Ask a former NIKE Basketball employee...

That's a great question and response. Great read! Keep up the good work CWK and Rock!
bfe15f69a6b6fa20a2956815c5e1a03ffcddf92.gif
 
Rock, you nailed that last one. That footwear doesn't just magically pop up and you don't get LeBron/the Heat wearing certain shoes during certain games "because they felt like it"
laugh.gif
.

But, they do get to choose at times and it is about comfort so I agree there as well. I remember when Kentucky was getting mad TV time heading into the tourney, I said to a JB guy, "they're really giving those retros a good look." He pretty much said "Yeah, but I wish it were statement products."

To add on to the local/regional employment info, the same applies for regional offices. Check the temp services. A friend of mine got on like that in Chicago. Worked the allotted time period and did well. She ended up having to take a few months off by requirement but was immediately brought back in once someone went on maternity leave and also filled another position after that.

In other words, be resourceful when digging. It helps to have an in, but there are other ways to get in.
 
Originally Posted by superblyTRIFE

Originally Posted by NikeDealer

Originally Posted by memphissfinest

BIGGEST QUESTION FOR ME.



WERE THERE EVER TALKS TO BRING BACK NIKE AIR ON JORDANS?

Memph... I brought this up in a Jordan thread once.
Save for Jordan 1's... Mike himself has said the Nike Air will NEVER as long as he's at Jordan and getting a check will have Nike Air on the back of it.

His thoughts are that he's worked too hard on his brand to share the branding of his shoe.  Its something he's VERY adamant about and many dont understand it and most dont want to hear it, but thats the absolute way its goin to be as long as that dude is at the helm. 




Scumbag Jordan strikes again. Buddy needs to get over himself already. SMH. Great thread, btw....thanks for the info fellas.


Funny how in the Lebron threads, people want Nike off, but in JB threads people want it on.
 
Originally Posted by Magic1978

Funny how in the Lebron threads, people want Nike off, but in JB threads people want it on.




First Off, CWK and Rock-  Thanks so much for the info you have posted. 

My question has to deal with what I just quoted.   A shoe is designed with certain elements, and then retroed without them.  

Are designers disappointed when they see the shoe they created, retroed in a form that looks totally different than what was originally released.  Take the Air Max 1 for example.  It looks nothing like it did when they were made in Thailand. Nike totally changed the whole structure of the shoe. Is the cost cutting really that beneficial?  Can they honestly look at the shoe and be proud of it?  Does anybody working at Nike speak up on big changes like these or say this shoe just doesnt look right?    Can Tinker actually pick at the current AM1, look at it and be proud of it.
 
Originally Posted by winzz

Originally Posted by NikeDealer

Originally Posted by jusbekicks



yeah thanks for the info guys, will have to check it out and see what I found. When looking onling didn't see really any positions for the US. Most were in the netherlands and China

Not sure looking online in Career Builder will help.  You literally need to look up local Portland and Beaverton Temp Agencies and such to see what they have.
As for restocks...

I try to explain to people.. what Consumers think are restocks aren't what is really a restock.

In Asia since Products are produced there.. you are getting all that was ordered..

Where as when US places are having their products dropped shipped they may not get everything at the same time so they get them in waves or in different shipments.  Eastbay may get 20 out of 25 boxes for instance and have more arrive later.

The same goes for the Nike Warehouse when Nike.com releases more pairs.  Its not an exact science by any means.. but Nike does ONE production run.. they dont go back and say.. hey lets produce more because of demand.
thx for the answer, now i know why there is no restock in china
laugh.gif
and one question i want to ask ; is it legal to pre order the shoes before release day? because most of nike store in here they do such kind of thing (pre order the shoes 1 month before release day) eventually when the shoes hit on release day they will be sold out maybe never hit the shelves
mad.gif
(exceptional for hype shoes like yeezy, foams galaxy,air jordan, and etc)
still waiting answer for this
 
Originally Posted by superblyTRIFE

Originally Posted by NikeDealer

Originally Posted by memphissfinest

BIGGEST QUESTION FOR ME.

WERE THERE EVER TALKS TO BRING BACK NIKE AIR ON JORDANS?

Memph... I brought this up in a Jordan thread once.
Save for Jordan 1's... Mike himself has said the Nike Air will NEVER as long as he's at Jordan and getting a check will have Nike Air on the back of it.

His thoughts are that he's worked too hard on his brand to share the branding of his shoe.  Its something he's VERY adamant about and many dont understand it and most dont want to hear it, but thats the absolute way its goin to be as long as that dude is at the helm. 


