empires millions or make millions buy cheeper. But I'm probably just being an old misery guts.

People all over seem to be getting hold of more information about being a conscious consumer, but the difference here is that the Starburys are cheep, whereas (say) organic food can be more pricey and so often lower income earners may not have the same luxury.

But then if people of all classes and backgrounds start to wear them, and maybe even customize them, then this could be very cool indeed, I reckon. Celebrity or no celebrity.

Interesting...
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
19:18 / 05.09.06
I wonder if these will become popular in the wealthy 'poser' culture after a while and how long they will stay cheap once the manufacturers realize that K-fed wore a pair to the MTV Music Awards.

I am also curious how they are manufactured. As stated above Nikes only cost about $5 a pair to make, but look at who is producing them and under what conditions. Sure you could make money selling $15 sneakers, but if you aren't paying your employees enough to buy a pair then you aren't actually saving the world.
 
 
Olulabelle
09:38 / 06.09.06
Absolutely. Undeniably there are issues surrounding the manufacture of fashion products and I think we have a thread about it in the headshop or somewhere.

Regarding endorsing cheap trainers, Marbury is shifting the goalposts for companies and for celebrity endorsement in general. Celebrities usually endorse high ticket products that enforce a must-have elitist consumer culture. Marbury's decision goes against this somewhat and I wonder what affect this may have on how companies perceive the need for endorsement from celebrities.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:26 / 06.09.06
I think you're probably right about Mr Marbury and the company's intentions, Olulabelle. But despite this I can't help remain very cynical (I told you I'm a misery guts).

Over the years, celebrities have endorsed many things before, cheep and expensive things, free things, charitable courses and private interests alike, etc.


For example; let's take a subjective look at another sports company's birth:


In 1964 Nike was half born of finance (Phil Knight), and half born out of a private, yet philanthropic interest and obsession to make good footwear and help deliver American athletes (and probably one legend in particular, Steve Roland Prefontaine, or "Pre") to renowned athletic glory and high status (Bill Bowerman). Nike, therefore, would use coaching and new technology to help give athletes and maybe a nation a boost in pride, deliver fresh hope to people worldwide that they too can belong to the Nike dream, and make lots of money for Nike's backers in the process.

It is probably ironic, therefore, that Bowerman's main poster boy, "Pre", wore Adidas (in the trials, at least), and then came fourth at the 1972 Summer Olympic Games in Munich.

According to a bio-drama film I once saw about Pre's life (at any rate), at the time Pre wasn't feeling right, mainly to due to the Middle East related hostage crisis happening only a few hundred yards away from his drab and bare US paid hotel room. This deeply affected him and like many other athletes that summer, despite trying hard as always, his heart was no longer in that final, allegedly.

Also, there was not much sponsorship or national investment in US "amateur" sport those days, and Pre was appalled at the conditions in Munich and how athletes were treated as pawns by their leaders and others. After the 1972 Olympics he thus went on to became a big voice in the Amateur Athletic Union, before he sadly died in a suspicious car crash in 1975. (No, I'm not going all "conspiracy theory" either...)


According to Pre's 'University of Oregon (1970-1973)' wiki entry:


" It was during his collegiate career that he [Pre] began to fight the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) which demanded that athletes who wished to remain "amateur" for the Olympics not be paid for appearances in track meets, even though they drew large crowds that generated millions of dollars. Bowerman, who also fought the AAU's restrictions, began calling Prefontaine "Rube" because of his naivety and stubbornness."

Pre was also due to become one of the two main Torch Lighters for the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, and his name is still recorded as such despite his untimely death.

Indeed, in many ways Steve Prefontaine's legacy is a great one. He is legendary.

e.g. Apparently according to the biopic I saw, he used to tear off the Nike logos that suddenly appeared on the sides of his new training shoes when Bowerman first went into partnership with Knight, because they slowed him down. i.e. "Unnecessary extra drag" (Bowerman, who was arguably and ironically drag and weight obsessed, had hand-made Pre's trainers ever since Bowerman started coaching him for the University of Oregon.)

Meanwhile, Nike, Bowerman, and Knight, made and/or continue to make millions...


This is one of the Celebrity Endorsement stories that reminds me why one should always try to stay sharp and cynical regarding any topic when money is a major motivator, where it is being offered or exchanged (for good or bad). Teh liveD likes to hide in the minor details; but ze doesn't try that hard, and we can always re-write our own new, improved rules, if we try. Sadly, however, lately my slow wits have recently lead me to remember this rule too late, to my shame and personal cost.
 
  
Add Your Reply