Daan on Nike bitches

[shit_for_brains]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

So the marketing works, then?

[billyerlife]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[144p]

Expand Quote

Big deal, Kelly Bird openly talked shit and now he helps run Nike SB.
Daan wants to travel with Grant and Ishod.

[close]

Which is still lame.  And saying 'I want to travel with Grant and Ishod' is stupid too since he travels with them all the time on DLX and Thrasher trips.  Just say 'I want the extra money' and own up to your motivations.  Don't bullshit us.

Yeah but DLX travel is A Van in the US.
Nike pays for plane tickets without flinching probably.
 

[MexicanSpaniard]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

also think about the guys who've been on for decades, Cab, Cardiel, Hassan etc

[REGS]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

Exactly. If Nike started making shoes for skateboarders in the 70s, through every ebb and flow, thick and thin for 40 years, they'd be considered as legit as Vans.

And while the first skate-specific shoes weren't mass produced until '76, they were custom-making shoes for Peralta and Alva in the early '70s and were the first company to actually pay skateboarders whether they won contests or not.

Corporately owned now, sure, but surely there's a difference? That's how I feel anyway. HUF and Lakai are now technically corporately owned too, right?

[stevedave]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Exactly. If Nike started making shoes for skateboarders in the 70s, through every ebb and flow, thick and thin for 40 years, they'd be considered as legit as Vans.

And while the first skate-specific shoes weren't mass produced until '76, they were custom-making shoes for Peralta and Alva in the early '70s and were the first company to actually pay skateboarders whether they won contests or not.

Corporately owned now, sure, but surely there's a difference? That's how I feel anyway. HUF and Lakai are now technically corporately owned too, right?

what happened to your quote about Etnies being owned by a frenchman who never stepped foot on a skateboard?   Pierre Andre, while a freestlyer, has most definitely stepped on a board, and in the freestyle world, he kinda killed it (for whatever that's worth)

[shit_for_brains]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Exactly. If Nike started making shoes for skateboarders in the 70s, through every ebb and flow, thick and thin for 40 years, they'd be considered as legit as Vans.

And while the first skate-specific shoes weren't mass produced until '76, they were custom-making shoes for Peralta and Alva in the early '70s and were the first company to actually pay skateboarders whether they won contests or not.

Corporately owned now, sure, but surely there's a difference? That's how I feel anyway. HUF and Lakai are now technically corporately owned too, right?

I was referring more to the "their team has that "crew" mentality" part but I guess my fault for not pointing at it.

[billyerlife]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Exactly. If Nike started making shoes for skateboarders in the 70s, through every ebb and flow, thick and thin for 40 years, they'd be considered as legit as Vans.

And while the first skate-specific shoes weren't mass produced until '76, they were custom-making shoes for Peralta and Alva in the early '70s and were the first company to actually pay skateboarders whether they won contests or not.

Corporately owned now, sure, but surely there's a difference? That's how I feel anyway. HUF and Lakai are now technically corporately owned too, right?

[close]

I was referring more to the "their team has that "crew" mentality" part but I guess my fault for not pointing at it.

Ah, I see where you're coming from there. The video was amazing and the team is definitely cohesive, but I'm not seeing them as a bunch of homies. Which I'm fine with really, they produced a well rounded team, ain't everyone gotta be best friends.

[shit_for_brains]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Exactly. If Nike started making shoes for skateboarders in the 70s, through every ebb and flow, thick and thin for 40 years, they'd be considered as legit as Vans.

And while the first skate-specific shoes weren't mass produced until '76, they were custom-making shoes for Peralta and Alva in the early '70s and were the first company to actually pay skateboarders whether they won contests or not.

Corporately owned now, sure, but surely there's a difference? That's how I feel anyway. HUF and Lakai are now technically corporately owned too, right?

[close]

I was referring more to the "their team has that "crew" mentality" part but I guess my fault for not pointing at it.

[close]

Ah, I see where you're coming from there. The video was amazing and the team is definitely cohesive, but I'm not seeing them as a bunch of homies. Which I'm fine with really, they produced a well rounded team, ain't everyone gotta be best friends.

I agree with you and am wearing vans so it works on me too.

[chipped tail]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

[CINCINNATI]

Feels weird after listening to that Alex Olson episode of the bunt. He made it seem like the difference in Nike pay vs Vans pay was pretty negligible. I’m pretty bummed on this for some reason. I fuck with Nike enough , but I liked him on vans. for some reason all the best dudes just kill in slip ons or authentics and it just makes them all the gnarlier. No one trips on a gnarly trick in blazers or dunks.

Maybe I’m just still in love with that vans ad Dylan had 50-50 Ollie over a pole in authentics. It’s been like a decade and I’m still psyched on that.

skating in eras or authentics is never not cool. but dunks not looking cool? idk some old BA footage or gino stuff is kinda cool too.

