TEAM AIR FORCE 1 VOL. 6 AKA STOP PM'ING US

[8tothe24]

As we discussed before, it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes they sell for $100+. It comes down to that they are going to squeeze every penny out of their company to appease share holders. A company can only sell so many shoes. They make up extra profit by making internal cuts: personnel, resources, production techniques.

Nike could use the same leather but they choose to make money first. The fourth quarter earnings of 2011 alone was $645 MILLION (up 15%). Nike is at $101/share with 459 MILLION shares outstanding. Nike is anywhere from hurting.

So either real cows have become an endangered species or Nike is just yet another corporation seeking the all mighty dollar.

But I do agree, they are thinking they can pull a switch on a new generation of AF1 fanatics that don't know what they missed.

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by cmoneymontana

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

To me the main killer is the quality of the leather and a lot of these funky material choices. I could look past the change in shape if the quality of the materials were 1000x better. Nike is charging reseller prices for retail and giving us variant quality (I guess that includes the shape as well).

QFT
The only time the give us good quality, they stamp Tier 0 on it, and make it next to impossible to get for retail.

Hopefully(crosses fingers) they make up for that @+%%@% 25th crap they dropped, and give us some gems for the 30th Anniversary. 

Don't hold your breath... This is Nike idea of 30th Anniversary (AND they are calling this "Premium."  At least the last 2 years most premiums were the GRs of 2004-2005)...

http://sneakernews.com/2012/01/23/nike-air-force-1-low-premium-30th-anniversary-black/

Not only does the quality, shape, and material look horrible, this is now what is passing as "Premium."  Nike is really gonna stick it in our faces this year.  Most youngin's out there don't even know what pre 2003 looked like.

These look FAKE!

Amen bro! And shame on Nike for rehashing some left over 'Basics' as a 'Premium'.

  

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by cmoneymontana

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

To me the main killer is the quality of the leather and a lot of these funky material choices. I could look past the change in shape if the quality of the materials were 1000x better. Nike is charging reseller prices for retail and giving us variant quality (I guess that includes the shape as well).

QFT
The only time the give us good quality, they stamp Tier 0 on it, and make it next to impossible to get for retail.

Hopefully(crosses fingers) they make up for that @+%%@% 25th crap they dropped, and give us some gems for the 30th Anniversary. 

Don't hold your breath... This is Nike idea of 30th Anniversary (AND they are calling this "Premium."  At least the last 2 years most premiums were the GRs of 2004-2005)...

http://sneakernews.com/2012/01/23/nike-air-force-1-low-premium-30th-anniversary-black/

Not only does the quality, shape, and material look horrible, this is now what is passing as "Premium."  Nike is really gonna stick it in our faces this year.  Most youngin's out there don't even know what pre 2003 looked like.

These look FAKE!

Amen bro! And shame on Nike for rehashing some left over 'Basics' as a 'Premium'.

  

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

As we discussed before, it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes they sell for $100+. It comes down to that they are going to squeeze every penny out of their company to appease share holders. A company can only sell so many shoes. They make up extra profit by making internal cuts: personnel, resources, production techniques.

Nike could use the same leather but they choose to make money first. The fourth quarter earnings of 2011 alone was $645 MILLION (up 15%). Nike is at $101/share with 459 MILLION shares outstanding. Nike is anywhere from hurting.

So either real cows have become an endangered species or Nike is just yet another corporation seeking the all mighty dollar.

But I do agree, they are thinking they can pull a switch on a new generation of AF1 fanatics that don't know what they missed.

It's profit margins as you stated and there's helluva lot more money to be made by using the cheapest costing materials on the 'volume' product. Even Nike/JB signature product like the 'Brons and Kobes are constructed with synthetics like Hyperfuse and Flywire.

Funnily, Hyperfuse and Flywire work on Kobes and Brons as they are designed with synthetics in mind, but in the case of AF1s and other retro product - synthetics just don't work as they were never intended to have pleather or hyperfuse materials when they were originally designed.

     

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

As we discussed before, it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes they sell for $100+. It comes down to that they are going to squeeze every penny out of their company to appease share holders. A company can only sell so many shoes. They make up extra profit by making internal cuts: personnel, resources, production techniques.

Nike could use the same leather but they choose to make money first. The fourth quarter earnings of 2011 alone was $645 MILLION (up 15%). Nike is at $101/share with 459 MILLION shares outstanding. Nike is anywhere from hurting.

