A big part of the reason why so many people are willing to plop down close to $200 for sneakers is the cost itself. It’s a status statement. Like gaudy jewelry, a pair of expensive shoes says that the wearer is able to spend that much on exclusive footwear. That’s the idea, and “flossin’” has become so entrenched in urban mentality that it’s almost a necessity, even if it’s fiscally irresponsible.
The chorus of the Big Tymers’ song “Still Fly” comes to mind. “I can’t pay my rent, ’cause all my money’s spent. But that’s OK, ’cause I’m still fly.”
It’s the same reason why Payless shoes aren’t “the shit” among Marbury’s target demographic. In fact, the Starbury One will actually go for cheaper than most adult basketball shoes in Payless.
I’d be more optimistic about his business venture if the shoes were being sold for $50. From the perspective of most inner-city youngsters, you can’t stay fly in pair of kicks that cost less than your grandfather’s house sandals.
I think maybe there’s a sea change in this sort of thing, and that low end is becoming the new chic. And I’m wondering if the Starburys are hitting a different market: Not so much poor kids,but people who could afford $100 shoes, but don’t want to.