Sneakerheads have turned Jordans and Yeezys into an asset class
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
With all the hype now I think Adidas is actually positioned very well to eventually supplant Nike in the market place. Shoe prices keep going up but Adidas has invested in a new tech that is incredible to wear to justify the cost while combining it with high end fashion.
I was very much in to sneakers growing up and can probably count on one hand the number of non Nike sneakers I ever bought during that time period. Jordans keep going up in price but every single pair I've bought in the past five to ten years has been cheap junk with paint that chips, soles that disintegrate and detach, and just extremely cheap build quality. I've been wearing Jordans for almost my entire life (there are toddler photos of me with a pair of 4s on) and they were my favorite type of sneaker during high school and college. There is a stark difference in the quality. I have a pair of 1s I bought in 2008 I still wear regularly, where as the last pair I bought developed a hole in the bottom after 2 years of use.
This is combined with the massive difference in the marketplace for buying their sneakers. When I was in college I went to exactly one Jordan sneaker drop and the police ended up needing to be called and I was totally turned off to the idea forever. Nike and Adidas run their drops very differently for the most part nowadays, although Yeezy Supply occasionally will backtrack. On Yeezysupply, the Adidas app, and the Adidas confirm app they've mostly settled into a flow where they let you know a week ahead of time a sneaker is coming out, you register your information ahead of time, they do a charge and refund to your card to verify it and then at 9:05 about on release day you get a congratulations notification or a so sorry notification from a random drawing. Before covid they would occasionally also do drops based on GPS location that make you have to goto the store for a guaranteed pair but no guarantee of your size so you'd still have to wait in line, which was extremely annoying but all the sneakers are atleast 1.5x increase in price immediately on release so you could always sell for a small profit to sometimes larger profit.
On the Nike SNKR app you get all the stress of waiting in line from the comfort of your home, you need to monitor the app for shoes with a pending release so you can register for notifications. On the day of you should have atleast two devices like a phone and tablet. The Android app is poorly programmed in comparison to the iOS app for no real reason other than it was farmed out to a bad consulting agency. You need to have all your credit card information saved ahead of time and your verification code memorized. A minute before you need to start tapping the disabled button or monitor www.time.gov. You get into the buy flow and have to read quickly to find your size, enter your memorized verification number, and you wait an arbitrary amount of time for the app to tell you that you if you're getting a pair or not. All these tips I've read and applied but have never actually gotten a pair of sneakers I've wanted from the app. I still buy multiple pairs of sneakers a year, but I have bought one single pair of Nikes in the past few years because the company has made it so difficult for me to give them money.
I believe Nike is living and existing off their former glory when it comes to the sneaker head community. I only ever bother with Nike at this point for classic designs that came out in the 80s and 90s that have been redone in a unique way, such as their collaborations with Virgil and other high end fashion designers. I refuse to pay more than retail for any sneaker because there will always be a new color or design out next month anyway. There's the disappointment associated with both companies of not getting a sneaker I want, but Nike has taken it to the extreme on the other side so much that most people can't get the shoe and when you actually can its crap quality in comparison to Adidas. Adidas needs to come out with a few more worthwhile pairs, maybe poach some athlete, artists, or designer from Nike, and they can begin to dominate.
All of this is with the caveat I have no idea what is going on in the marketplace when it comes to athletic wear for professional athletes. I think personally its less important to nearly everyone who isn't a professional athlete at this point as all the major players seem competent. All the real innovations from Nike, like their swim suits, seem to eventually get banned anyway.
I also had a pair of Jordans growing up (7s from the Barcelona Olympics, so they had #9 instead of #23) and a couple of years ago I bought into the hype and found myself looking for a par of 1s. I hadn't bothered doing some basic research so I just knew there were lows, mids and highs. I was looking for a specific colourway (black and white) and I found a pair of mids that had it, so I ordered a pair. I was absolutely appalled by the quality. I don't think they had any trace of real leather anywhere, they were all plastic, but not even plastic that resembles leather somehow, it was just crappy plastic, and I couldn't believe Nike would charge over €100 for this and get away with it. If I hadn't bought those off Nike themselves I would've been convinced they were fakes. I did some research after that and found out that most mids have terrible quality, so ended up getting a pair of highs (bloodlines) that at least are leather. Still, I really doubt any of the models they sell these days would age as well as the originals from the 80s (like https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0665/5171/files/CBJordanBr...). Also they seem to be unable to replicate the design of the originals (which were much slimmer in the toebox), they have made another attempt at this (the High 85 cut) but still I find them too bulky (in pics, haven't seen them in person).
