Re: sneaker ridicule
Share with others:
The discrepancy with the June 12 column by Tony Norman ("Sneaker Marketing Falls Shy as a Cool Feat") is that he speaks from a position of ignorance as to the individuals seeking to purchase the shoes in question. The sheer falsity of take-home points such as "anyone who wants a pair of Air Yeezy IIs can stroll into any sneaker outlet a month from now and buy them without missing school, work or meals" is the ungrounded ridicule that someone speaking without knowledge about the industry would assume.
The shoes are unobtainable for retail price at any point after their day of release, and the resale market for the shoe values them at six or more times the retail value. Marketing and celebrity influence are involved, but Mr. Norman seems to imagine the individuals outside of the store as ignorant, gullible and sad. Could not those very same people sitting outside waiting for shoes be college students aspiring to be business owners, lawyers or doctors?
The presumption is that anyone associated with the "sneaker community" is indulged in a subculture of blindness to real-world needs and responsibilities and live and breath only to bow at the foot of the Nike gods (Nike was the god of victory, by the way). There are certainly issues with the subculture of sneaker collectors just as there are in a marketplace of most any collectible, exclusive or high-valued commodity. The ignorance of those who assume they come from a place of knowledge when speaking on the issue is what is truly hypocritical and disappointing.
Imagine a world where column writers had to have a working knowledge of the subject they ridicule.
First Published June 19, 2012 12:00 am