So either real cows have become an endangered species or Nike is just yet another corporation seeking the all mighty dollar.

But I do agree, they are thinking they can pull a switch on a new generation of AF1 fanatics that don't know what they missed.

It's profit margins as you stated and there's helluva lot more money to be made by using the cheapest costing materials on the 'volume' product. Even Nike/JB signature product like the 'Brons and Kobes are constructed with synthetics like Hyperfuse and Flywire.

Funnily, Hyperfuse and Flywire work on Kobes and Brons as they are designed with synthetics in mind, but in the case of AF1s and other retro product - synthetics just don't work as they were never intended to have pleather or hyperfuse materials when they were originally designed.

     

 

[organizednoise]

Originally Posted by BIP Roberts

Originally Posted by OrganizedNoise

Picked these up DS for my girlfriend. Anyone know exactly when these came out? Im thinkin pre 95'...

Air Force 1 High SC (BG) Black/Black-Metallic Silver sz. 6Y

Is there no tongue tag to check? I'm thinking about '95. I had those in high school. Black suede with the silver on the strap. They have to be pretty old because it was probably around '96 (or maybe '97) when Nike stopped using the accent colors logo on the straps on the highs.

A pair of the white and grey highs with the royal accent is among my most sought after pairs. (Waits for Shawn to post a pic of like 9 pairs of em.).

Did you buy these from Thunderchunk? I think he had a pair on ebay.

And, finally, since I've brought up obscure pairs I owned in high school, I have a non-AF1 question for you guys. Remember when Foot Locker used to get exclusive models - not just colorways, but Nike shoes that weren't available anywhere else? ...Many of them were in the "Flight" line. Does anybody know of any resource that lists those shoes? I remember I had a pair in like '96 and I can't even remember exactly what they looked like, just that I loved them. They were just a black and white mid-cut Flight shoe only available at FL - and it kills me because I can't even remember anything else about them.

I didnt see a date on the tags

 

[organizednoise]

Originally Posted by BIP Roberts

Originally Posted by OrganizedNoise

Picked these up DS for my girlfriend. Anyone know exactly when these came out? Im thinkin pre 95'...

Air Force 1 High SC (BG) Black/Black-Metallic Silver sz. 6Y

Is there no tongue tag to check? I'm thinking about '95. I had those in high school. Black suede with the silver on the strap. They have to be pretty old because it was probably around '96 (or maybe '97) when Nike stopped using the accent colors logo on the straps on the highs.

A pair of the white and grey highs with the royal accent is among my most sought after pairs. (Waits for Shawn to post a pic of like 9 pairs of em.).

Did you buy these from Thunderchunk? I think he had a pair on ebay.

And, finally, since I've brought up obscure pairs I owned in high school, I have a non-AF1 question for you guys. Remember when Foot Locker used to get exclusive models - not just colorways, but Nike shoes that weren't available anywhere else? ...Many of them were in the "Flight" line. Does anybody know of any resource that lists those shoes? I remember I had a pair in like '96 and I can't even remember exactly what they looked like, just that I loved them. They were just a black and white mid-cut Flight shoe only available at FL - and it kills me because I can't even remember anything else about them.

I didnt see a date on the tags

 

[blackredxiiigoat]

Fellas,

For anyone that hasn't copped the Vac Tech Wheat Hi's yet, MichaelKNYC.com has 40% off all footwear.

A lot of the good footwear in decent sizes has been cleaned out, but there's basically FSR of the Wheat Tech's (sans 9/9.5) for $87.

 

[blackredxiiigoat]

Fellas,

For anyone that hasn't copped the Vac Tech Wheat Hi's yet, MichaelKNYC.com has 40% off all footwear.

A lot of the good footwear in decent sizes has been cleaned out, but there's basically FSR of the Wheat Tech's (sans 9/9.5) for $87.

 

[bip roberts]

Originally Posted by vood99

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

As we discussed before, it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes they sell for $100+. It comes down to that they are going to squeeze every penny out of their company to appease share holders. A company can only sell so many shoes. They make up extra profit by making internal cuts: personnel, resources, production techniques.

Nike could use the same leather but they choose to make money first. The fourth quarter earnings of 2011 alone was $645 MILLION (up 15%). Nike is at $101/share with 459 MILLION shares outstanding. Nike is anywhere from hurting.

