San Diego Blessed Track Team headed to AAU Nationals (2014) wearing the ARCH Pitt yellows
I took a lot of minutes trying to figure out the title of this post. This is not going to be easy to read, and it goes against my decision to look solely at how Nike, adidas and Under Armour fail to promote Black employees while they utilize Black bodies for the promotion of their products and market constantly in an attempt to extract the Black dollar. I’ve had this discussion on this site a lot. I’ve had this discussion with my wife, and with a couple of people, but it’s something I kept inside all of these years of running two brands in Sho-Shot and ARCH.
Yesterday, longtime footwear industry veteran Peter Davis left a statement about the recent FDRA x PENSOLE African-American Footwear Forum. A quick summary was that the forum was devoid of industry C-Suite executives and that Blacks need to support their own brands and become owners. His quote was much longer, but this summary nails a primary discussion point on how change does happen as groups become organized, but real change has to take place within the chambers of those who make decisions. His secondary thought of Blacks becoming owners mirrors the words of Ball’N Founder, Rodney Jeter. Jeter places the problems in the sneaker industry on systemic issues, but he doesn’t shy away from saying Black people have been manipulated by the big brands through marketing causing Blacks to not want to support Black owned companies. I explained to Jeter that this is partially correct.
The Stark Truth is that consistency is at the heart of every success story. This is true in any industry. Companies and individuals do what works. When what they are doing provides results, it becomes very hard to change directions. This can lead to problems, but when a company has been successful for years and they have enough money to survive a moment when they fail to pivot, they adjust and fall back into what works.
For years Nike, adidas, Under Armour and other sneaker brands have been able to grow to Multi Million dollar and Billion dollar companies without promoting Black people internally. The AAFF was created to counter this issue. Here is a question: Nike is a 40 billion dollar company. Why would a company disrupt its momentum and make changes that could break its stride?
The easy answer is if Nike and other companies invested in a Black and Brown agenda they would further cement themselves into the minds of those consumers. This would improve revenue wouldn’t it?
Not actually. Revenue has been improving for every brand because of DTC. Over the last 5 years both Nike and adidas have added over 10 Billion dollars in revenue growth. This happened without an emphasis on hiring a diverse staff. It happened because the companies are growing leaner and becoming more efficient. What need is there to placate Blacks because of a moment where the dark reality of Black lives has come to the forefront?
Peter has the right perspective. Not one brand feels the pressure to adjust hiring and promotion practices because there isn’t a real threat out there that would cause these brands to lose market share. Jeter stated that Blacks don’t support their own. Here is the uncomfortable truth in this statement: Blacks and Browns tend to be underbanked/unbanked more than their White counterparts. What does this mean? Blacks haven’t participated in the expansion of sales through the digital arena until recently. In both of my books on the industry I discuss the new alternatives to traditional banking, that has led to an explosion in Black people “banking”. Cash App and digital banking options like PayPal.me has expedited the transition of Blacks into the digital ecosystem, but not at a substantial enough rate to force sneaker brands to account for a new form of marketing that should be implemented. Actually that isn’t true, which moves me back a bit…
Blacks don’t buy what they can’t touch and feel. This is throughout demographics from low income Blacks to high income Blacks. While this is changing, the digital growth of companies like Nike doesn’t require that they focus on the Black consumer. Nike uses urban accounts to reach that consumer. Jimmy Jazz, City Gear, Foot Locker, Shoe Palace, DTLR and stores like Villa cater to the Black consumer. Which leads me back to Peter Davis’ comment on Black ownership. Black brands are digitally native. They can’t break into mainstream sneaker stores so they are only available online. This limits the reach of the brands.
Another stark truth is that Blacks buy Nike at a higher rate than any other race in the U.S. This happens because of marketing as Jeter said, but it happens because Blacks still don’t own any of the media around sneakers. Sneakers are sold via sports and music. White America owns both of these mediums and the content. The sneaker companies purchase the rights, and by default the images of athletes and artists are covered with a Swoosh or Trefoil. Is this right or wrong? Neither. It’s business. Black America can’t ask entertainers and athletes to forgo money for their families. Is there some moral responsibility that an athlete or entertainer required to have? The same can be asked of the consumer and the answer for both would be no.
The stark truth of why Blacks aren’t promoted internally or hired or moved into C-suite positions at sneaker companies is a case of the chicken or the egg. If the Black consumer has an option readily available to purchase quickly and easily without worrying about being able to return the product by going to the post office, maybe they would buy a product from companies like Ball’N, NinteyNine Products or Q4 Sports. If Blacks decided to spend their money with these brands, then Nike, adidas, or Under Armour would be forced to adjust their hiring practices. BUT if the brands changed their hiring practices then those Black brands would face the harsh reality that the best and brightest would probably work for bigger brands. Then again this already happens; which is why this discussion leads us in a circle.
I started this post writing about my work with my companies Sho-Shot and ARCH. I sold Sho-Shot shoes to Black people when I went to flea markets or held basketball camps. I sold shoes online with ARCH and was supported by Black people with a Kickstarter even. When I said I have these conversations often with my wife, it wasn’t that Black people don’t support me. It’s that Black people looking for cool wouldn’t wear my products. The Stark Truth is that Peter Davis is right. Black people are spending far too much time trying to fix a system that is working and not enough time fixing a system that isn’t working.
I stopped selling my own branded footwear because it was expensive. I also stopped to provide an alternative media option for the sneaker industry. This is an example of the greater issue. Sneaker websites drive cool.
- Complex with SoleCollector
- Hypebeast
- Nice Kicks
- Highsnobiety
- Sneaker Bar Detroit
These are big sites in the sneaker industry. Are any of those companies black-owned?
The most diverse stories on sneakers in the industry show up on Hypebeast and Highsnobiety. Yet, neither of these sites has information on black-owned sneaker companies like NinetyNine Products, Q4 or Enda. Take a second to visit all of the sites listed above and search for these brands. Q4 shows up on Sole Collector and Nice Kicks, but that’s because the brand has NBA endorsers. Kids won’t see alternative brands. These sites garner up to 10 million visits per month. My site generates around 3000-5000 visits per month. It doesn’t matter that I have over 800 videos of real shoes, not pictures on my site. It doesn’t matter that I have a running catalog of new footwear brands featured on the site. It doesn’t matter that I have the equivalent of a college course of study on the business of the sneaker industry on the site. My site can’t break through as an option for the sneaker industry because I don’t share the hyped footwear releases on the site. Even if I did, the sites mentioned above are entrenched. Like Nike and adidas these sites dominate search.
The growth of my site is hindered by my own choices not to participate in the culture of cool. Rodney Jeter blames Black people for not supporting. You can’t blame people for being interested in what they deem dope. The Stark Truth is the AAFF has to work to repair the sneaker industry on the inside, but the work is exponentially more difficult because you don’t fix what isn’t broken and when these companies are seeing amazing growth, why would they change? Sneaker media doesn’t have to write about 99Products because they are paid to write about Nike. Customers could easily visit Q4 Sports and buy sneakers worn by NBA players, but they choose to go with more known athletes like LeBron or James Harden.
There is no, “doing the right thing” in business. There is only doing what benefits the shareholders. Morality and Consciousness are abstract concepts which belong in day to day life, but not business, right?