Scumbag Jordan strikes again. Buddy needs to get over himself already. SMH. Great thread, btw....thanks for the info fellas.
Classy guy this MJ. Hall of fame speech had to be the zenith of his egotism
 
Originally Posted by El Bro

First Off, CWK and Rock-  Thanks so much for the info you have posted. 

My question has to deal with what I just quoted.   A shoe is designed with certain elements, and then retroed without them.  

Are designers disappointed when they see the shoe they created, retroed in a form that looks totally different than what was originally released.  Take the Air Max 1 for example.  It looks nothing like it did when they were made in Thailand. Nike totally changed the whole structure of the shoe. Is the cost cutting really that beneficial?  Can they honestly look at the shoe and be proud of it?  Does anybody working at Nike speak up on big changes like these or say this shoe just doesnt look right?    Can Tinker actually pick at the current AM1, look at it and be proud of it.


I was wondering this, when people like Spike, Penny and Bo see their retros and sneakers they were involved in. What are their thoughts.

Is Bo just happy to still be relevant and have a sneaker, or in the back of his head is he thinking these are crap and getting worse.
 
Originally Posted by Magic1978

Originally Posted by El Bro

First Off, CWK and Rock-  Thanks so much for the info you have posted. 

My question has to deal with what I just quoted.   A shoe is designed with certain elements, and then retroed without them.  

Are designers disappointed when they see the shoe they created, retroed in a form that looks totally different than what was originally released.  Take the Air Max 1 for example.  It looks nothing like it did when they were made in Thailand. Nike totally changed the whole structure of the shoe. Is the cost cutting really that beneficial?  Can they honestly look at the shoe and be proud of it?  Does anybody working at Nike speak up on big changes like these or say this shoe just doesnt look right?    Can Tinker actually pick at the current AM1, look at it and be proud of it.


I was wondering this, when people like Spike, Penny and Bo see their retros and sneakers they were involved in. What are their thoughts.

Is Bo just happy to still be relevant and have a sneaker, or in the back of his head is he thinking these are crap and getting worse.
Bro and Magic - this topic was discussed in great detail in another thread that Rock started. It's probably on page 5 by now but it's titled 'Open discussion about NT circa 2007'.

All the athletes you mention plus Tinker might be happy just to get pay cheques at this stage - and these retros are just shoes that they get for free. They don't pay any hard $$ for them so they could care less about the shape or the materials. Nike also gets the lowest bidder to manufacture for them - that's why the decline in overall quality, inconsistent shapes and variation in sizing just to name a few negatives.

That said I would like CWK and Rock to chime in on why exactly the QUALITY of sample shoes and GRs is so different. The question's not about aesthetics or design cues between the two but why exactly the factories produce samples to Nike standards and then skimp majorly on the GR versions?
 
Originally Posted by vood99

Originally Posted by Magic1978

Originally Posted by El Bro

First Off, CWK and Rock-  Thanks so much for the info you have posted. 

My question has to deal with what I just quoted.   A shoe is designed with certain elements, and then retroed without them.  

Are designers disappointed when they see the shoe they created, retroed in a form that looks totally different than what was originally released.  Take the Air Max 1 for example.  It looks nothing like it did when they were made in Thailand. Nike totally changed the whole structure of the shoe. Is the cost cutting really that beneficial?  Can they honestly look at the shoe and be proud of it?  Does anybody working at Nike speak up on big changes like these or say this shoe just doesnt look right?    Can Tinker actually pick at the current AM1, look at it and be proud of it.


I was wondering this, when people like Spike, Penny and Bo see their retros and sneakers they were involved in. What are their thoughts.

Is Bo just happy to still be relevant and have a sneaker, or in the back of his head is he thinking these are crap and getting worse.
Bro and Magic - this topic was discussed in great detail in another thread that Rock started. It's probably on page 5 by now but it's titled 'Open discussion about NT circa 2007'.

All the athletes you mention plus Tinker might be happy just to get pay cheques at this stage - and these retros are just shoes that they get for free. They don't pay any hard $$ for them so they could care less about the shape or the materials. Nike also gets the lowest bidder to manufacture for them - that's why the decline in overall quality, inconsistent shapes and variation in sizing just to name a few negatives.

That said I would like CWK and Rock to chime in on why exactly the QUALITY of sample shoes and GRs is so different. The question's not about aesthetics or design cues between the two but why exactly the factories produce samples to Nike standards and then skimp majorly on the GR versions?

Vood.. simple my man...
If you ask for ANY sample product in ANY industry be mocked up you are goint to literally get the best possible product because its literally a one of one or one of a few. If you came up with a new invention and decided to have a factory manufacturer produce it they are going to be meticulous and thorough. Once that same product goes to mass production in ANY industry you are going to lose quality with mass quantities.

