Remove this ad

#261 [url]

Jul 11 12 9:04 PM

jst628 wrote:
can the Adidas guy leave the thread? all your doing is ruining it, quite immaturely because you think Adicrap is superior, but look what site you're on, this isn't AdidasTalk... hope i'm qualified enough to state my opinion

 how long does Nike expect to continue raising prices $10-20 each and every year? 
So you declare a person to be immature, if they do not agree with you if you think that Nike is indeed superior, correct?

Well to answer the bold then underlined part of your question, as long as people like you think that Nike is superior, they will continue to do so.

Hope this helps!



 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Heshua

Registered Member

Posts: 1,626

#262 [url]

Jul 11 12 9:53 PM

AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
Heshua wrote:
Agassi and some other athletes helped to save nike. Not just Jordan. The amount of !!$ kissing that loser MJ gets is insane.

 Must be a frustrated Kobe fan.

Wrong again. Without Jordan, they would not have been able to SIGN anyone else. Jordan signed in '84. Agassi didn't sign until '88.

Now I don't idolize Jordan or Nike, but if he is a loser, what is your definition of a winner?

 
 
But I'm not a frustrated Kobe fan.  Im still not buying that Jordan was the sole reason Nike bounced back.  And I didnt mean Jordan is a loser in his sport, I meant hes a loser as a person.  My definition of a winner?  Roger Federer.

Quote    Reply   

#263 [url]

Jul 11 12 10:23 PM

Heshua wrote:
AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
Heshua wrote:
Agassi and some other athletes helped to save nike. Not just Jordan. The amount of !!$ kissing that loser MJ gets is insane.

 Must be a frustrated Kobe fan.

Wrong again. Without Jordan, they would not have been able to SIGN anyone else. Jordan signed in '84. Agassi didn't sign until '88.

Now I don't idolize Jordan or Nike, but if he is a loser, what is your definition of a winner?

 
 
But I'm not a frustrated Kobe fan.  Im still not buying that Jordan was the sole reason Nike bounced back.  And I didnt mean Jordan is a loser in his sport, I meant hes a loser as a person.  My definition of a winner?  Roger Federer.

What I do not understand is that some of you actually think that this stuff hasn't already been written about, researched and discussed already.

You don't have to buy it, but it's well documented in books and writings on both Nike and Jordan, then has been echoed throughout this thread by people who actually worked for Nike.






Quote    Reply   
avatar

finnns2003

Registered Member

Posts: 22,815

#265 [url]

Jul 11 12 10:42 PM

NikeDealer wrote:
Finns.. I forgot add this which I think is something some folks who are sneaker guys dont understand truly.

When one claims to be a TRUE sneaker head OR even better yet COLLECTOR.. it means they are willing to do almost anything but also pay a high premium to get a shoe they really want.

If Jordan wanted.. they could charge $500 for EXACT replicas of OG releases and no one should balk.... why? Because you are a sneaker collector. if you EVVVVER hear Nike or the like say they are thinking of the Collectors when it comes to something... you would be the fool to believe it.

Nike cares about the true collector paying that high price for a rare shoe to be released.... not a shoe released for the same price looking exactly the same as it did years ago. A true collector wouldn't need to buy another replica if the true type came out year after year.

If you want to get REALLY techinical.. a TRUE collector wants no part of a Replica or Remake they not only want the original.. they want the person pair who wore them. Just a few things to think about when it comes to mixing the business aspect with the Sneaker Perspective.
Sure, the collectors care more about OG's and the 99 retros, etc., but I know folks who are average sneaker buyers who didn't like the change. I don't have time to write everything I'm thinking, but I will say that I think the 99-01 retros had the right formula as far as quality and nostalgia goes. My definition of a true retro. From a business standpoint, yeah, why not release shoes with #@#~ quality and a big ol' Jumpman. For so many releases, a limited bone thrown at purists would satisfy some and no one would bat an eye.

I won't even respond to AKA, get off that high horse young man.

Quote    Reply   

#266 [url]

Jul 11 12 10:45 PM

jst628 wrote:
 they now retail for $100 or $105, but retailed at $85 just a couple years back... the basketball technology is coming farther and farther, but many of the other shoes Nike brings out are not, yet the prices continue to raise $10 a year.

