- 1,378
- 98
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
From my understanding THESE^^^^ are NOT Them. Which is a shame cuz those are pretty nice.Originally Posted by Executive76
I'd pay $190 for these
Props to T.Hardman
thoughts on lack of hype or requests for pictures or info on the Air Jordan 2009 (24)
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by lobotomybeats,
- Start date
trilltiger
Banned
- 208
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
yeah those are nice
- 361
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
only a jordan brand worker would start a post like this.
- 214
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
^^^ 190 truly is ridiculous especially if theyre not sigs. They'll probably be pushed back because dude who designed them will be let goafter they see how the CP3.II sells.
- 158
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
Originally Posted by GreatestGoliath
From my understanding THESE^^^^ are NOT Them. Which is a shame cuz those are pretty nice.Originally Posted by Executive76
I'd pay $190 for these
Props to T.Hardman
^^^^This is how they should make 'em, J.Brand needs to hire T.Hardman ASAP
- 1,152
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
im over jb after 2008 but hope to see that the 24 or jordan 2009 rekindles my love....haha highly doubt that
- 7,323
- 28,704
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Just from a marketing standpoint, Jordan Brand shot themselves in the foot. They can blame the economy all they like, but should the 2009 flagship fail - andit has every reason to, at this point - they ought to take a hard look in the mirror.
1. They've been steadily eroding the significance of the Air Jordan for years. It gets a 2 week ad blitz and then it's left out to dry. The other 11& 1/2 months of the year are devoted to milking the legacy and pushing retros. It's become less of a "state of the art" product and more"hey, remember when we released the XI in 1996? No one ever thought to use patent leather on a basketball shoe before. So, I'm sure it'll haveJUST as much impact today if we throw patent leather, clear soles, and an elephant print derivative on the "new" Jordans." The flagship shoehas become an afterthought. That's nothing new. We've been talking about it on NT for years.
2. This is a pure failure of vision on their part. They're reacting to the Internet with the same adverserial stodginess as the music industry followingthe mp3 revolution. The industry spent untold time and money fighting, tooth and nail, a losing battle against the consumer. Jordan brand is doing the samething by attempting to keep the product under such a tight lockdown that we can't see or discuss it months in advance. The Internet MADE the retro crazehappen. It's not a coincidence. Sneaker collecting went mainstream and the online community provided the tipping point. If you aren't buildinganticipation online, if people who LOVE sneakers couldn't care less about your product, then how on earth do you expect the average consumer to care - muchless care enough to spend $190? Consumers WANT to see what's coming out months in advance. They want to talk about it. They want to critique it. Theywant to plan their purchases.
If I were a betting man, I would bet against the Jordan 2009 being a product that I care about. Yet, by sheer hubris, Jordan brand is banking on thepossibility that people will put $190 away on BLIND FAITH that the Jordan 2009 will be worth it. Stupid.
3. They've been doing their best to push old school Jordan fans out of the market and replace them with younger, less discerning consumers and - ifthat's by design - then they've succeeded in that regard. I've generally lost interest.
How you convince the 15-19 year old consumer to buy the Jordan 2009, as opposed to one or more of the other 80 "limited edition" shoes coming outthat month, is beyond me. Why should they care? You've given them a great reason not to add it to their collections for sheer "completion"since it's not even a numbered product. Goodness knows it's given me a great excuse to do the same, and I own I-XX3.
What they could do with the 2009, if they're at all interested in meaningful market segmentation, would be to position the 2009 as an absolute state of theart product - the best piece of basketball equipment a player could purchase, a sleek, sophisticated product that does justice to - rather than mocks - theJordan styling sensibility that drove the classic products the brand now milks to the point of utter self-mockery.
The Air Jordan is SUPPOSED to be the flagship shoe not just for Jordan brand, not just for Nike, but for the ENTIRE sneaker industry. It sets the bar. Theattempt, however half-hearted, to move to sustainable design standards for the Air Jordan XX3 was a great move. There are, now, no excuses. They MUST showthat commitment to sustainability wasn't a marketing gimmick, to make sure that the 2009 represents the cutting edge of performance and sustainability. Produce a sophisticated, high performance basketball shoe that utilizes no toxic adhesives, animal products, PVC, and polyurethane and you've got a sale. Produce more middling garbage at a premium price point and watch them clog up store inventory like a 21/2 pack.