You are right.. Looksee Samples in some cases are just shells but in other cases the greatest craftsmenship ever. The same goes for Promo stuff.  Its made in another factory....

I do want to dispell some misnomers though.. that GR versions have completely different tech than PE versions.  The only differences in a size 16 Lebron Wears and a size 16 sold is Lebrons is made from a cast of his feet.  Exactly to his measurements.  You aren't seeing another type of Zoom Bag or things of that Nature.

Some thought Rasheed had Zoom in his AF 1s... well that was only true for the one's EVERYONE KNEW he had Zoom in.. not his regular Court AF1's  (Saw Sheed at a Strip Club a month ago too.. funny dude).

Hope that answered that..

As for the retro'd shoes... as Vood said and what I chimed in on in another thread... For Designers and Athletes it aint that serious.  Designers know what job it is of NSW to do when they retro shoes.  Cut the fat.  Literally folks talk about molds being lost or what have you but they recreate every shoe from scratch just about every release... hence why all the subtle and not so subtle changes.

Its up to Material Designers to find "better yet cheaper and more cost effective material" for new product.  Just as Clothing apparel is supposed to find the most improved yet cost effective materials so does Nike... just not the way you guys want lol...

One thing I always encourage my clients who want to start their own line of clothing or products to do is take trip to China.. network.. visit a factory.  There are entire spools of fabric untouched and undiscovered in many cases waiting to be purchased pennies per yard.  Find that.. get someone to make you a great pattern you can develop and your costs are a mere fraction of what they would be if you tried to do the same thing in the states.

People often try to jump on Nike for their "practices" but its no different than a small start up doing and utilizing the same resources to cut costs and improve their profit margin.  Going to Asia is the American way!!!
laugh.gif
  i jest in part.. but as a smart business person your sole responsibility is to your bottom line and success. 

Why should Nike improve quality if the masses are happy?  You think they are going to make something to last 5 years so you never have to buy a product for that long?  Cars in some cases are made to last a lifetime ..but more often than not they last as long as that car note..
laugh.gif


This is why I often say to folks you think with your feet and your heart more than you do with your mind and education. If given the chance to run Nike for a day... many would say they'd change the colorways.. the release amounts and silly stuff.  

Me?  I'd try to make even more money than Mark Parker and Phil Knight to satisfy my stockholders and increase my shares so I can turn around and sell them and lead a comfy life.  The shoes will come.  When you run a company like Nike.. its only 20% about the consumer.... you can believe its more if you want. 
 
@NikeDealer nailed it on the head.

It's the same principle with beer companies. For example, in Richmond, VA, there was a microbrewery named Legend that was very small scale and made incredibly great-tasting beer. After a few years with increasing demand from consumers, they were forced to expand and eventually signed a contract with a distribution and manufacturing third-party. Now, the beer still tastes good, but it's nothing compared to what you could get from the actual bar/brewery back in the day.

Just a small correlation to the example of how people say Nike has certain products that are great, but not every product is made with the utmost attention to detail. That will never happen in mass production, especially when things are not directly overseen by the main company itself.
 
So you were a test coordinator???


How do I get more tests??? I'm only getting like 1.5-2 a year
ohwell.gif
 
rck2sactown-
You can drop them a line and ask if anything's coming up - let them know if you're playing in a league.  A lot of it depends on submitting complete fedback on time.  When I was there, the two main sample sizes were 9 and 13 but they were expanding into a broader size run. 
 
Just an FYI to those who sent me messages:  I'll be able to reply on Monday, thanks.
 
im sure this has been asked in this thread..
but how hard was it to work for nike?
was it something you enjoyed?
was it worth the pay. hours, headaches, or was your leave due to person reasons?
 
This thread is as comical, as all hell. From what I gather, especially from some of the questions that are being posed, is that it must a dream for some Nike lovers to actually work for Nike. It's an admirable quest, as the old adage goes, do something that you love, finding that purpose, then you are really not working in order to live. 
Having access to something that you hold dear, by working for the company that makes it, can be a double edged sword. You walk into the company all green, wet behind the ears, excited to be a part of the team, thirsty, giving away ideas, trying to make connections in order to work your way to the top, up to a position of influence. Then you suddenly find out that your position in life hasn't changed any, while those at the top are BALLIN', while not contributing a damned thing but pushing the go button on your idea. 

I've heard plenty of stories like these from former employees out of Beaverton. These horror stories, coupled with the Alice in Wonderland perception, may be an even better addition to this thread, giving it a sense of real, as opposed to the fantasy that many are expecting to read.