You need to remember how many "middle men" there are; Nike doesn't collect the +$20 retail price.

Labor is Asia is getting more expensive, oil is more expensive (synthetic leather, injected parts, transportation costs, etc.).  They have probably done their best to shield you from this impact but in the end, someone has to pay and it isn't going to be the shareholders.

There are probably a ton of great ideas sitting on the launch pad ready but, due to retail limitations, can't be brought to market (speculation).

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jst628.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 2,006

#267 [url]

Jul 11 12 10:47 PM

AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
So you declare a person to be immature, if they do not agree with you if you think that Nike is indeed superior, correct?

Well to answer the bold then underlined part of your question, as long as people like you think that Nike is superior, they will continue to do so.

Hope this helps!
yeah i declare someone to be quite immature coming into here to "cause trouble" and derail the thread from it's intended purpose. let these guys continue to inform others on what it's like to work for nike, don't come and complain and deny every single post because you prefer adidas. it's quite obvious who's "better" in the majority's opinion, you're on niketalk, not adidastalk, but that's beyond the point...

go make your own "Ask an Adidas lover..." thread, i'm sure it will be a hit smiley: wink

Quote    Reply   
avatar

vood99

Registered Member

Posts: 2,130

#268 [url]

Jul 11 12 11:35 PM

jst628 wrote:
AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
So you declare a person to be immature, if they do not agree with you if you think that Nike is indeed superior, correct?

Well to answer the bold then underlined part of your question, as long as people like you think that Nike is superior, they will continue to do so.

Hope this helps!
yeah i declare someone to be quite immature coming into here to "cause trouble" and derail the thread from it's intended purpose. let these guys continue to inform others on what it's like to work for nike, don't come and complain and deny every single post because you prefer adidas. it's quite obvious who's "better" in the majority's opinion, you're on niketalk, not adidastalk, but that's beyond the point...

go make your own "Ask an Adidas lover..." thread, i'm sure it will be a hit smiley: wink

jst628, this is an open forum and it is important to hear everyone's opinions. Pre-2008 I would have to disagree with alot of what LONGSTROKE is saying but lately he's on the money with his commentary.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

vood99

Registered Member

Posts: 2,130

#269 [url]

Jul 11 12 11:42 PM

finnns2003 wrote:
AKALONGSTROKE wrote:


You are wrong, deal with it.  



Boy, please. Your opinion is not fact.

You don't think a Nike AIR True Blue III would be the most hyped up release EVER?! These things would be more hyped than Galaxy Foams. From a sales standpoint, a limited release with NIKE AIR on the back would kill any Jumpman III release.

As for his brand, and branding, it's stupid. The I's still come with swooshes on the side, as do the II's. I'm not even saying release all the retro's with it, but it would not kill anyone to put it on one shoe. I will not hear the "you're wrong" garbage on opinion. If MJ said that, then whatever. But don't act like there's solid reasoning. There isn't. Just like there's not solid reasoning to change colors slightly from OG's.

Would you personally buy today's cardboard 'leather', variant shaped retro just because it has 'Nike Air' on it?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

vood99

Registered Member

Posts: 2,130

#270 [url]

Jul 11 12 11:44 PM

AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
NikeDealer wrote:
AKA.. say something crazy so I dont agree with you.. lolol.. This is too odd lololol
I've been saying the same thing for YEARS.

It's only that now, Nike is increasing the pricing for stuff that I've always found to be mediocre, and then is finally pissing the rest of you off.

Sneakerheads have this strange deal as to where they think that their kicks, are going to somehow get them laid. I've read, and then heard them say this.

Now that Nike is taking most of their money, they are not going to have enough left over, in order to really trick with. 

'simpin' ain't easy....smiley: laugh

  

Amen brother. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

jst628.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 2,006

#271 [url]

Jul 11 12 11:46 PM

^it's all good, he just seemed to be derailing the thread from it's intended purpose... but i digress.

Catch22- i'm not sure if that's all true. i understand the cost of material is going up, therefore the price increase, but then why is quality going down? nike has to be making some of that profit from the price increases.

Quote    Reply   

#272 [url]

Jul 12 12 12:42 AM

finnns2003 wrote:
NikeDealer wrote:
Finns.. I forgot add this which I think is something some folks who are sneaker guys dont understand truly.

