Is it just us or does the idea of Nike Vintage well and truly suck. Nike have released a bunch of retro running sneakers and a T-Shirts that have been ‘aged’ to look like they’re from, erm, a long time ago.
Sure, we understand the inspiration: sneaker heads love hard to find, rare old sneakers – and lots of people like to wear new faded clothes from places like Urban Outfitters because they think it’s cool or something. But why the hell is Nike doing this? We know they rejected much of their sports values for fashion ones a while ago but do they have to play the fad game just to get a buck. Sure some Nike exec with a spiky haircut is very happy that his idea to make a bunch of sneakers just like the well-worn ones in his closet have made it to the production line and marketing machine – but, but…. aren’t Nike supposed to make great stuff that people just love, rather than playing directly to the crowd for a quick applause?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
LAME!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Maybe it’s related to companies’ obsession with perpetual newness. There’s a great times article about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/fashion/15discontinued.html?ex=1342324800&en=fc9b0f3f8acefe3d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
July 31st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Take with a grain of salt, since I work with (but never for) Nike and have obsessed about sneakers since I was in elementary school. But:
Actually think the vintage idea is an important one for Nike. Think about the industry since the rise of the “sneakerhead” circa 2001/2002:
First: driven by new availability on the internet (ebay) the coolest kids get stoked on obscure classic styles (this is ‘97 onward through ‘99) because they were previously impossible to find. Anticipating demand sparked by these consumers, Nike brings out reissues of classic, low price point shoes – famously the dunk in 99.
Then: 2nd wave Cool Kids (core consumers) follow by buying up reissues frantically (this is 2001-2003), spurring: 1) More reissues, 2) aftermarket for sales of coveted reissues (the shoes sneakerheads call their ‘holy grails’) and – most significantly – 3) the abandonment and slump in sales of performance models (the high tech/high $ yield models).
So everybody wants $65 dunks rather than $140 Shox. Starting to see a long term problem taking shape?
So: Nike (and everyone else in short order) primes the pump by flooding the market with colorways and reissues, hoping burgeoning market of reissue buyers will by two pairs of low price point reissues rather than the one pair of performance (high $ yield) shoes they used to buy.
Nike also experiments with adding $$ to the low- price point product with premium materials, super limited runs, artist collaborations etc, adding to the overabundance of choice. This is the actual quick-bucks move you allude to.
Then: internet press (blogs etc) arise to document myriad of wild styles and colorways available, brand collaborations and retail exclusives – each more collectible (and progressively more ridiculous) than the last.
Which Means: every consumer everywhere can know about and get the stuff only the cool kids used to be aware of/ be able to get.
So: Cool kids (core consumers), no longer set apart by their choices, move on to other status items often flip 180 and picking up on those that, instead of being exclusive, are hidden in plain site. The explosion of Vans Authentics – the most basic Vans ever made – is evidence.
So eventually: Masses see the cool kids no longer give a toss, move on themselves.
Which means, and not far off: slump in “sneakerhead” models (bright shiny new reissues, Bapes, collaborations), while slump in performance sales continues.
All of which adds up to a big bummer for Nike (and the rest of the sneaker game).
Nike needs to make a long-term (2-5 year) play to get core consumers back in the loop, by offering them something that sets them apart from the masses who co-opted previously niche buying habits.
Since everything the masses now want is new and shiny (check out flightclubnyc.com), the deliberately aged tack of Nike vintage becomes valid.
It’s great forcore consumers who love Nike and have been with the brand forever but hate the idea of wearing the same shit as 15 year old suburban kids, can stay tight with the brand. it’s a line that comes equipped with the cultural capital for the core, but that you won’t see on everyone’s feet.
And (my favorite part) it’s a qualified ‘fuck off’ to the newbies who only want the newest stuff (because they don’t understand or value heritage, just the shiniest fads). Nike KNOWS they won’t get it.
Plus, from a marketshare standpoint it’s a manufacturing approach Nike will have a couple of seasons to themselves before competitors start convincingly ‘aging’ old styles.
Nike’s been needing to shake itself up lately, this is a (small) way to start.
Here’s the capper: the vintage shoes are actually really comfortable, more so than many new models, precisely BECAUSE there’s less tech shit binding them to your feet. Chuck Taylors have worked for a century on a similar principle of simplicity. I got a pair of the Daybreaks (for free, it should be noted) and they’re super comfortable, honestly.
Like I said, take it with a grain of salt.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:26 am
“A New Low” is a little strong.
Interesting quote from Complex Magazines’s Bradley Carbone:
“Our culture is saturated with fancy, brightly colored kicks, then Nike offers this complete departure. The Vintage Running is a distressed shoe. They look like they’re 30 years old. It’s the first new idea anyone has had in years.”
August 1st, 2007 at 11:58 am
“A New Low” is a little strong. The campaign does seem a little cheap, and not entirely well thought out, but the kicks are fun, especially for the creative/literary types going after that Big Chill-era style – think Jeff Daniels in ‘The Squid & The Whale’
Interesting quote from Complex Magazines’s Bradley Carbone:
“Our culture is saturated with fancy, brightly colored kicks, then Nike offers this complete departure. The Vintage Running is a distressed shoe. They look like they’re 30 years old. It’s the first new idea anyone has had in years.”