So either real cows have become an endangered species or Nike is just yet another corporation seeking the all mighty dollar.

But I do agree, they are thinking they can pull a switch on a new generation of AF1 fanatics that don't know what they missed.

It's profit margins as you stated and there's helluva lot more money to be made by using the cheapest costing materials on the 'volume' product. Even Nike/JB signature product like the 'Brons and Kobes are constructed with synthetics like Hyperfuse and Flywire.

Funnily, Hyperfuse and Flywire work on Kobes and Brons as they are designed with synthetics in mind, but in the case of AF1s and other retro product - synthetics just don't work as they were never intended to have pleather or hyperfuse materials when they were originally designed.

     

Yeah, good points on both ends.

Warning, classic BIP opus coming -

See, the funny thing about the quality cost argument for AF1s is that the AF1 is the worst Nike model to which to attempt to apply that argument. When the Auburn Bos come back out and the quality is atrocious, one might be able to pass the sniff test with the argument that says, hey, they are same price as they were 20 years ago, but everything got more expensive, so how do you expect the same quality now. I will debunk this argument later, BTW. But, with the AF1, Nike has consistent raised retail, incrementally over the years to attempt to pace inflation. So, this isn't your typical retro where the price point matches the original model's.

And, Mr. Voo (sorry I always call you that, but being associated with Natural Elements is nothing but the highest praise) makes a good point too. Nike has made some attempts to retrofit (no pun intended) older models with newer tech - many people dismiss that as hybird gimmickry - and it is to a degree - but it's also a experiment in synthetic vs. natural. Nike has always experimented with materials, sometimes for pure creativity and forward-thinking reasons, and sometimes for nefarious profit-maximization means.

We can't totally ignore the fact that they are a business when determine what we think reasonable to expect from them, but I also think we have a right to have standards. Remember, Nike's history (and it's ancient history by now) was as the anti-business. The venture jumped off by Phil Knight basically fronting in the Far East and coming home like, damn, I gotta put together this outfit I've been claiming to have. They resisted going public for as long as possible and tried really hard not to give shares out beyond the core group. I mean it's quaint nowadays, but the company's roots are like a movie script/fairy tale. The irony of being such a passionate consumer is that it would be easier to grin and bear it if you didn't know what you know - you follow your love and passion all the way to reach resentment and dissatisfaction. ...That happens all the time, BTW, it's like the Peter Principle for hobbyists.

Going back to the debunking of the you can't expect OG quality for the same price 20 years later argument. First, we don't think of Nike as a technology company, but they took hold of the market by being the vanguard of innovation in their space - and then attaching that to some of the best advertising and market campaigns ever executed. But, there's a strong tech element to what Nike does. And, in any tech company, the cost of final products reflects the cost of R&D - of which I'm sure the was a ton for the classic models. In "Swoosh" you can read about how many years and how much effort went into the idea of getting "Air" into shoes. And, here's the element of this nobody really talks about - when companies charge you for the R&D that went into a product, they aren't talking about just the successful R&D, they're talking about all the failed prototypes and ideas that wound up in the garbage can too. The cost of the final product also includes the marketing budget. I'll talk about the pharma industry because its one I know very well.

When the pharma industry talks about how it takes $800M - $1.2B to produce a drug, they don't tell you how the arrive at the number. First, nearly half of that is marketing, mass marketing and direct to doctor, etc. marketing (you know they hire ex-college-cheerleaders to go from Dr. to Dr. with their push-up bras marketing their products, right? But, I digress). Then, the other half of the cost is the development of the drug. A company will create thousands of compounds and run tons of tests to identify the best ones, optimize them, tweak them, etc. When they determine how much it cost to make their product, they are including the cost of all the failed pursuits - failed clinical trials, failed everything that happened in pursuit of the product. This is not a negligible number - and I'm sure it wasn't one at Nike.

The cost of failure and the cost of marketing do not exist for Nike Retro. They don't do any marketing - but they did the first time around. This has already more than eclipsed the adjust MSRP for inflation consideration. But, wait, there's more.

One of the most common misconceptions about today's global economy is that nothing is made by hand anymore. That's not true. There are more goods made by hand today than ever before. When companies set up overseas and use exploited workers, the cost of production is nearly zero. It's cheaper to use 12-year-old Indonesians than to purchase and maintain expensive machines. I'm serious - listen to the This American Life from a few weeks ago about FoxConn and Apple if you doubt me. So, while sourcing the material may be more difficult - even though advances in factory farming probably shouldn't even imply that would be the case - the cost of production is still nearly zero.