Also I find the artificially limited quantities tiresome, I would've bought several pairs of Jordans but don't have the time or the will to play that game. I think I understand why they do it, but I also wonder how that would compare with a strategy where they would make the most sought after colourways (say bred or chicago) readily available at any time. Like Adidas has done with the Stan Smiths, for example, I can walk into any store that sells Adidas and buy a pair of Stan Smiths in the original colourway (and many others). And after all these years since they exploded in popularity they still seem to be selling a ton of those.
Adidas AG produces just 40,000 pairs of each Yeezy release, which are priced at $220 retail and sold through its Yeezy Supply website using a digital lottery.
For $220 you can get a half decent pair of good-year welted shoes, no waiting, any size, any corpulence. For the resale price of these sneakers you can get shoes that will serve you for the rest of your life, you need 6-8 total, not multiple pairs a year. And you can clean them, too. You don't throw them away because you stepped off a train.
How good is bitcoin or GME to justify X valuation? Anything can be of X value as long as enough people believe it has X value.
The value of GME was in squeezing hedge funds which is a public good.
More importantly though, OP actually wears them.
They're both worth as much as people are willing to believe they're worth, like most things on this planet that are non essential and not regulated.
Excuse me?! Where was I being impolite?
>His question was rhetorical, he even then spent time answering your question
My original question was rhetorical and didn't need any explanation, as I answered it myself in the next sentence, thank you very much.
>if you're the type of person who misunderstands context
This personal attack is just needlessly snarky and adds no value to this discussion.
On a slightly different topic (srsly) would there be a way of saying what I said without it sounding snarky? I was trying to be polite.
edited to add: I have nothing against buying Yeezy's or any other premium product. If it makes you happy and you have the money, go for it! But in terms of pure utility over competitors, it's usually not very good.
I have never had a pair of running shoes that didn't structurally break down after around 600 km maximum. I don't do any unusual running and have tried multiple brands and price points over the years. I think they do just have a reasonable life-span. How are you having shoes that last a life-time? I have to replace mine three or four times a year.
My running shoes (ASICS GT 2000) last about 1,000km. But I’m not a heavy person.
They're right, too. It's not hard to get a decade or more of good use out of footwear built this way; I've already done it with one pair of boots, and I'm about four years into the ones I got to replace those. I'm not overly gentle with them, either - I don't do urbex any more, but when I did, I did it in the same boots I do everything else in. They'd get scuffed, sure, but cleaned and polished, you'd never know the difference.
I don't know that I'd want to use a pair of well-broken-in 9-hole loggers as running wear, but I don't know that I wouldn't, either; a well-designed shoe or boot can take all kinds of insoles, and while I rarely run unless chased, I'm sure there's a wide range of options available for those who do. And when they wear out, you can replace them, just like you can have a cobbler do with the sole proper when that eventually gets thin.
I guess I don't really know; as I said, I'm not a runner, and maybe there's something about disposable footwear that I'm consequently missing. But it's not like we throw out a whole car when the tires get bald, you know?
If you tried to re-sole it you'd be replacing 90% of the material.
It's the same with work boots. At some point scuffing will have removed so much material from the upper that the boot mechanically fails. You just can't fix that as far as I know. You can replace the upper... but let's be honest it's a new boot at this point isn't it?
I think there's a degree here of people replacing their broom head and handle many times and claiming they never need to buy a new broom.
A while back I actually sat down and worked out the amortization for my last pair of boots, including replacement insoles, outsoles, laces, and the setting kit and grommets I needed when the factory parts started failing. (To be clear: this was steel parts wearing out before leather ones did. That's a damn good boot.) I don't have the figures to hand right now, but as I recall, adjusted for inflation, it worked out to around $60 a year in 2017 dollars. On reflection, I should've counted in mink oil and polish too, which might bring it closer to $65.