August 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“but, but…. aren’t Nike supposed to make great stuff that people just love”
What’s not to love about these, (’cept maybe the price of $115 for a die-cut EVA sole shoe with a suede upper)
It’s honestly the first foray of a larger footwear company to go into a deliberately abused and aged shoe- (sure Adidas and Nike have been schilling retro kicks for the past 10 years) but a real yellowed-EVA, exposed yellowed foam in the tongue, “blooming” of the outsole, these are serious vintage features.. The denim industry has been obsessed with creating these features in the jeans, it’s about time that we saw something from the footwear industry!
August 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
to hate on such a level you must wear sketchers and spandex. what happen did nike stop sending you promo packages? why don’t you write about how good penis enlargements are??? or how good of a living a jack black impersonator can make? nike is probably the most innovation large coorporation out there, the ceo is not even a finance guy rather someone with a creative background…who is your boss? the vintage collection is fresh and new. your just old and bitter!!! hate hate hate!!!
August 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Well done Piers for this lovely little debate.
Nike is a cash driven company owned by Wall Street, its natural that they would want to make use of their back catalogue and release some of that stored up brand value. Don’t see the problem. There’s obviously market demand.
On the sneaker front I’m far to interested in what Puma is doing with McQueen, Adidas with Y’s, Nicholas is doing at Balenciaga (I got a fantastic silver pair two seasons ago) and Dior’s last two collections (Especially the basketball boots from last season which I had to virtually prize from the sales assistants hands). It’s the high fashion pressure coming into this market which will put serious pressure on the likes of Nike. Just speak to the mid market jeans brands who have seen their sales cut into by premium denim.
LOL the rant of the bloke ‘piers wears sketchers’.
“The Vintage Collection is Fresh and New”. Split infinitive
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 am
Our opportunistic swooshy friends from the “City of Roses” will stop at nothing to reach a forecasted $21B (net) by 2010.
Dietz is a good man and offers an appreciated POV but is a bit naive to think the “cool kids” are a financial buoy for the brand.
This a simple brand-driver release/exercise by Nike intended to spread warm waves of nostalgia to 30-somethings who have a cataloged memory of the release from their childhood.
Further, it should come as no surprise given fashion’s track record for inspiration the last couple of years.
Who could cast a stone? It’s often said that in times of economic and geo-political uncertainty masses generally gravitate towards that which they know. Sort of like a baby with a comfort blanket.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
It hardly effects me.
All I know is that it’s great that I am now able to find some Waffle Racers (which I’ve wanted but hardly any store in NYC had them. not even the Nike store uptown. they did at one point but they disappeared the next day.)
my point is: i can now buy the shoes and a plus is not having them have that new white look that i try to desperately get rid of by running in them a lot. this time they’ll already look worn in and old and its not because of “wanting to be cool” in my case. it’s literally an aesthetic thing.
old looking shoes, especially running shoes like these, *look* better worn out. to me at least.
the pro in all of this is the availability.
same goes to the Cortez.
they were hard to find in that hardly any store stocked them, before the release of the vintage line. now you can get them easy.
i think its great.
i can see your point though.
but its good for me
September 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
They “have been ‘aged’ to look like they’re from, erm, a long time ago.” It sounds like you aren’t old enough to appreciate Nike’s vintage line. The long time ago you’re referring to is a wonderful era. You don’t get it, and you probably never will. Nike’s inspiration, approach and intent with this line is way over your head. It has nothing to do with sneakerheads loving “hard to find, rare old sneakers” as you put it. It has everything to do with revisiting the past with running shoes that you can actually wear.
This product line is about 15 years overdue because that’s when aged jeans started catching on. Unfortunately, modern sneakers have never looked quite right with them. Nike deserves a thank you for this line, not criticism.
Furthermore, Nike hasn’t rejected their sports values in favor of fashion. Apparently, you have never worked out in a pair of Air Max 360s. That’s a cutting-edge sports shoe. And Nike has done a great job of combining their sports values with modern fashion to pull off a lot of great products. They still have work to do, but they are making progress.
As for the fad game, Nike has been playing that for a while, most likely before you were even born. Nikes were all the rage, a huge fad during the late 1970s and early 1980s, well before Air Jordans, which were another huge fad during the 1985/1986 school year. Nikes aren’t nearly as faddish now, not nearly as prevalent in our culture as they used to be. And throughout, they have never compromised their quest to further modern engineering in athletic shoes.
As far as making great stuff that people just love, that is impossible with the nature of our fragmented society. Customizable sneakers, movies on DVD, the Internet and hundreds of cable channels have allowed consumers to be picky.
Lastly, playing to the crowd isn’t such a bad strategy. Nike enjoys a pretty big crowd.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
hey, it’s just the next evolution of the distressed, ripped “new” jeans craze.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am