[billyerlife]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

I have no doubt it's a fun place to work (mandatory side note in regards to all footwear production conversation: except for the factory employees). Tons of money means suite digs, best of the best designers and artists, a stacked team. I just disagree that there's a maybe about it. They got into golf, another place where innovation and design is critical, and bounced when it didn't go well. Hell they did it in skateboarding twice already, I think. Furthermore, while Lakai and Emerica are going on tour together, Nike has engaged in practices designed to suppress the sales of its competitors. I know they are a company and profits are integral, but there's a big, and I think relevant, difference between Nike and skater owned brands.

It's an old coversation, if we don't agree what Nike is all about at this point we probably won't, but I stand by my claim that it is 100% about the profits.

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Big deal, Kelly Bird openly talked shit and now he helps run Nike SB.
Daan wants to travel with Grant and Ishod.

[close]

Which is still lame.  And saying 'I want to travel with Grant and Ishod' is stupid too since he travels with them all the time on DLX and Thrasher trips.  Just say 'I want the extra money' and own up to your motivations.  Don't bullshit us.

[close]

Yeah but DLX travel is A Van in the US.
Nike pays for plane tickets without flinching probably.

Didn't Spitfire just drop a video of a tour all over Europe (with Daan, Grant, and Ishod included amongst plenty of others)?

[Paco Supreme]

Didn't Spitfire just drop a video of a tour all over Europe (with Daan, Grant, and Ishod included amongst plenty of others)?

was that not a co thrasher thing too? i think that was a jump in the van trip anyway

[DCLOVE]

Expand Quote

Feels weird after listening to that Alex Olson episode of the bunt. He made it seem like the difference in Nike pay vs Vans pay was pretty negligible. I’m pretty bummed on this for some reason. I fuck with Nike enough , but I liked him on vans. for some reason all the best dudes just kill in slip ons or authentics and it just makes them all the gnarlier. No one trips on a gnarly trick in blazers or dunks.

Maybe I’m just still in love with that vans ad Dylan had 50-50 Ollie over a pole in authentics. It’s been like a decade and I’m still psyched on that.

[close]

skating in eras or authentics is never not cool. but dunks not looking cool? idk some old BA footage or gino stuff is kinda cool too.

I was more getting at stuff Rowley or chima jumping down shit in authentics or eras, just knowing that shoe provides such little support and they’re getting some crazy trick in it compared to the dunk where you know that shoe is nice and cozy for jumping down something. Also Daan with that giant backtail in the spitfire edit in just the slip on pros.

[chipped tail]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

[close]

I have no doubt it's a fun place to work (mandatory side note in regards to all footwear production conversation: except for the factory employees). Tons of money means suite digs, best of the best designers and artists, a stacked team. I just disagree that there's a maybe about it. They got into golf, another place where innovation and design is critical, and bounced when it didn't go well. Hell they did it in skateboarding twice already, I think. Furthermore, while Lakai and Emerica are going on tour together, Nike has engaged in practices designed to suppress the sales of its competitors. I know they are a company and profits are integral, but there's a big, and I think relevant, difference between Nike and skater owned brands.

It's an old coversation, if we don't agree what Nike is all about at this point we probably won't, but I stand by my claim that it is 100% about the profits.

Nike actually makes really dope golf shoes still. they just dropped the hardgoods line and dont make clubs anymore. Converse however started as a basketball shoe company. They dropped the entire basketball shoe program and only make lifestyle shoes and skate shoes. No skaters seem to care about that tho. Also are Lakai and Emerica both owned by the same mega corp?

[Roisto]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

[close]

I have no doubt it's a fun place to work (mandatory side note in regards to all footwear production conversation: except for the factory employees). Tons of money means suite digs, best of the best designers and artists, a stacked team. I just disagree that there's a maybe about it. They got into golf, another place where innovation and design is critical, and bounced when it didn't go well. Hell they did it in skateboarding twice already, I think. Furthermore, while Lakai and Emerica are going on tour together, Nike has engaged in practices designed to suppress the sales of its competitors. I know they are a company and profits are integral, but there's a big, and I think relevant, difference between Nike and skater owned brands.

It's an old coversation, if we don't agree what Nike is all about at this point we probably won't, but I stand by my claim that it is 100% about the profits.

[close]

Nike actually makes really dope golf shoes still. they just dropped the hardgoods line and dont make clubs anymore. Converse however started as a basketball shoe company. They dropped the entire basketball shoe program and only make lifestyle shoes and skate shoes. No skaters seem to care about that tho. Also are Lakai and Emerica both owned by the same mega corp?

No. Emerica is owned by Sole Tech, who owns Etnies and éS too. Lakai is now owned by whatever investment company it was that bought out HUF, used to be Crailtap back when they did the tour.