So, Nike Retro has ostensibly no advertising expenses, no R&D expenses, and the cost of production is virtually non-existent. So, why again, is the idea that we can't expect OG quality a reasonable argument? The only answer is corporate greed. And, that's no shock at all. Complaining that corporations are greedy is like complaining that Uncle Luke is raunchy. But, there are two conclusions here. One, don't defend Nike because when you do that you are falling in love with you captors - Stockholm Syndrome. Two, and more importantly, what we want CAN happen - there's no fundamental reason why it can not - so people who really care have to vote with their wallets. And, for the most part we do. Team AF1 does the vast majority of our business on the secondary market - where Nike doesn't see a penny of it. I spend literally thousands of dollars every year on sneakers - Nike/JB probably sees 25% of that at most. Overall, they're winning, but among US - they're leaving money on the table and LOSING.

 

[bip roberts]

Originally Posted by vood99

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

As we discussed before, it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes they sell for $100+. It comes down to that they are going to squeeze every penny out of their company to appease share holders. A company can only sell so many shoes. They make up extra profit by making internal cuts: personnel, resources, production techniques.

Nike could use the same leather but they choose to make money first. The fourth quarter earnings of 2011 alone was $645 MILLION (up 15%). Nike is at $101/share with 459 MILLION shares outstanding. Nike is anywhere from hurting.

So either real cows have become an endangered species or Nike is just yet another corporation seeking the all mighty dollar.

But I do agree, they are thinking they can pull a switch on a new generation of AF1 fanatics that don't know what they missed.

It's profit margins as you stated and there's helluva lot more money to be made by using the cheapest costing materials on the 'volume' product. Even Nike/JB signature product like the 'Brons and Kobes are constructed with synthetics like Hyperfuse and Flywire.

Funnily, Hyperfuse and Flywire work on Kobes and Brons as they are designed with synthetics in mind, but in the case of AF1s and other retro product - synthetics just don't work as they were never intended to have pleather or hyperfuse materials when they were originally designed.

     

Yeah, good points on both ends.

Warning, classic BIP opus coming -

See, the funny thing about the quality cost argument for AF1s is that the AF1 is the worst Nike model to which to attempt to apply that argument. When the Auburn Bos come back out and the quality is atrocious, one might be able to pass the sniff test with the argument that says, hey, they are same price as they were 20 years ago, but everything got more expensive, so how do you expect the same quality now. I will debunk this argument later, BTW. But, with the AF1, Nike has consistent raised retail, incrementally over the years to attempt to pace inflation. So, this isn't your typical retro where the price point matches the original model's.

And, Mr. Voo (sorry I always call you that, but being associated with Natural Elements is nothing but the highest praise) makes a good point too. Nike has made some attempts to retrofit (no pun intended) older models with newer tech - many people dismiss that as hybird gimmickry - and it is to a degree - but it's also a experiment in synthetic vs. natural. Nike has always experimented with materials, sometimes for pure creativity and forward-thinking reasons, and sometimes for nefarious profit-maximization means.

We can't totally ignore the fact that they are a business when determine what we think reasonable to expect from them, but I also think we have a right to have standards. Remember, Nike's history (and it's ancient history by now) was as the anti-business. The venture jumped off by Phil Knight basically fronting in the Far East and coming home like, damn, I gotta put together this outfit I've been claiming to have. They resisted going public for as long as possible and tried really hard not to give shares out beyond the core group. I mean it's quaint nowadays, but the company's roots are like a movie script/fairy tale. The irony of being such a passionate consumer is that it would be easier to grin and bear it if you didn't know what you know - you follow your love and passion all the way to reach resentment and dissatisfaction. ...That happens all the time, BTW, it's like the Peter Principle for hobbyists.

Going back to the debunking of the you can't expect OG quality for the same price 20 years later argument. First, we don't think of Nike as a technology company, but they took hold of the market by being the vanguard of innovation in their space - and then attaching that to some of the best advertising and market campaigns ever executed. But, there's a strong tech element to what Nike does. And, in any tech company, the cost of final products reflects the cost of R&D - of which I'm sure the was a ton for the classic models. In "Swoosh" you can read about how many years and how much effort went into the idea of getting "Air" into shoes. And, here's the element of this nobody really talks about - when companies charge you for the R&D that went into a product, they aren't talking about just the successful R&D, they're talking about all the failed prototypes and ideas that wound up in the garbage can too. The cost of the final product also includes the marketing budget. I'll talk about the pharma industry because its one I know very well.