1. They've been steadily eroding the significance of the Air Jordan for years. It gets a 2 week ad blitz and then it's left out to dry. The other 11& 1/2 months of the year are devoted to milking the legacy and pushing retros. It's become less of a "state of the art" product and more"hey, remember when we released the XI in 1996? No one ever thought to use patent leather on a basketball shoe before. So, I'm sure it'll haveJUST as much impact today if we throw patent leather, clear soles, and an elephant print derivative on the "new" Jordans." The flagship shoehas become an afterthought. That's nothing new. We've been talking about it on NT for years.
2. This is a pure failure of vision on their part. They're reacting to the Internet with the same adverserial stodginess as the music industry followingthe mp3 revolution. The industry spent untold time and money fighting, tooth and nail, a losing battle against the consumer. Jordan brand is doing the samething by attempting to keep the product under such a tight lockdown that we can't see or discuss it months in advance. The Internet MADE the retro crazehappen. It's not a coincidence. Sneaker collecting went mainstream and the online community provided the tipping point. If you aren't buildinganticipation online, if people who LOVE sneakers couldn't care less about your product, then how on earth do you expect the average consumer to care - muchless care enough to spend $190? Consumers WANT to see what's coming out months in advance. They want to talk about it. They want to critique it. Theywant to plan their purchases.
If I were a betting man, I would bet against the Jordan 2009 being a product that I care about. Yet, by sheer hubris, Jordan brand is banking on thepossibility that people will put $190 away on BLIND FAITH that the Jordan 2009 will be worth it. Stupid.
3. They've been doing their best to push old school Jordan fans out of the market and replace them with younger, less discerning consumers and - ifthat's by design - then they've succeeded in that regard. I've generally lost interest.
How you convince the 15-19 year old consumer to buy the Jordan 2009, as opposed to one or more of the other 80 "limited edition" shoes coming outthat month, is beyond me. Why should they care? You've given them a great reason not to add it to their collections for sheer "completion"since it's not even a numbered product. Goodness knows it's given me a great excuse to do the same, and I own I-XX3.
What they could do with the 2009, if they're at all interested in meaningful market segmentation, would be to position the 2009 as an absolute state of theart product - the best piece of basketball equipment a player could purchase, a sleek, sophisticated product that does justice to - rather than mocks - theJordan styling sensibility that drove the classic products the brand now milks to the point of utter self-mockery.
The Air Jordan is SUPPOSED to be the flagship shoe not just for Jordan brand, not just for Nike, but for the ENTIRE sneaker industry. It sets the bar. Theattempt, however half-hearted, to move to sustainable design standards for the Air Jordan XX3 was a great move. There are, now, no excuses. They MUST showthat commitment to sustainability wasn't a marketing gimmick, to make sure that the 2009 represents the cutting edge of performance and sustainability. Produce a sophisticated, high performance basketball shoe that utilizes no toxic adhesives, animal products, PVC, and polyurethane and you've got a sale. Produce more middling garbage at a premium price point and watch them clog up store inventory like a 21/2 pack.
- 10
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
dun nobody care cuhs we already know its goin to look awful jus like fusions
and THE PRICE TAG IS 190!!
- 12,885
- 2,739
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
Jordan Brand actually shouldve seen this coming...
They over-produced this year, and it caught up.
- 87
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
- 5,038
- 1,409
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
hahaha its all true
- 336
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
Originally Posted by Executive76
I'd pay $190 for these
Props to T.Hardman
- 158
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
These are beautiful!^^^^
- 225
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
i don't look forward to AND1 x JB type of design
- 8,933
- 31
- Joined
- May 28, 2008
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,181
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
This was my main point. It certainly appears that way. And if that was their intention, how sad is it that I still can't wait to see the signature model? Is taking away the onus on the signature model their way of waving a white flag and falling into complacency? I understand it is harder to sell a signatureshoe of someone that a lot of buyers didn't even get to watch in his prime. So is this giving in to that challenge? If they give you little reason towant the new Air Jordan, is it easier for them to say that it isn't in demand and that Signature shoes don't work?
Also. We need more than one dude wearing the signature shoe. Please!
- 18
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
I also think the look of the shoes have to do with. I know Air Jordans are meant to be a basketball shoes. But the shoes have become so high tech (beacause ofthe nature of it being a basketball shoe) that it made it so bulky and not casual looking enough to be worn with a pair of jeans. Which means a lot of thepeople who dont play basketball but they are sneaker heads wont be getting them for the fact that they cant wear them with their jeans. If you look at thebetter selling shoes such as the dunks, and they sbs, the all stars, the superstars and the AM1. All those shoes have a simple look to them. I mean 120 bucksfor a pair of sbs is expensive given the technology that is inside. So while the 190 price tag does turn ppl away, I think the look of the shoe has to play abigger role.
- 315
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
i think thats good that there is no hype for pictures