Granted that it's a touch Ship of Theseus, with an occasional maintenance requirement besides, and you need to be OK with the fact that your boots will look the same for as long as you wear them. But that's still not a lot to pay for good footwear, and a well-polished toebox has a timeless style all its own.
The same question would apply to those spending over $220 on mechanical keyboards: these keyboards are good, but not k times better than the keyboard that come with your laptop.
Yet people buy them: there's certainly a fashion effect, but they must also be at least a bit good, or good enough to justify the pricetag and effort to buy them.
If you have disposable income, you care about comfort. I haven't heard of your "good year welted shoes" and a google search returns something horrible looking (unless you are over 60 or have to wear a suit maybe?)
The yeezys look good to me, and I've heard a lot of people praise their comfort. Will they be better than the $150 limited ed sneakers I currently wear? That's all I care about about!
> For the resale price of these sneakers you can get shoes that will serve you for the rest of your life
I never understood that approach. $220, $500 ... it's just a price. I'm likely to make another $220 in the rest of my life :)
So if they looks good, feel better, and I can afford them, why the hell not?
Even at that price though I feel like they're over priced. They should be more like $25. I think you can get them on sale for that price sometimes.
Finally found my grail I can literally walk in forever with zero foot discomfort. Some 10 dollar Islander brand flip flops from Asia. I've got like 5 more pair in the closet.
Yeezys are far far more comfortable, but I still wear my crocs inside most of the time because they are slippers and I can just jump into them. Yeezys you have to put the effort to put them on like socks.
Are the sellers not able to limit based on CC number? Perhaps not. I know most websites don't actually have any visibility into the payment info that is usually handled by a third party payment processor integration.
Seriously tho, something must be possible. A payment processor feature that has allotment restrictions based on client+card or delivery address must be possible. Payment processors should be jumping at the opportunity to charge extra for that type of protection for clients that are selling limited high-demand products.
Obv using more cards is a workaround, but it doesn't sound like the hoarder even had to go that far.
The thing is, it's trivial to come up with fake card details. Stupidly trivial.
And the more intensive your verification, the lower your conversion rate from click to sale...
So the idea would have to be something like validating valid ID before the sale happens, since validating a real form of identification can take days in some cases.
Maybe you could become a household name in anti-scalping and get people to sign up before they ever buy something from a specific retailer, then provide an API retailers can use to verify a "real person" was registered on your site with a given set of info.
-
The problem is convincing a retailer to let you get hooks in their checkout system for this. At the end of the day demand is so high for these things even taking dissatisfaction into account it really isn't costing the retailer anything at all...
If anything it's just driving demand even higher as it attracts speculators who otherwise wouldn't be interested...
Well, the retailer only cares enough to look like they care enough so that they don't garner negative press.
The retailer really only cares that they sell. Yes, the retailer would like to capture some of that scalper premium but doing so without also alienating the customer base is difficult. (see: Ticketmaster--whose almost sole purpose is to serve as a blame repository for egregious ticket prices)
In the space of limited special edition stuff, a retailer is not going to last long with that mindset. If a brand gets a reputation that they have lenient buying restrictions, and all their stuff ends up at resellers instead of true enthusiasts, that brand will swiftly become irrelvant.
This article may cause waves in niche for Jordans and Yeezys, and suddenly those products are no longer quite as cool or worth quite as much, simply because now you know it was just some dude buying up stock... it really kind of takes away part of the fun ownership of the stuff in way.
Imagine going to buy a pair of sneakers and the site asks for a scan of your federal ID. Do you even know if you have one? Where is it? Do you trust the site? It could take days to verify... maybe the scan was blurry and needs to be redone...
No retailer would add something like this to their checkout flow, it's a very extreme solution
Just because some people will do something doesn't mean everyone will. Many people would protest having to provide government ID to buy sneakers.
Even if it scares off 1 person why does a retailer want to do that, pay the money it costs. and deal with the optics of being the ones asking for federal ID to buy shoes when they can literally just not instead.
Like I said above, demand is so far above supply it doesn't matter if 100% of sales go to scalpers anymore, they'll still sell out, and the aftermarket will still eat it up, no matter how bad they feel about not being able to get drops directly.
> the more intensive your verification, the lower your conversion rate ^ True, but selling through stock does not seem to be the issue for this segment of sellers.
