QuoteKids only want to buy trainers if they are
super-expensive and exclusive, and top sportsmen
cant be blamed for endorsing top-priced goods.
Well, this conventional wisdom is being turned
on its head by New York Knicks Stephon Marbury.
Kobe, Lebron and Michael Jordan have all put their
name to $150 Nike shoes, but Marbury has made
it his mission to bring out a line of shoes
for poor kids. The cost of the new Starbury
shoe? $15. And its not just a piece of tat.
Marbury is wearing the shoe on court himself.

Sold only in US discount store Steve & Barrys
(which prides itself on enabling a family
to be clothed for a year for $100) the shoe
has become a word-of-mouth phenomenon. Queues
run outside the stores, with a two-item
per person limit now enforced on the Starbury
range. Marburys aim is to show people just how
little it really costs to make high quality
sneakers. "Two hundred to buy a pair of sneakers?
Thats groceries for the week," he says.
"History is going to say Stephon Marbury
changed the game."

from Popbitch.

   tbh

nice too see.

Its a big middle finger up to the big corporations.

Also its impressive that a $15 pair can stand up to professional levels of use, wonder if he uses a new pair each half

I suppose its down to perceived cost. A pair of Nike trainers cost virtually bugger all to produce. Barry and Steves store doesnt even have an online sales bit yet. So costs are not astronomical.

I hope this sets a trend for the bigger greedy players who use cheap third world labour and massive margins to sell shoes for $150 a pair.

I think this is a great move, not sure how Nike, Adidas or Reebok will respond, as lowering their prices would cheapen their brand, perhaps.

Cheers
Tongy

Good going

http://www.starbury.com/

Those black ones are nice  

The others look blatantly cheapskate.

The intentions are great, but the guys still a major league asshole, so folks here see it in a jaundiced fashion. Im hoping its out of good intent--but seeing the history of the player, its likely self-promotion.

The shoe is great for $15, but at the end of the day, its not something thats gonna last. I wish hed done a $25 dollar shoe with improved materials. Kids can still afford that compared to $250 Nikes.

Anyway, thats one of the reasons youll never see me in sneakers unless I need them for a sport. Theyre usually manufactured for pennies of the dollar theyre sold for, and often in deplorable conditions. I prefer my togs to be made by moustachioed craftsmen in the hills of Italy, who vocanically forge the eyelets.

They look awful. They look like the Ã,£8 trainers you can pickup in Tesco. God damn.

imvho, give you kid a pair of them to wear to school and they are going to get more ripped out of them than they would if you bought a straight up pair of hi-techs.

lol, I cannot believe how cheap, nasty and downright tacky they look.

Quote from: NimrodThey look awful. They look like the Ã,£8 trainers you can pickup in Tesco. God damn.

imvho, give you kid a pair of them to wear to school and they are going to get more ripped out of them than they would if you bought a straight up pair of hi-techs.

lol, I cannot believe how cheap, nasty and downright tacky they look.

Sponsored by NikeÃ,®

Cheers
Tongy

Quote from: sexytwAlso its impressive that a $15 pair can stand up to professional levels of use, wonder if he uses a new pair each half

A lot of professional sports equipment is like that anyway, they sacrifice long term use for short term performance. Racing car/bike tires are a specific case in point, as are expensive running shoes which actually can be built to last just one race.

Quote from: NimrodThey look awful. They look like the Ã,£8 trainers you can pickup in Tesco. God damn.

imvho, give you kid a pair of them to wear to school and they are going to get more ripped out of them than they would if you bought a straight up pair of hi-techs.

lol, I cannot believe how cheap, nasty and downright tacky they look.

I think the same applies to at least some pairs of nike shoes too so whats the difference? I wear foam soled running shoes that either cost something in excess of Ã,£70 or a fiver. Otherwise there is very little difference except for the name. Even if the nikes lasted ten times as long I would still be in profit by Ã,£20.

TBH I wouldnt mind a supply of the charcoal grey running shoes.

Kids arent interested in the functional aspects of their clothing, they want to be fashionable. If function was all that mattered surely everyone would be running around in Clarkes shoes and trainers ?

Buying this brand now maybe ok, as it is the "in thing" and perhaps its cool to be seen in them but give it six months, when it is old and youll find that the kids whose parents cannot afford to update their wardrobe will be getting grief from their peers.

Besides, did I mention that the entire range looks cheap, tacky, old and out dated ?

the aesthetics let them down sadly