"QUALITY INSPIRED BY THE GREATEST PLAYER EVER"This slogan is stitched on the heel tag of every Nike Air Jordan XII basketball shoe. As a Nike enthusiast and sneaker collector of nearly twenty years, I have been a loyal Swoosh customer who believed this tagline. I figured if they were good enough for Michael Jordan, they were good enough for me. Heck, with a retail price of $139.99, they had to be better than the rest, right?
I continued to purchase Nike products (along with Air Jordans) over the years. I was satisfied with the quality of shoes and apparel I was getting from the folks in Beaverton, OR. That was until I started purchasing "retro" models from the Nike Sportswear line.
Case in point - the Retro release of the Nike Air Max BW running shoe. This shoe was a cult classic amongst sneakerheads - a retro runner from the early 1990s. After one or two casual wears of the BW retro, I found the white paint on the midsole starting to chip away. I didn't run in them or do anything other than walk around in them. Did the original Air Max BWs have this problem? Never. Should a shoe with a retail tag of $90 have such poor quality? Of course not.
Then the trend continued to December 2009 with the release of the Nike Air Jordan XI "Space Jam"...
...the sought-after AJ XI Retro model that MJ wore in the Space Jam movie. This shoe had received much hype on sneaker message boards since it had been nearly ten years since the shoe was issued. Many regard this Air Jordan signature shoe (the model he wore during the Chicago Bulls 72-10 championship season) "the greatest Air Jordan".
This distinction was proven with campouts by sneakerheads and sellouts in minutes. Despite being called the greatest, I found this retro to be made of inferior materials, even with a price hike from the original ($125 for the original to $175 for the Retro). On the retro Space Jam, the patent leather felt flimsy and plastic-like, the leather on the heel portion resembled "pleather" and the carbon fiber heel plate felt like a cheap imitation of the original.
I know for a fact that Nike cannot make retro models in their exactness, since the molds of the originals are destroyed or lost or since the materials used are no longer in existence. But where did the quality go? Why not put out a quality retro? Why have us consumers pay top dollar for inferior products?
Nike spends millions of dollars on technology which can be seen -- and experienced -- on it's flagship models. Like the Mercurial Vapor SL soccer cleat...
...which features Nike SENSE traction that adjusts to wet or dry conditions. Or the LunarGlide running shoe...
...which is one of the most comfortable running shoes I have purchased in years. It's a runner than can be worn by novice runners or elite runners (I saw a number of elite runners in the 2009 Chicago Marathon competing in it). Or the Nike Zoom Kobe V basketball shoe...
...which is the lightest basketball shoe on the market and further revolutionized the trend that you need a high top for ankle support. But in term of retro models, Nike does not spend a dime. Nostalgia and sentimental value rule here. Nike cuts corners because they can.
How many times have you heard folks say, "I used to have a pair of those when I was in grade school" or "I used to have a poster where Michael Jordan wore those". Air Jordans have always been a status symbol and forever will be. In the past, these shoes had groundbreaking technologies, like Nike Zoom Air or I.P.S. (Independent Podular Suspension). But many today purchase Air Jordan retros to relive the past.
In addition, instead of putting out new technologies for its newer issue "team" shoes, many of the latest Jordan Brand releases are hybrids or mash-ups of previous Air Jordan models, with little to no innovation.
In 2008, Jordan Brand released the "True Flight" team basketball shoe.
Aesthetically, the shoe resembled the classic Air Jordan VII model...
...which featured Nike Air cushioning, a Phylon midsole and a Huarache-like sockliner. At $139.99, its arguably one of the most comfortable models of the Nike Air Jordan signature line.
Now, I dare you to try on the True Flight team shoe after wearing an original or retro AJ VII. The True Flight feels flimsy in the upper, claims to have Zoom Air cushioning (I don't feel it) and still carried a price tag of $139.99.
In addition, I saw none of the Jordan Brand athletes (Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, and numerous others) wear these shoes in any NBA game. Geez, I wonder why. Maybe it's because Nike is riding off the coat-tails of its past?
The regular buying public will purchase a Jordan Brand shoe because it has a "Jumpman" logo on it. Do they know the difference between a signature flagship shoe with the latest technology and a Team Jordan shoe that is an uninspired hybrid with little to no technology? No, but they do not care. That slogan about "inspired by the greatest" is out the window.
This lack of quality scares me about the products of tomorrow. CEO Mark Parker said this month that he expects to see revenue rise more than 40% to $27 billion by the year 2015.
He says he expects to see Nike-owned brands like Umbro, Hurley and Converse contribute to this rise, but I am skeptical of what Nike will do to it's own products. Will they sell inferior products and current price levels just to make this number? What incentive is there to make a quality product if sales is your number one priority?
We are already seeing a lack of quality in the retro releases. I am hoping it won't spread to Nike's current innovation-based products...