When one claims to be a TRUE sneaker head OR even better yet COLLECTOR.. it means they are willing to do almost anything but also pay a high premium to get a shoe they really want.

If Jordan wanted.. they could charge $500 for EXACT replicas of OG releases and no one should balk.... why? Because you are a sneaker collector. if you EVVVVER hear Nike or the like say they are thinking of the Collectors when it comes to something... you would be the fool to believe it.

Nike cares about the true collector paying that high price for a rare shoe to be released.... not a shoe released for the same price looking exactly the same as it did years ago. A true collector wouldn't need to buy another replica if the true type came out year after year.

If you want to get REALLY techinical.. a TRUE collector wants no part of a Replica or Remake they not only want the original.. they want the person pair who wore them. Just a few things to think about when it comes to mixing the business aspect with the Sneaker Perspective.
Sure, the collectors care more about OG's and the 99 retros, etc., but I know folks who are average sneaker buyers who didn't like the change. I don't have time to write everything I'm thinking, but I will say that I think the 99-01 retros had the right formula as far as quality and nostalgia goes. My definition of a true retro. From a business standpoint, yeah, why not release shoes with #@#~ quality and a big ol' Jumpman. For so many releases, a limited bone thrown at purists would satisfy some and no one would bat an eye.

I won't even respond to AKA, get off that high horse young man.


Good luck in life with those passive aggressive digs. Jordan Brand is a success, because they do not pay attention to what people like you think, and you will still buy from their parent company.




Quote    Reply   

#273 [url]

Jul 12 12 12:54 AM

jst628 wrote:
AKALONGSTROKE wrote:
So you declare a person to be immature, if they do not agree with you if you think that Nike is indeed superior, correct?

Well to answer the bold then underlined part of your question, as long as people like you think that Nike is superior, they will continue to do so.

Hope this helps!
yeah i declare someone to be quite immature coming into here to "cause trouble" and derail the thread from it's intended purpose. let these guys continue to inform others on what it's like to work for nike, don't come and complain and deny every single post because you prefer adidas. it's quite obvious who's "better" in the majority's opinion, you're on niketalk, not adidastalk, but that's beyond the point...

go make your own "Ask an Adidas lover..." thread, i'm sure it will be a hit smiley: wink

Cause trouble by telling the truth? Well yeah, I am doing just that.

I don't need to make an Adidas thread, because that company isn't run by a bunch of insecure individuals who constantly need praise, as does Nike.



 

Quote    Reply   

#274 [url]

Jul 12 12 1:59 AM

jst628 wrote:
 Catch22- i'm not sure if that's all true. i understand the cost of material is going up, therefore the price increase, but then why is quality going down? nike has to be making some of that profit from the price increases.
Quality could be an unintended result of trying to control costs (and maintain the all important margin) by "down specing" their materials.  


Their margins fell in FY2012...by 2.2%...I doubt they are very pleased.  It doesn't look like that extra $20 bucks helped them much.

Quote    Reply   

#275 [url]

Jul 12 12 2:10 AM

From Nike:


Gross margin declined 220 basis points to 43.4 percent, primarily driven by higher product costs, as well as investments in our digital business, an unanticipated customs assessment in an Emerging Markets territory related to imports that occurred during four previous fiscal years, and higher discounts on close-out sales. These factors more than offset the positive effects of price increases, lower air freight costs, growing sales in our Direct to Consumer operations and ongoing product cost reduction initiatives.


Notice the talk about higher costs; the fact that margins were down despite "the positive effects of price increases", "and ongoing product cost reduction initiatives".

The last one is particularly interesting....I wonder what those initiatives are?  Could they be related to your to your perceived drop in quality?

Enough with the numbers...back to the shoes.

Last Edited By: Catch22 Jul 12 12 2:17 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

finnns2003

Registered Member

Posts: 22,815

#276 [url]

Jul 12 12 6:28 AM

vood99 wrote:
finnns2003 wrote:
AKALONGSTROKE wrote:


You are wrong, deal with it.  



Boy, please. Your opinion is not fact.

You don't think a Nike AIR True Blue III would be the most hyped up release EVER?! These things would be more hyped than Galaxy Foams. From a sales standpoint, a limited release with NIKE AIR on the back would kill any Jumpman III release.

