What are your opinions on the Nike shoe by Newson and the Puma shoe by Starck? Do these brands need another level of branding? Would these increase sales significantly? Or are they just jumping on the bandwagon?
Niether are expected to make a significant splash other than raising interest in the respective companies and designers. The designs are primairly focused on super high end boutiques and retailers with a limited run. But that doesn’t mean they won’t generate significant interest. Only 1500 pair of the Newson shoe will be produced, and apperently it has been a real project to figure out how Nike would actually produce his concept. “Yo”, a poster here, could give you a better idea of it.
I wouldn’t say Puma and Nike are jumping the bandwagon; Puma has had fashion designers come in and design “exclusive collections” for them in the past. As Adidas did with the Yoji Yamamoto line of footwear. But it is interesting that the Stark shoes are really visually and constructively similiar his shoe concept he did back in the early 90’s; maybe he found a manufacturer for it,…
Excellent point.
…I’d love to own a pair of either for the novelty factor, but just like those Birkenstocks that won all those design awards last year, I’m sure they’ll be impossible to find.
…and at $300 bucks a pop for the Newson, suggested retail that is, if you did find them, you might think twice.
They are pretty cool from a product stand point, but from a wearability standpoint they are questionable, and from a manufacturing point of view, a real nightmare. They require a fairly large five part mold, which if you are doing electronics,is not totaly unusual, but in fotwear it is nuts. Think of it like this, you need a separate mold for each side, for each half pair, you are buying like 48 5 part molds for a shoe that in it’s first season booked 300 pairs globally!
I think you can get a sense for how import design is at Nike to take that kind of loss on a product. If you can get a pair, keep them in the box.
Thanks for the replies.
to be honest i have very mixed feelings about these shoes. the starck shoe is very sleek and typically starck. The nike shoe is horrendous. A sock liner with a rubber outer that looks like swiss cheese? Some may like it, i dont.
Now since the appearance of the shoes is purely a matter of taste, what I have a problem with are the brands. It seems starck is just bastardazing design by slapping his name on anything/everything to instantly give it a sense of cheap “cache”.
A question for the more experienced (than me) about branding in this forum: since starck did a ton of work for target to “up” their products, wouldnt puma (a not-cheap brand) be lowering their product by using the same branding strategy?
You have to understand my point of view: im not against big designers designing for mass markets via another brand, but the name starck has inherent omnipresence and a certain “common” value now that his stuff is everywhere. (ie its not the same effect as armani or tom ford designing a shoe for puma/nike). Also it comes off as being a little pretentious.
Im sorry if these seem like a bunch of ‘stream of consciousness’ thoughts, i just wrote as they came to mind. Am I alone out there with this opinion? “Yo” your opinions are welcome, maybe there are details Im missing out.
btw im both d-flux and dflux…i always forget to log in.
Subjectively I kind of agree - not their best work.
I agree, however, probably because I’m a designer and look at Stark or indeed the work of any designer with an objective and testing eye. Companies whose brands guest feature those of famous designers are doing so not to impress the likes of you or me but the general public, be it the more design savvy segments at least.
To this demographic Strack is in their perception highly credible and they would perhaps not agree/ care that much of his work is questionable once you look past the aesthetics … they might even say that he is not compromising his art to corporate cost cutting that non-celebrity designers push out.
I’m not a brand expert that you seek a response from but I would hazard a guess that the growth in brand equity to both parties will be far greater than the cost of a set of 5 part moulds.
So, do I have to slip the blue swiss cheese part on after I put on the grey shoe, or is it a separate shoe? Obviously, high style and very limited function.
Welllll thats fashion. Do you think women find comfort in wearing heels? Or enjoy wearing skin tight jeans?
With that said, I still don’t like the shoes all that much. But bleh, nothing but respect for those designers who are making companies realize the importance of ID.
BTW The newson ones reminded me of a shoe nike put out a few years back…I cant remember the name, but it was blue mesh with a yellow soft plastic “flame” cage…then again I havent seen them in ages and they could be completly diffferent haha…dont mind me… 
Hey for those still looking for a pair, I found some in a different color.
[/code]
good one.
Actually the suspect function is three fold.
-
The soft mesh bootie lives inside the injected cage. If you are on lets say an airplane, you can slip the rubber cage off and walk around in the comfy inner bootie.
-
the shoe goes together with no glue, glue is the most environmentally unfriendly part of a shoe.
-
at the end of the product’s life, the injected cage can be thrown into a recycling bin (theoreticly) without using toxic solvants to strip the shoe appart
a distant 4 would be that you could by it in a bunch of colors and swap out the inner booties but at 3hundo a pop I don’t think that will be happening. Like I said, suspect funtion. Cool ideas though. Perhaps it will spur the rest of the industry which pretty much builds shoes the way they have since nike made up the current way 30 years ago. I doubt there is as much thought behind the Stark shoe but that’s the diffrence between the two brands as well.
Now that I hear the ideas behind the shoe, and know it is more that just a styling excercise, I find it quite well thought through. A first for Newson?
Yo sorry if i came off like a jerk. My first post was my sincere opinion, and the other was just a bit of fun and I agree that the newson concept seems to have a more functional process and thought than the starck
My question is, if the inner sock has a sole and is more comfortable than the whole assembly together, why even use the outer part? does it significantly protect and extend the life of the shoe? just looks?
do you think this concept would have gone this far if a staff designer had come up with it?
sorry thats 2 questions.
btw, saw your shoes in the ‘finished’ section. id buy those over newsons or starcks any day.
thanks for the props dude, no offence taken buddy.
The picture there is a bit misleading. There are two additional parts: a durable nubby rubber outsole and a soft injected foam midsole that puzzle into the urathane cage like legos. put it all together and it is a reasonably comfortable shoe, the booty alone doesn’t have the durability.
would it have happened if a staff designer did it? hard to say. some pretty ambitious projects make it through the net (like my city knife 3, don’t mind if i do), but the development time on this was 3 times the normal amount, we would not get that luxury. this project went through one of our advanced studios before it found a home in our metro colllection.
newson and stark will never make it as astronauts that’s for sure.