It's a difficult thing to sort out the emotions and ideas that arise when looking at this.

On the one hand my hostility stimulated towards the false values of a world where we live in a grand illusion our 'culture' promotes 24-->7-->365  that we are all obligated to better ourselves through the consumption of goods, and that the more expensive the goods the better our lives must be (and the corollary that we are superior to other people when the price of our consumed goods exceeds that of someone else) is turned to admiration when someone takes what looks like a principled stand against those values.  Into each ethnic niche of the world these messages have been tailored and crafted by marketers so that they resonate and powerfully drive people to do things that even a small amount of rational examination would reveal as against their own well being - like poor families shelling out 100+$ for a pair of basketball sneakers when viable alternative lower cost footwear is available (and the post-footwear-purchase cash remaining to the family could be earmarked to meet a list of higher priority needs IE; a sensible purchase).  Celebrity endorsements are a time honored tradition in marketing for most of the frivolous and unnecessary garbage and although it exploits those consumers unwary and befuddled enough to throw their money away on things they don't need 'because Michael Jordan said so' (as the capitalist religion would hold is just and proper for fools and their money to be soon parted).  

On the other hand we do live in a capitalist society and what would the implications be for global capitalism if the consumers, especially those who have been deliberately conditioned to be self defeating in their purchasing habits began to look for other product choices that reflected sane, responsible, reasoned consumptive choices (IE; living within your means and looking for best quality and value and price) and paying 15$ for a perfectly serviceable and attractive pair of sneakers, under 15$ for a T-shirt with a Logo printed on it, less than 100$ for a jacket, or 30$ for a hoodie, or <2$ for breakfast cereal, or whatever...  

Eh, don't worry - people are incredibly dumb and the momentum of culture and history is so strongly moving in the direction of totalist capitalism tricking the 80% of the lower class into paying too much for disposable crap.  Mr Starbury does strike a limited blow against one specific exploitive evil perpetrated by the rapaciousness of unlimited corporate greed (if the advertising convinces them to pay 100$+ for a pair of slave made shoes costing <10$ - JUST DO IT! - give Michael Jordan a few million bucks to prove P.T. Barnum right).   I saw no lefty manifestos or any written reference to Starbury being some kind of anti-capitalist yet still for-profit shoe messiah on his website - just a slogan 'join the movement' which without any explanation is about as deep as 'just do it'.  I did see everyone in the videos wearing Starbury shoes and also T-shirts, Jackets, hats, etcetera emblazoned with his logo which made me wonder what price (relative to the typically too-high-for-what-you-are-buying prices placed on other sports celebrity promoted logo splattered shit which seems to be at least half of the entire inventory filling the racks at any mall or store or airport gift shop in the USA) Starbury apparel goes for.  The shoe prices and 'join the movement' jingo may just be a marketing judo-flip loss leader intended to establish and build brand loyalty to Starbury Schwag which in itself represents a clever combination of philanthropic 'giving back' (the shoes really do cost 15 bucks and you can't beat that with a stick) and Cheshire cat grinning capitalism that triumphs  at the cash register whenever someone buys a 20$+ T-shirt.          

I guess it wasn't so difficult to sort out my feelings - some of those designs are nice and I might buy a pair (at 15$, a nerdy white 40-something can wear shoes for purposes they weren't designed and not feel silly at all).

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

...for the kid on the basketball court that wants to pretend that they too are being overpaid by Isaiah Thomas.

But, for $15 USD, what do you want? I'll take a pair and wear 'em down at work.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

Two big questions:

1. How will they hold up? A shoe's no bargain if you have to replace it five times over in the same amount of time it would take you to buy a more expensive shoe. Price isn't always a marker of quality, but I've yet to have a sub-$40 shoe (in today's dollars, excluding expensive shoes on clearance) last me more than six months.

2. Who's making them? Granted, even the expensive shoe companies aren't paragons of virtue here, but again I'd rather pay more for a good quality shoe that I know is being made by decently paid workers in decent factories, as opposed to something made in a low cost sweat shop. Replacing one social ill with another isn't any way to make progress.

I have to wonder how much effect this could really have over the extreme edge of the phenomenon we're talking about. If the sneaker craze first took off because you wanted to be ghetto fabulous and own the latest, coolest, rarest sneaks around, then a $15 dollar pair is not going to impress you very much -- I wouldn't think.

Sure, this may make alot of kids who can't afford Nike Platinums or whatever, but when they get on the court, they aren't going to be flashin' 'em like they just got the latest iPod. Price, because it's a mark of eliteness, is part of the point, and the more expensive shoes will still be more sought after, will still drive young kids to spend money they don't have on them, may still drive angry young kids to steal or kill for them.

Not that I don't think what Marbury is doing isn't great. It is. I wish him luck. But I don't think "It's gotta be the shoes" would ever have taken off as "It's gotta be the $15 shoes."

Now with caps!

You know these sneakers will be a hit when Larry Brown does an ad for them.

I hope for Marbury that he's got some strong arches, because the test fitting I gave Starbury's at the local Steve & Barry's felt a little flat and tight.  I'll stick to working out in my (sub-$30) Reeboks.

I appreciate Marbury & Co's frustration with high-priced footwear, but their approach to marketing is a lot more radical than they seem to understand.  The reason people buy ugly expensive things is because it makes them feel better about themselves, and helps give them a kinship with the celebrities that tote the same dreck.  Conversely, people will shun cheap products that make them feel cheap.  Much like Dove's "Real Beauty" ads implicitly call their demographic fat and old, Starbury's campaign implicitly calls its demographic poor and desperate--really, the worst thing you can call an American.  Put yourself in the shoes of a 14-year-old BBaller.  Are those shoes going to be the ones that given away for free to you and your high school friends?  You might as well show up on court wearing a tee shirt promoting the local 99-cent store.

I'm willing to bet that if they'd bumped up the price to $25 and toned down the talk about the price (the flash site has already done this since the last time I visited), they'd end up eating more of the high-end makers' lunch than they're doing right now.

(is 3fingerspointback)

First shoes I've wanted (by brand rather than look) since Blackspot.

Tipping Sacred Cows