Unfortunately, I think this is a matter of the good guys being defined as idealists in a world that is about as real as the sweatshops which produce the shoes. The idea of a $15 sneaker is great, and so is the hope of acceptance and respect among the urban youth target demographic, but it just isn't going to happen. And furthermore, the only reason a $15 basketball shoe is given attention and a market is because the same exists for its opponent on the other end of the spectrum. The Starbury brand is rebelling against the very thing ($175 shoes) which gives it a market (youth who can't afford the expenses) in the first place.
Ideally, yes, it would be great if this "urban youth" was not as materialistic, and accepted affordable clothing etc. with the same clout as they do the almost unattainable items. But, I think this materialism is more the product of simple adolescent insecurities than it is a nation-wide problem. Kids want something they can hang their hat on, that they can be proud of. Adults have their families, their careers, their life successes and the experience gained from them. But more than anything, they have proof of their hard work -- they have end-results. For kids, they want this kind of status symbol, this fulfillment of some void they think they have. So they go get expensive sneakers, the price tag representing, at least superficially, the "hard work" they needed to purchase the items. The street cred isn't from the actual looks or performance of the shoes; it is from the assumption of some self-sufficiency that goes into acquiring them. The Air Jordans are so marketable because they exploit these desires for being "all growed up" and showing you can do something on a level you cannot.
That's why Starbury's will never truly compete. Their market strategy is to sell to a demographic that doesn't want affordability -- they want attainable "unattainability." My New Balance shoes work just fine.
Reply With Quote