[DannyDee]

Expand Quote

Didn't Spitfire just drop a video of a tour all over Europe (with Daan, Grant, and Ishod included amongst plenty of others)?

[close]

was that not a co thrasher thing too? i think that was a jump in the van trip anyway

Pretty sure everyone was already over there for Copenhagen, and they made a trip from that. I'm sure a bunch of sponsors footed the bill to get them out there in the first place.

[planman]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

[close]

I have no doubt it's a fun place to work (mandatory side note in regards to all footwear production conversation: except for the factory employees). Tons of money means suite digs, best of the best designers and artists, a stacked team. I just disagree that there's a maybe about it. They got into golf, another place where innovation and design is critical, and bounced when it didn't go well. Hell they did it in skateboarding twice already, I think. Furthermore, while Lakai and Emerica are going on tour together, Nike has engaged in practices designed to suppress the sales of its competitors. I know they are a company and profits are integral, but there's a big, and I think relevant, difference between Nike and skater owned brands.

It's an old coversation, if we don't agree what Nike is all about at this point we probably won't, but I stand by my claim that it is 100% about the profits.

[close]

Nike actually makes really dope golf shoes still. they just dropped the hardgoods line and dont make clubs anymore. Converse however started as a basketball shoe company. They dropped the entire basketball shoe program and only make lifestyle shoes and skate shoes. No skaters seem to care about that tho. Also are Lakai and Emerica both owned by the same mega corp?

Huh? Not sure how that relates to the topic at hand

[GershonSweaty]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dissertations could be written about how prolific Vans has been at putting off an authentic and core image despite their current colossal corporate standing.

[close]

[close]

They get a pass. They have been supporting skateboarding since day one, their team has that "crew" mentality that makes a skate company a skate company, and not just a sporting team like nike or adidas.

[close]

So the marketing works, then?

[close]

Pretty significant difference between being a successful sportswear company and branching into skateboarding strictly for profit and being a successful skateboard shoe company and becoming successful in the mainstream. They've been making skateboard specific shoes since 1976 and went bankrupt doing it before making it big time. I know they are owned by VF now, but i still think the trajectory is relevant in their "core" status. I don't wear them anymore, but that's equal parts having busted as feet and wanting to support smaller companies.

[close]

Nike does want to make a profit for sure. As for any business that fact can't be denied, but the decision to launch the SB program might not be "strictly" to make money. Nike is a shoe company so a desire to make shoes for various activities must already exist within right? So why wouldnt a shoe company that makes shoes for pretty much all the sports not want be involved in Skateboarding. Of course the high volume of shoes consumed by skaters is a major draw, but through SB they get to work with lots of fresh talented young designers, athletes, artists, fashion designers, media moguls, photographer, etc. Im sure the SB programs is one of the more fun projects going at Nike. would SB be dropped if was suddenly not profitable, maybe, but I still think there is a passion for making shoes behind the program.

[close]

I have no doubt it's a fun place to work (mandatory side note in regards to all footwear production conversation: except for the factory employees). Tons of money means suite digs, best of the best designers and artists, a stacked team. I just disagree that there's a maybe about it. They got into golf, another place where innovation and design is critical, and bounced when it didn't go well. Hell they did it in skateboarding twice already, I think. Furthermore, while Lakai and Emerica are going on tour together, Nike has engaged in practices designed to suppress the sales of its competitors. I know they are a company and profits are integral, but there's a big, and I think relevant, difference between Nike and skater owned brands.

It's an old coversation, if we don't agree what Nike is all about at this point we probably won't, but I stand by my claim that it is 100% about the profits.

[close]

Nike actually makes really dope golf shoes still. they just dropped the hardgoods line and dont make clubs anymore. Converse however started as a basketball shoe company. They dropped the entire basketball shoe program and only make lifestyle shoes and skate shoes. No skaters seem to care about that tho. Also are Lakai and Emerica both owned by the same mega corp?

[close]

Huh? Not sure how that relates to the topic at hand

Not incredibly interesting but converse didn’t exclusively do Basketball shoes, one of their earliest shoes is the Jack Purcell, arguably as iconic as the chuck, who was a Badminton player. They also made tennis shoes, soccer shoes even ice skates very briefly. Like their contemporaries in sports wear they have tried most things.

[Seadramon]

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[CRAILFISH TO REVERT]

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

no way!

[MexicanSpaniard]

chipped tail is flow for nike and to stay on the program he has to come on here and repeatedly defend them
Look, the swoosh is ugly, old and tired, it's been there your whole life, it looks like crap in footy especially when it's on every piece of clothing someone is wearing, it detracts from footage.

[Atiba Applebum]

Expand Quote

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[close]

no way!

So if Nike pulls out tomorrow (after 15 or so years) that’s shitty of them, but if they stay around that’s shitty of them.   

I don’t know much about snowboarding, but it seems like boots are a one time purchase, whereas skateboarding destroys shoes and requires replacements.   

