Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The whole insinuation that skater owned and operated shoe companies are virtuous by association is beyond one of the most tired ass topics in all of skateboarding. Please, enlighten me, just how many Sole Tech brands (Etnies, Emerica, ES) currently have a single woman on any of their skate programs?
How about Lakai? What about the now-defunct Huf shoe program? Supra? Fallen? Hmm, none of them? That's so weird, I thought skater owned and operated companies took care of their own - especially the ones that were most often overlooked, underappreciated, and undervalued within our scene. It's almost as if these companies are run exclusively by inexorable old men who refuse to adapt to anything beyond their myopic, senile idea of how skateboarding and the skate industry should be run.
And before anyone throws a shit fit, I do skate in a lot of smaller brand shoes. But guess what, I don't think that skating in these smaller brands shoes makes me any more virtuous or a "core" skateboarder than someone skating in a pair of Nike Blazers. Wild huh?
Of course core brands are not perfect. But: I would argue they have more of a long term interest in skating since their business is way more tangled up in the scene and Skating is not just a small fraction of their business.
To me Nike is just wack and unappealing. Also I am old and I feel nostalgic for a time where companies from the outside of skating were not accepted. It took forever for Nike to lure themselves into the scene. For almost ten years they were actively kept out even though they kept trying to throw a lot of money at people.
You make some good points, and let me say this, Nike deserves all the criticism it gets from its insidiously transparent labor practices. I'm not here to defend these monolithic, endless budget big shoe brands. But I am just so sick and tired of seeing core companies being considered more ethical or honorable simply based on the fact that they skater owned and operated. If they have a more vested interest in supporting the overall skate scene, why do they only want to only appeal to a very specific demographic of said skate scene?
Why did Etnies dump the entire Etnies Girl program in the late 2000s and leave people like Leo Baker, Evelien B., Elissa hanging out to dry? Why did these bigger shoe brands step-up and pick up the pieces left by these core companies that didn't see any value in them?
Cuz people like to nitpick details to fit their narrative.
Here are a few counterpoints to criticisms of Nike:
1. Nike took the LA courthouse, previously an unskateable spot/bust, and essentially made it a skatepark, which helps keeps kids busy and out of trouble. They also had a perfect opportunity to plaster the nike sb logo everywhere there, but guess what? They didn't
2. Vans threatened to kick Alex Olson off for moving from California to New York.
3. If you're a shoe company that doesn't plan on using cheap labor from overseas, good luck selling a $200 skate shoe, and hope for a goddamn miracle if you want to make a profit.
4. Crailtap threatens to kick people off girl/chocolate if they leave Lakai
5. Emerica heavily underpaid Reynolds until Chad Muska offered him 2-3x pay on Circa.
6. Nike helped out with Malto's ankle injury and stuck by him through his recovery
7. Don't know the details but John Fitzgerald has been hurt for a while now and he's still on the team page so it can be assumed he's still being supported by them
8. They actually followed Stefan Janoski's vision for a shoe
Business is business. It's just "cool" to hate on Nike because they are the most successful at it. Emerica/Lakai/State all want to make a profit too. Some business decisions look scummy, others look virtuous.