To some degree the concert ticket sellers have already (finally) solved this, haven't they? I like your idea tho, that type of vetting costs money because it probably involves humans do some amount of work. I have never investigated what is available, but the fact that I would even have to investigate what is available tells me there isn't already some obvious choice out there.
I mean its real to people that believe they can get those shoes for totally not flipping them and wearing them. But there is a reason there is no serious effort to stop them by the merchants.
It's a net loss for everyone involved in the production of actual value.
So economically it might be neutral, but in terms of social value it's a massive loss.
plus, scalpers do arguably provide some social value. they offer people who aren't willing to religiously track product drops the opportunity to actually buy something popular and scarce.
It's not a symptom. It's necessary to have those lower prices to keep your image and your fans and impacts your long-term earnings, and so we're back to scalpers being nothing more than parasites and a net loss.
It's the same thing with the shoes, if they prices the shoes at their 'true' value, they alienate their customer base and the shoes lose value. The scalpers are actively harming the market.
The artists/bookers/venues choose ticket price levels based on a number of factors. They want to fill the venue and be profitable, but they also want to maintain a relationship with fans, which is going to get soured if the fans feel ripped off. There is also the factor of drinks sales, if you pay a ton for the ticket, you'll probably buy fewer drinks, and venues make a lot of money on drinks.
If they priced the tickets as high as the market could possibly bear, only the people with enough disposable income could go. That makes all of the fans who cannot afford the tickets angry that they cannot go, you really don't want to do that if you want to maintain a fan base.
Scalping is illegal in many countries for good reason. Here in Denmark, you can resell tickets all you like, but only at or below face value. It works and the artists/venues get to set the prices at levels that match their fan bases. Scalpers who don't care about the bands, but only about profit, don't get a say, because they they shouldn't have one.
Which is why we have people who are experts in marketing and economy, and specialize in specific product areas.
the next thing is overweighing an idea of "artists don't want to piss off their poor fans over the long run". huge assumption. it doesn't matter how an artist stops filling venues eventually. if it happens it happens. "ack! its because I priced my Red Rocks performance too high on April 30th 2016" mmmm, no.
The artist/fan relationship is everything.
For a scalper to jump in and say "I can extract more profit by buying all your tickets and fleecing your fans" is parasitic, it is rent-seeking provides literally no value to anyone besides the scalper. And the scalper doesn't care about the artists or the fans, just rent-seeking profit.
There are laws against scalping in many countries for good reasons.
Some arguments I've heard are "fairness" (as if regular people happily drop $500 on sneakers) and the marketing optics of some sneaker brand being hot because there are queues outside stores before a drop.
Imagine how popular a sports team would remain if normal people could never hope to afford at ticket.
I think sneaker companies do the opposite to what OP suggests, in fact. They do things like creating abundance in one place and scarcity in another. This creates an opportunity for dealers, speculators, and secondary market activity. That whole complex is what makes sneakers an asset class... which in turn makes it a premium fashion item.
Nitpick: The scarcity isn't perceived. It's real, just "artificial" in the sense that they produce limited amounts on purpose, and limit it in other ways.
Being an asset class depends on people treating it like one, that is, as a way to make money. Getting "market" price for the shoes in-store comes at the expense of middlemen, 3rd party auctioneers, investor-collectors, arbitrageurs, etc. Those people are what make Yeezys "an asset class."
These things fall apart when you get too greedy. They already create a flamboyantly artificial scarcity. Trying for "market price" as well is probably too far.
Very eloquently put
Perhaps my outlook is just old-fashioned and practical, but to me, shoes and clothes and similar practical items are meant to be used and worn, not locked away as some sort of store of value, with absolutely no practical purpose, to slowly deteriorate and turn to dust, just because an artificially limited supply was created, and because hype on social media told you to desire them.
Use what you buy. If you buy things that you end up not using, give them away to someone who will actually use them. A nicely worn pair of shoes is admirable and completely worn out shoes are a badge of honor. A pair of shoes that just sit unused in the box is a waste.
Heck I have a feeling adecent number of people who work on such operations are on HN
I have direct connects with some of the biggest sneaker storefronts, and looking for developers.
I concluded that it was not worthwhile since I couldn’t develop a way to overcome captchas.
If I were to try this today. I would attempt to reverse engineer the api route used for submitting an order instead of automating the web page via selenium...
