Academic

Forbes has an article on Orlando Magic LA Lakers Miami Heat Phoenix Sun player Shaquille O'Neal's line of low-cost basketball sneakers.  The sneakers, called the Dunkman, sell for less than $40 a pair, a far cry from the $135 a pair of Shaq Atttaq shoes once endorsed by Shaq.  Last year I blogged about New York Knick baskbetball player Stephon Marbury's line of shoes that sell for $14.99 a pair.  Clearly given the amount of money most basketball stars can get for selling sneakers, both Marbury and Shaq are motivated by more than just profit (though it is hoped that what they lose in profit margin they will make up in higher volume).  Instead, both recognize that baskbetball shoes are often too expensive for the inner city schools that clamor to buy them.  And hence they both have decided to provide a cheaper alternative.  But do they sell?

To be sure, this is Shaq's third attempt at selling a low-cost sneaker.  The first time he apparently did not sell enough shoes and the second time his company got caught up in the dot.com meltdown. Some contend that teens simply will not want low-cost sneakers.  Then too, the shoes are not sold at the more traditional athletic shoe stores, potentially undermining their accessibility and attractiveness.  Hence, Shaq's Dunkman are available at Payless, while Marbury's shoes are only sold at Steve and Barry's.  Finally, there are many who question the quality of these low cost alternatives.  Both Marbury and Shaq claim that there is no difference in quality between their shoes and those priced at $100 plu a pair. And yet, others ask, is it possible that the $100 price differential only reflects profit and not higher quality materials?  Interestingly, although a Consumer Reports on the quality of one of Marbury's shoe gave it good marks and found it to be a good casual shoe, it also revealed that some players found some quality differences between the shoes and comparable basketball shoes.  To be sure, there are those who buy and wear basketball shoes without any intention of actually play basketball, and hence the issue of quality may not be relevant for all consumers.

In the end, it appears that both Marbury and Shaq have managed to turn some profit.  Moreover, it is refreshing that both Marbury and Shaq are providing low cost alternatives in shoe wear, particularly given their recognition that such shoes are often marketed and sold to many inner city kids who cannot really afford them.  And perhaps their example could influence other basketball players to enter the market and potentially impact the industry as a whole.  At the very least, it is a good start.