As for his brand, and branding, it's stupid. The I's still come with swooshes on the side, as do the II's. I'm not even saying release all the retro's with it, but it would not kill anyone to put it on one shoe. I will not hear the "you're wrong" garbage on opinion. If MJ said that, then whatever. But don't act like there's solid reasoning. There isn't. Just like there's not solid reasoning to change colors slightly from OG's.

Would you personally buy today's cardboard 'leather', variant shaped retro just because it has 'Nike Air' on it?

I held a pair of Military IV's the other day and was thoroughly disappointed. Nike Air wouldn't have made me wear it, I know what the deal is with this company now. Lowest acceptable quality possible, and sell at the highest price possible. Even if it's based on old tech.

Quote    Reply   

#277 [url]

Jul 12 12 9:06 AM

finnns2003 wrote:
vood99 wrote:
finnns2003 wrote:
Boy, please. Your opinion is not fact.

You don't think a Nike AIR True Blue III would be the most hyped up release EVER?! These things would be more hyped than Galaxy Foams. From a sales standpoint, a limited release with NIKE AIR on the back would kill any Jumpman III release.

As for his brand, and branding, it's stupid. The I's still come with swooshes on the side, as do the II's. I'm not even saying release all the retro's with it, but it would not kill anyone to put it on one shoe. I will not hear the "you're wrong" garbage on opinion. If MJ said that, then whatever. But don't act like there's solid reasoning. There isn't. Just like there's not solid reasoning to change colors slightly from OG's.

Would you personally buy today's cardboard 'leather', variant shaped retro just because it has 'Nike Air' on it?

I held a pair of Military IV's the other day and was thoroughly disappointed. Nike Air wouldn't have made me wear it, I know what the deal is with this company now. Lowest acceptable quality possible, and sell at the highest price possible. Even if it's based on old tech.


Welcome to the high horse.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

winzz.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 314

#278 [url]

Jul 12 12 9:20 AM

something come out in my mind lately about retail price for Nike, we know everytime they always refer to MSRP but in other country sometimes they sell it too high compare to the MSRP

Quote    Reply   

#279 [url]

Jul 12 12 9:33 AM

Catch22 wrote:
From Nike:

Gross margin declined 220 basis points to 43.4 percent, primarily driven by higher product costs, as well as investments in our digital business, an unanticipated customs assessment in an Emerging Markets territory related to imports that occurred during four previous fiscal years, and higher discounts on close-out sales. These factors more than offset the positive effects of price increases, lower air freight costs, growing sales in our Direct to Consumer operations and ongoing product cost reduction initiatives.


Notice the talk about higher costs; the fact that margins were down despite "the positive effects of price increases", "and ongoing product cost reduction initiatives".

The last one is particularly interesting....I wonder what those initiatives are?  Could they be related to your to your perceived drop in quality?

Enough with the numbers...back to the shoes.




http://counterkicks.com/?s=NIke+profits+fall+off+a+cliff&x=25&y=10 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

vood99

Registered Member

Posts: 2,130

#280 [url]

Jul 12 12 10:19 AM

finnns2003 wrote:
vood99 wrote:
finnns2003 wrote:
Boy, please. Your opinion is not fact.

You don't think a Nike AIR True Blue III would be the most hyped up release EVER?! These things would be more hyped than Galaxy Foams. From a sales standpoint, a limited release with NIKE AIR on the back would kill any Jumpman III release.

As for his brand, and branding, it's stupid. The I's still come with swooshes on the side, as do the II's. I'm not even saying release all the retro's with it, but it would not kill anyone to put it on one shoe. I will not hear the "you're wrong" garbage on opinion. If MJ said that, then whatever. But don't act like there's solid reasoning. There isn't. Just like there's not solid reasoning to change colors slightly from OG's.

Would you personally buy today's cardboard 'leather', variant shaped retro just because it has 'Nike Air' on it?

I held a pair of Military IV's the other day and was thoroughly disappointed. Nike Air wouldn't have made me wear it, I know what the deal is with this company now. Lowest acceptable quality possible, and sell at the highest price possible. Even if it's based on old tech.


Thank you for seeing the light bro. For a company that preaches 'premium is our ethos' they sure aren't practicing it.
  

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help