These bots are used for everything from clothing to video cards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEOB5sltnC8
And companies build their products around this:
I suppose it's like the foam insulation on my '72 Dodge - touch it and it turns to dust. Some of the plastic parts crack and disintegrate. Rubber falls apart. It was never designed to last this long.
Ah, but if they're a store of value that is never removed from the box, does it matter whether they work? Does it matter whether they're in there?
> If the "beetle" had a use in the language of these people, it could not be as the name of something – because it is entirely possible that each person had something completely different in their box, or even that the thing in the box constantly changed, or that each box was in fact empty. The content of the box is irrelevant to whatever language game it is used in.
This doesn't make sense. The hypothesis already states that "beetle" has a use in the language of these people, and that it refers to the contents of each person's box.
That the boxes might have different contents from person to person or from time to time isn't an obstacle to that; most words can freely refer to different things as long as those different things have some similarity (such as being located within a special box). Does "salary" refer to a thing? Does "pet"? Does "sister"? How about "lucky charm"? Are these things the same for everyone, because they are referred to by the same words?
The closest analogy, of course, is "soul", but while souls do not exist, nobody claims that the word doesn't refer to a thing. It refers to a thing that doesn't exist.
For some reason, this makes me think of USDT.
New plastic foam midsoles don’t crumble, but the glue that attaches them to the other parts of the shoe still does.
Into the garbage :-)
This whole sneakerhead thing is insane. Shoes are meant to be worn, not stored away like some ridiculous baseball card.
It is yet another sign that consumerism and by extension capitalism is a delusion and an unsustainable bubble.
Some I was able to take a picture and then fell apart when I put it back in the box.
And then about 10 fell apart when the person who purchased them, decided to wear them.
These stories always blow my mind that purport just an ordinary person could do this...
Edit: I just checked Ebay... I think I need to call my mom and see if she still has those things anywhere, holy shit - https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m...
Sort by "most bids" and set the minimum value to $100. Only a few have even a single bid, with just a couple having multiple bids. Also, the most expensive single-bid items all have sellers with no feedback. The market price is one that buyers are willing to pay, not just one sellers are willing to list.
You should probably call your mom anyway though. I'm sure she'd appreciate the chance to talk to you.
Does eBay still let you search closed listings if you're logged in?
This is great advice, thanks for the reminder :)
Or is it just that more people want to invest than ever and are seeking yield/return in whatever they can get their hands on? Isn't that a good thing that lots of people have "disposable income" they want to temporarily get rid of? Why does it need to be this doom and gloom "big bubble all over the place" thing?
Low interest rates are supposed to fuel growth of productive assets. Creating and expanding businesses that create products and services that people want.
Instead, disposable income and cheap credit are pouring into things like crypto, meme stocks, and sneakers. No new value is being created. These 'assets' only continue to increase in value because of currency devaluation and ponzi scheme like effects, i.e. new people jumping aboard the 'get rich quick' train.
I like concrete things. Rugged tools, reliable cars, but these are boring. You can't build a bubble on boring, moored ideas, you need hype.
...except for houses
Concrete to abstract:
- make a house yourself
- buy a house with cash
- buy a house with a mortgage with a large down payment (low risk, easy to back)
- buy a house with good credit and less down payment but PPI (riskier, the bank needs to hedge more)
- no down payment, less than stellar credit, more house than you need, etc.
The latter is super high risk and normally would not be underwritten. But someone figured out you could bundle the risk in order to distribute that risk, surely only a collapse of the whole housing market could make them massively default! Oops.
But yes, sure. I do try to allow others, to permit the flourishing, wild world around me. I don't take umbrage with this unreason. But it does feel like so many cycles have such poor self-correction, and that does cause a generalized concern.
Because for example, the people do pay hundreds for Fruit of the Loom or Gildan hoodies with graphics when albums come out. And it's not a secret either, people like that it's a common well established brand making the clothes the graphics go on.
What makes them cool is exclusivity and authenticity (as in being from the brand). After all, no one thinks Supreme made a factory to manufacture bricks: https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red
Yeezys are also considered cool but they're also by Adidas... a giant boring multinational compared to the image Yeezys portray
You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so.