Don’t people get tired of all this fear mongering about Nike?  We just went through worrying about Nike “culling” their team because one flow/am rider got cut and instead of kicking everyone off, they added an amazing skater.   

[Seadramon]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[close]

no way!

[close]

So if Nike pulls out tomorrow (after 15 or so years) that’s shitty of them, but if they stay around that’s shitty of them.   

I don’t know much about snowboarding, but it seems like boots are a one time purchase, whereas skateboarding destroys shoes and requires replacements.   

Don’t people get tired of all this fear mongering about Nike?  We just went through worrying about Nike “culling” their team because one flow/am rider got cut and instead of kicking everyone off, they added an amazing skater.

I'm kind of impartial about nike but I was just surprised to see all this talk about them killing their golf program and none about their snowboard program whenever ago.

Snowboard boots can get pretty beat up, but you obviously wouldn't be replacing them like you would with shoes.

Isn't snowboarding a pretty big deal in the Olympics? I would think that would be motive enough to stay involved in the industry.

[Atiba Applebum]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[close]

no way!

[close]

So if Nike pulls out tomorrow (after 15 or so years) that’s shitty of them, but if they stay around that’s shitty of them.   

I don’t know much about snowboarding, but it seems like boots are a one time purchase, whereas skateboarding destroys shoes and requires replacements.   

Don’t people get tired of all this fear mongering about Nike?  We just went through worrying about Nike “culling” their team because one flow/am rider got cut and instead of kicking everyone off, they added an amazing skater.

[close]

I'm kind of impartial about nike but I was just surprised to see all this talk about them killing their golf program and none about their snowboard program whenever ago.

Snowboard boots can get pretty beat up, but you obviously wouldn't be replacing them like you would with shoes.

Isn't snowboarding a pretty big deal in the Olympics? I would think that would be motive enough to stay involved in the industry.

My guess would be it’s because snowboarding is geographically restrictive and has probably grown as much (shaun white era) as it will ever grow

[MC3]

Snowboard boots last me about 2 seasons depending on how hard I ride them

Maybe I’m just still in love with that vans ad Dylan had 50-50 Ollie over a pole in authentics. It’s been like a decade and I’m still psyched on that.

I’d love to see this

[howtotictac]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[close]

no way!

[close]

So if Nike pulls out tomorrow (after 15 or so years) that’s shitty of them, but if they stay around that’s shitty of them.   

I don’t know much about snowboarding, but it seems like boots are a one time purchase, whereas skateboarding destroys shoes and requires replacements.   

Don’t people get tired of all this fear mongering about Nike?  We just went through worrying about Nike “culling” their team because one flow/am rider got cut and instead of kicking everyone off, they added an amazing skater.

[close]

I'm kind of impartial about nike but I was just surprised to see all this talk about them killing their golf program and none about their snowboard program whenever ago.

Snowboard boots can get pretty beat up, but you obviously wouldn't be replacing them like you would with shoes.

Isn't snowboarding a pretty big deal in the Olympics? I would think that would be motive enough to stay involved in the industry.

The Olympics hurt snowboarding real bad. It used to be the cool/rebel thing to do on the slopes but after it became just another olympic sport the kids weren't so drawn to it anymore and freestyle skiing became the cool thing to do.

[Aatila]

Three pages no photo, link, post, website team addition/removal.

[Big Baby Jesus]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

In snowboarding (yeah, I went there) Nike came in, made some "innovative" boots and scooped up a very large team of contest riders only to pull the plug when they decided skateboarding would be more marketable...

Their SB division is no different. When it's not cool anymore they'll pull out.

[close]

no way!

[close]

So if Nike pulls out tomorrow (after 15 or so years) that’s shitty of them, but if they stay around that’s shitty of them.   

I don’t know much about snowboarding, but it seems like boots are a one time purchase, whereas skateboarding destroys shoes and requires replacements.   

Don’t people get tired of all this fear mongering about Nike?  We just went through worrying about Nike “culling” their team because one flow/am rider got cut and instead of kicking everyone off, they added an amazing skater.

[close]

I'm kind of impartial about nike but I was just surprised to see all this talk about them killing their golf program and none about their snowboard program whenever ago.

Snowboard boots can get pretty beat up, but you obviously wouldn't be replacing them like you would with shoes.

Isn't snowboarding a pretty big deal in the Olympics? I would think that would be motive enough to stay involved in the industry.

[close]

The Olympics hurt snowboarding real bad. It used to be the cool/rebel thing to do on the slopes but after it became just another olympic sport the kids weren't so drawn to it anymore and freestyle skiing became the cool thing to do.

I agree with this. I snowboard and worked in a snowboard/ski shop. When Shaun white was at his peak it destroyed "core" snowboarding. Now it just looks like fucking gymnastics and there's no style. It's just spin to win.