Here's one, Andre Agassi pissed off a few Nike heads of state when he left the company, over what should have been a no brainer for Nike. They refused to sign off on his charity. Andre went and signed with Adidas, which had no problem supporting his charity at all. 

Suddenly, Agassi's name has been eliminated from certain areas on the campus, and it's as if he was never with Nike at all. His name was synonymous with Bo Jackson, Jordan, and Gretzky, but now?

Andre who?

After his passing, I wondered aloud if Phil Knight would have shown up to Paterno's funeral, if the Penn State program would have left Nike for Under Armour.
 
- I chose a temporary contract position in Basketball over a permanent position in Soccer because hoops was where I wanted to be.  I think I stated earlier that my contract wasn't renewed due to a hiring freeze in several categories.  Working there was as demanding and enjoyable as any other worthwhile position, I suppose. 

AKA - 
I personally didn't come across any horror stories while I was with NIKE.  The people I worked with were talented, focused, and humble - from the top down. 

I missed Agassi when he left the brand.  It would surprise me if it were really over support of a nonprofit.  As a NIKE employee, I was a volunteer coach for Special Olympics and a child literacy advocate with Start Making A Reader Today (S.M.A.R.T.).  As a field rep, every week I donated funds, product, and game tickets to child-based community programs like churches, schools, and hospitals.  I don't have annual charitable giving figures in front of me, but I'm sure NIKE is a global leader in that area as well.  In addition, they established P.L.A.Y., nikegrind, and led the industry in reforming working and living conditions for factory workers (although that should have happened years earlier). 
 
Originally Posted by CWK

- I chose a temporary contract position in Basketball over a permanent position in Soccer because hoops was where I wanted to be.  I think I stated earlier that my contract wasn't renewed due to a hiring freeze in several categories.  Working there was as demanding and enjoyable as any other worthwhile position, I suppose. 

AKA - 
I personally didn't come across any horror stories while I was with NIKE.  The people I worked with were talented, focused, and humble - from the top down. 

I missed Agassi when he left the brand.  It would surprise me if it were really over support of a nonprofit.  As a NIKE employee, I was a volunteer coach for Special Olympics and a child literacy advocate with Start Making A Reader Today (S.M.A.R.T.).  As a field rep, every week I donated funds, product, and game tickets to child-based community programs like churches, schools, and hospitals.  I don't have annual charitable giving figures in front of me, but I'm sure NIKE is a global leader in that area as well.  In addition, they established P.L.A.Y., nikegrind, and led the industry in reforming working and living conditions for factory workers (although that should have happened years earlier). 
Hey man, that's good to hear that your experience was hip. From the sound of it, you weren't in a decision making position, or in the kitchen when things really got cooking. It sounds as if they had you out there in front, somewhat as a greeter, giving the company good face time, and that sounds cool! However, when it comes to charity, Nike only does what looks good for them and their exposure. Of course they will seem to be a global leader monetarily in regard to charitable causes. This is because they have more money, even though that seems to be presently changing with them dumping Cole Haan and the other company, but more than anyone else in the sneaker industry.
Here's another story...

...Lance Armstrong was first refused by Nike, when he approached them to support his LiveStrong program. They said no, and Lance was gonna bolt. This was at the height of his powers and influence. After his threat, they caved in. Supposedly, someone in his camp was going to go public about why Lance was going to leave Nike. Nike made a mint of advertising dollars off of those little yellow rubber bands, but if the public only knew how Lance had to threaten Nike, it may have gone the other way.

Now, I am not in the sneaker industry, but I know quite a few who were, and then presently are. Sure, what they've told me may be sour grapes, but when doing some fact checking, all has panned out exactly as I was told, especially the Agassi story, which is common knowledge in the industry.

I'll tell you what though, plenty of people who make big decisions at the other shops in the industry either started out at Nike, or were once employed by the big swoosh at one time. Those who were in big positions had to sign Non-compete clauses after they left, which is comical, because some of those who left created much of the basketball stuff, that helped make Nike and then Nike basketball, a big success.

,

There is a reason that Nike basketball is struggling. 
 
I have family in Oregon who work for Nike. My uncle has been there over 10 years now. I have heard more bad then good. It always shocks me when so many of the young kids on NT wanna work for Nike just because they like the shoes.
 
Really cool thread that has a lot of nice insight from those who have had the chance to experience it. How does a store get an account with nike? I talked with a shoe store owner once and he told me it depends a lot on who you know. Any truth to that?
 
AKALONGSTROKE = Coach Hubie/Jack Johnson/Justice God/Splended Vision etc. Expect him to hijack this topic with his usual anti-Nike material.
 
Back
Top Bottom