Nothing is Sacred in the Sneaker World

Nike Dunk High “Wu-Tang.” UNDEFEATED x Air Jordan 4. Nike Air Force 1 Low “PlayStation.” Each is a legendary release that has been worshiped by collectors for decades. Yet this untouchable status is soon to be a thing of the past. All three pairs are returning to shelves as Nike’s re-releasing approach continues to dig deeper into their vault than ever before. The sneaker world has long embraced retro releases — no one is complaining whenever the original Air Jordan 1 “Bred” makes a return — but what does it mean for brand prestige when this sacred tier of sneakers is taken from its exalted position in sneaker lore and made available to the masses?

“When I started Sneaker Freaker in 2002, the idea of bringing out shoes we haven’t been able to wear for 20 years always ignited excitement,” shares Simon “Woody” Wood, founder of the world’s longest-running sneaker magazine. “But now we’re stuck in this loop where it’s been going for another 20 years — how many times have we seen the Air Max 90 “Infrared” come back?”

While veterans of the scene grow weary of the same pairs, “the newer generation has only been exposed to some of these shoes via pictures and old articles. To be able to bring these stories back to the masses is exciting to me,” notes Perry Shum, founder of sneaker resale shop IMAGE NY.

Nike’s recent reliance on the past to drive sales has placed them in a position where the brand has squeezed out as much as it can from its retro silhouettes. While the brand struggles to reconnect with its innovative roots — evidenced by the replacing of CEO John Donahoe — it’s seemingly moved on to recreating the best of the best, reaching as high on the shelf as possible for the most esteemed lifestyle releases in its archive.

Nike

“Everyone in the business and sneaker worlds knows that Nike has been out of favor — there’s been no innovation happening — and when they rolled out the ‘Cult Classics’ series that’s all about refried hits, it just didn’t look good,” Woody remarks.

This fatigue has pushed collectors in other directions — Perry, for example, is a lifelong Nike fan but notes that he often finds himself wearing ASICS and other runners. Meanwhile, Woody takes great joy in “finding a shoe that everyone hates on and then wearing it pretty hard.”

Die-hard collectors may express disappointment over having poured resources into obtaining grails only for the shoes to re-release, but Shum, whose business is focused on providing those shoes, notes that he understands the value of it even if he doesn’t love it from a personal standpoint. “A lot of the older shoes are not in wearable condition now, so to have them return is important for people who actually want to wear them instead of viewing them as an investment,” he admits.

“You go back 20 years, brands would often only make 500 pairs per collab, which allowed people to push the boundaries.”

Yet why is it that collaborations have grown so stale, leaving Nike to resort to re-releases? It’s simple — and sad: the scale of these projects has grown so large that brands cannot afford to take the risks that made the process so special in the first place. “You go back 20 years, brands would often only make 500 pairs per collab, which allowed people to push the boundaries. You could get away with alienating people with the colors or materials since you didn’t have to think about how you are going to sell 20,000 pairs like you do today,” Woody comments. What was once a vehicle for bringing energy to a particular model has become a key business metric.

When collaborations are created to impact the bottom line, they tend to end up “safe,” appealing to the lowest common denominator consumer instead of telling a story, introducing a new party, bringing attention to a model or serving as a creative fusion. An example of this from the last decade — that started as a success — is when Travis Scott first flipped the Swoosh on the Air Jordan 1. The simple-yet-brilliant move seemed seismic at the time, but now, double-digit releases in, it has cannabalized the market: fans have little reason to pick up in-line Air Jordan 1s when they can just wait for their chance at the next limited release.

“Look at JJJJound: they haven’t done an interesting shoe in years, and still keep getting thrown the keys to whatever they want to do. Is that really what we want from collaborations?” asserts Woody. “With Nike putting their energy into the Wu-Tang Dunks again, it looks like a lazy way out.”

“You can’t see [the return of the Wu-Tang Dunks] as anything other than a cash grab.”

Limited to a mere 36 pairs in existence, the original Wu-Tang Dunks are a classic example of scarcity defining status. The 1999 creation is nothing unusual — it’s basically an original “Iowa” Dunk with some extra embroidery nodding to the collective. Yet there are collectors who have shelled out $50,000 USD for a pair before. To Woody, it’s a shoe that should be in the Smithsonian, not on the SNKRS app. “Who’s asking for it to come back? You can’t see it as anything other than a cash grab.”

Despite the negative stigmas and dilution of history in pursuit of profit, there’s a silver lining involved with each re-release. “These nostalgic drops can remind people why they fell in love with sneakers. Bringing back customers who may have branched out into other brands is key,” says Perry.

Louis Vuitton

A general sense of dissatisfaction and fatigue brought online by endless releases is currently permeating the market. Shoes sit on shelves, the aftermarket has crested, and pairs rarely have a “moment” anymore: they’re forgotten as soon as they’ve released. “The Louis Vuitton x Nike stuff, adidas with Gucci and Prada, it all feels done. The Air Force 1 is done, everyone is saying the Air Jordan 1 is done. It all finished up at the same time and created a vacuum where nobody knows what the next big thing will be,” contends Woody.

As we await the next big shake-up to the industry, these re-releases will remain a focal point for the Swoosh, whether one likes it or not. “It’s a double-edged sword, what one person sees as a lazy cash grab, another sees as an exciting moment to buy a shoe that you’ve always loved but could never get. A lot of it just depends on your viewpoint,” Woody acknowledges.