Ultimately, it’s just the difference between being financially intelligent and not - the financially smart people are selling the lemmings the products...
Edit, to add a complete tangent: I watched this video of a $100 vs $10,000 guitar today - do you hear $9,900 in price differnece between the 2, or is the value created elsewhere? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c
The ego of some people on HN never ceases to amaze me- especially when they still have a dayjob but feel ok to lecture entrepreneurs!
If you are able to spin it for $150, yeah, the logo DID add value - and not just $99, but an extra $50 of profit for you.
That's the base of business.
> Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact.
Ah, beanie babies and HN, a long love story :)
> You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the rationality of people purchasing these products.
Many people start companies this way, by noticing and exploiting a trend, and eventually stop working.
Your profile says "Attorney working in Child Welfare" - so you are working class.
Those of us retired thanks to stuff HN loves to mock (crypto, collectibles, whatever) believe the not rational people are those who can't unchain themselves from a job.
Many people won't take the time to explain you and will just downvote and move along. Personally, I think it's sad that most geeks are not business savy.
The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
Your comment is 10x more arrogant than the comment you're replying to, as far as I can tell.
From your perspective, so long as you can sell it and make money, you're providing value to the world as an entrepreneur. Not only that, but you pride yourself on it.
But to me you're just a parasite maximizing profit by exploiting people's ignorance for your own personal benefit. The fact that you pride yourself on this leads me to believe you are likely a psychopath.
Also holy fucking shit, you're condescending to someone for being "working class."
One thing is obvious. Money can't buy class.
Totally! The only reason someone willfully gives you their hard earned money in exchange of something is because whatever this something is, they value it more than the cash.
> to me you're just a parasite maximizing profit by exploiting people's ignorance
Funny, because to me, people living off my tax money are the parasites! Getting something in exchange of nothing, just because they have a pulse and they're still breathing.
> Also holy fucking shit, you're condescending to someone for being "working class."
Well, yeah!! I mean, if you haven't made it yet, don't try to give me life lessons. Because all I can see is someone who's failed (or not succeeded yet), trying to pretend their principles are better than the cash I made - but then how comes their principles can't keep them fed and warm, while my cash does?
If it helps losers not feel too bad about their own failures, I can play along and pretend with them, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, as that's giving very bad advice to the young and passionate people who browse HN.
That's where I draw the line: not giving wrong advice, the kind of advice you know that is wrong and won't lead to success, but is socially valued (social signaling, being politically correct and all that)
> Money can't buy class
I won't pretend to have any, as "class" is often a shorthand for being good at pretending to be what society wants you to be. I'm my own man, and I don't play nice with those who don't, and I don't care about their excuses of being born poor or whatever. No one is entitled to anything except opinions- and in my opinion, by not accepting reality as it is, you are condemning yourself to the working class.
But as long as you know it and it makes you happy, so be it! Who I am to suggest you live your life differently?
But that also requires exploiting people. Someone is always left holding the bag when these trends fizzle out.
> Someone is always left holding the bag when these trends fizzle out.
Funny it's the same thing a lot of people told me when I decided to go all in crypto - that I'd be the fool left holding the bag.
I proved them wrong, but they still don't get it. About 6 month ago, to someone here asking for genuine advice, I told them to put no more than they can lose, about 4 grands IIRC, in BTC to buy a car after the next bull market that was due soon due to the halving.
They laughed, and said it was too uncertain. If they had done so, they'd have their new car by now.
I find it sad that people can't notice and exploit trends, especially geeks who think so highly of their intellectual prowess.
However, it makes no sense to compare adidas to the carlyle group.
I'm saying the owners behind the scene don't matter. The brand is the brand, and the owners are the owners.
Supreme could be owned by Blackstone and I don't think anyone would care.
On the other hand Apple has always had a similar mystique and they’re one of the largest companies ever. I think you’re conflating underground/cool with hip/street wear. I don’t get the hate either way. Let people express themselves without judgement :)
As for expressing yourself, does it really count? These brands are marketed at you in a million different ways. Then by purchasing what are you expressing?
I find it interesting and rather sad that people equate buying things with expressing themselves.
In the end though, it’s just money that flows from an invested individual’s income to feed a disinterested hedge fund’s balance sheet. It is pretty cringe, and sad on a large scale imo.
https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/pres...