Quote:
The XVIII sold more units than the XVII, retaining the highest gross 'high-end" athletic shoe in the U.S., title, based on WellsFargo and the best-selling "high-end" athletic shoe based on SportsScan.
Quote:
That's irrelevant considering more than half of the units sold were bought below retail. It doesn't matter how much Nike or Adidas retails a shoe for, their money is already made before that shoe is even sold in the store.
Doesn't it tarnish JB's image that so many shoes end up on sale or in the outlets? I remember RockDeep posted that when he had a chance to talk with some people from JB, they did say this was a concern they wanted to address. Also, I'm sure that this doesn't sit well with retailers.
I don't want this to seem like a jab, but it seems strange to consider a shoe a success when it didn't sell until it was 70-115, yet retailed at 175. I mean, after all who is going to pass up a pair of Jordan's when they are only 70-115 instead of 175-200? I don't think the success was solely because of the shoes design. Availability/pricing, and the allure element PersiaFly mentioned, probably played the biggest part.
I would also like to add that I think the XVI-XVIII were overall well designed, classic Jordans. All of them are very detailed, beautiful shoes, and also great representations of MJ and his tastes. It seems like people like to bandwagon hate on them. Yes, all three have aspects that could've been improved (ie square XVIII toe, XVII price and unnecessary suitcase), but they are far from insults to the Jordan legacy.
The XIX I think is a matter of opinion. The XX however, seems tacky and gimmicky to me.
....oh, and the XV still sucks. It's ugly and doesn't have a great reputation for performance like the XVI-XIX do. From what I understand, MJ didn't like it either.