When the pharma industry talks about how it takes $800M - $1.2B to produce a drug, they don't tell you how the arrive at the number. First, nearly half of that is marketing, mass marketing and direct to doctor, etc. marketing (you know they hire ex-college-cheerleaders to go from Dr. to Dr. with their push-up bras marketing their products, right? But, I digress). Then, the other half of the cost is the development of the drug. A company will create thousands of compounds and run tons of tests to identify the best ones, optimize them, tweak them, etc. When they determine how much it cost to make their product, they are including the cost of all the failed pursuits - failed clinical trials, failed everything that happened in pursuit of the product. This is not a negligible number - and I'm sure it wasn't one at Nike.

The cost of failure and the cost of marketing do not exist for Nike Retro. They don't do any marketing - but they did the first time around. This has already more than eclipsed the adjust MSRP for inflation consideration. But, wait, there's more.

One of the most common misconceptions about today's global economy is that nothing is made by hand anymore. That's not true. There are more goods made by hand today than ever before. When companies set up overseas and use exploited workers, the cost of production is nearly zero. It's cheaper to use 12-year-old Indonesians than to purchase and maintain expensive machines. I'm serious - listen to the This American Life from a few weeks ago about FoxConn and Apple if you doubt me. So, while sourcing the material may be more difficult - even though advances in factory farming probably shouldn't even imply that would be the case - the cost of production is still nearly zero.

So, Nike Retro has ostensibly no advertising expenses, no R&D expenses, and the cost of production is virtually non-existent. So, why again, is the idea that we can't expect OG quality a reasonable argument? The only answer is corporate greed. And, that's no shock at all. Complaining that corporations are greedy is like complaining that Uncle Luke is raunchy. But, there are two conclusions here. One, don't defend Nike because when you do that you are falling in love with you captors - Stockholm Syndrome. Two, and more importantly, what we want CAN happen - there's no fundamental reason why it can not - so people who really care have to vote with their wallets. And, for the most part we do. Team AF1 does the vast majority of our business on the secondary market - where Nike doesn't see a penny of it. I spend literally thousands of dollars every year on sneakers - Nike/JB probably sees 25% of that at most. Overall, they're winning, but among US - they're leaving money on the table and LOSING.

 

[eebs7eez]

with the way the vactech's wrinkle, they should've dubbed it sac-tech

 

[eebs7eez]

with the way the vactech's wrinkle, they should've dubbed it sac-tech

 

[1978S]

Old pics via Elmo...Horse samples...

 

[1978S]

Old pics via Elmo...Horse samples...

 

[1978S]

One more...Sheed PE's...

 

[1978S]

One more...Sheed PE's...

 

[1978S]

Ok fine, another...K. Mchale's...

again, not my pics!

 

[1978S]

Ok fine, another...K. Mchale's...

again, not my pics!

 

[blackredxiiigoat]

Those Sheed's are AMAZING.

 

[blackredxiiigoat]

Those Sheed's are AMAZING.

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

with the way the vactech's wrinkle, they should've dubbed it sac-tech

They tried the 'Vac-Tech' crap before with the seamless AF1s, IIRC those flopped hard too.

From a costing point of view I assume that 'Vac-Tech' is cheaper as they just stamp/emboss the panels as opposed to overlaying materials and then stitching them together. Yet they're charging more for it via the 'Premium' and 'Supreme' monikers.
  

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

with the way the vactech's wrinkle, they should've dubbed it sac-tech

They tried the 'Vac-Tech' crap before with the seamless AF1s, IIRC those flopped hard too.

From a costing point of view I assume that 'Vac-Tech' is cheaper as they just stamp/emboss the panels as opposed to overlaying materials and then stitching them together. Yet they're charging more for it via the 'Premium' and 'Supreme' monikers.
  

 

[aldy]

Originally Posted by 1978S

Old pics via Elmo...Horse samples...

Dat Sole.

  

 

[aldy]

Originally Posted by 1978S

Old pics via Elmo...Horse samples...

Dat Sole.