Starting sneaker company

>>12734187
Show us how they look like mang

>>12734196
He can't because his company and products don't exist

File: KIMG0536.jpg (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>12734202
Here is a shot of the first sneaker we'll be producing under my brand. It's suede with reinforced front for skating and casual wear

>>12734211
advice: make your stuff either sport specific...or don't. 'For skating and casual wear' just means nothing

>>12734243
I see, so it's better to just pick one and then go for it. Then casual wear would be the better route

>>12734211
looks like shoes I find from Payless or Ross. Keep working on designs man.

>>12734211
Looks exactly like a puma canvas classic from this angle

Material looks cheap at first glance, post more pictures if you could

>>12734392
That's reasonable but it's mainly made of quality fabrics and materials. I'll have to do something about that. The company I have running manufacturing may be the cause

>>12734211
Waste of effort. Why are you making clothes? There's nothing unique or good about this shoe.

>>12734653
gotta agree with this guy, why would someone buy this shoe when they could buy a similar shoe from a big brand

>>12734742
The thing about this relies on hype and how the brand being presented is. People buy numerous sneakers from numerous companies that look similar or are virtually the same sneaker.

This is nothing new, that's why I want to diversify my designing and company. But what makes you go out and spend your money on a new pair of sneakers as opposed to another brands is based on what that brands impact and meaning is. The shoe plays little to no part in that so long as it is aesthetically pleasing and has quality.

Why buy an iPhone 7 when you can get an note7 or a galaxy7

>>12734879
dude maybe that's how normal people buy their shit but you also have to look at what those big brands already have established.

they have history, and meaning like you say, but no one is going to go to your brand that has a nice "about" page on your website and then just buy your shitty shoe that every other brand produces just because you have a philosophy or whatever.

the people you're talking about are normal people who dont give a fuck about fashion but even they won't buy your sneaker because you are not nike or adidas.

your design is going to have to be actually good for people to even look at your brand seriously, like you will gain no hype just from how the brand is presented, if your shoe is good, people will like it, but it doesn't look like thats the case

tl;dr
your shoe sucks and even normies wont buy it bc ur not nike, try making something actually good instead of trying to make quick cash

File: 14733726_1807124919567314_8736702837209169920_n.jpg (56KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x480px

>>12734211

buddy, they look way too similar to puma sneakers and in general too generic to sell, you need to have better designs and in general different shit to sell

>>12735126
this is kinda true OP

I'm a niche asshole who would prefer and love a sneaker that doesn't remind me of every other brand, but I am only one niche asshole.

>>12735126
I agree with you, I want my designs to be new and innovative and to mix up the industry. It's why I started the thread, as a company just starting out should I produce some over the top extremely different sneaker or produce one that people see and connects to other brands so they tell we have the ability to become a famous and well liked company. That's a fact, at the same time though we need to have sneakers that are simple and or plain in nature. I'm not trying to make a quick buck, I'm taking my time to produce a well received company and investing in this because I love sneakers.

I want to appeal to niche buyers and produce innovative, unseen designing but as a company starting out that doesn't seem the best route. To go out guns blazing without any actual branding or promotion isnt sane.

>>12735133
We've already sold test samples, people have compared them to pumas and Nikes alike. These go along with an entire outfit from out shirt and hat line too. Everyone has a different take so they seem diverse enough to do a run off. Mind you I agree with you and am going to be doing innovative new designing. As a starting company we're just getting our feet wet.

cobblersperg please go

What brand are those V sneakers?

File: v-10-extra-white-nautico-pekin.jpg (49KB, 944x1084px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 944x1084px

>>12735534
>V sneakers

File: shia-labeouf-skateboard-02.jpg (171KB, 816x1222px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 816x1222px

What brand are these?

>>12734211
Literally another no name sneaker made in China that poor kids buy

>>12735534
I'll make another thread within 2- 4 months focused on the actual launch

>>12734187
w2c that green sneaker on the bottom right?

>>12734879
If you think your sneaker is "virtually the same" as other, already popular sneakers (and others are also telling you this), it doesn't prove your point that sneakers are all the same, it proves that your sneaker is just generic. And the only people who get away with generic are people with some other hook, like having deep brand history, high-quality materials, ethical business practices, budget-friendly, etc.

You're acting like you can only either make a carbon copy of existing shoes or a groundbreaking, far-out new design, but there's a comfortable middle point called "just making a good goddamn shoe". If you can't figure out how to hit that target, why do you think you have ideas worth buying?

>>12735801
http://www.karhu.com/albatross-green-white.html

>>12735541
>>12735541

File: hm question kot.jpg (50KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x323px

>>12735541
Wait are those gymnast grips? interesting

>>12736004
>interesting
More like tryhard as FUCK. I wore one of those to grade school to be a badass rocker.

>>12735872
Nobody who has used my shoe brands sneakers has said it lacks in comfort or ability. That's not the problem, they compare it to existing sneakers like any sane person would. There's hundreds of sneakers from many brands that "virtually are the same sneaker". The point is it doesn't make sense to just call me out on it but not popular brands. Aside from that, the point of the thread was for me to separate myself from the norm. But every company in the shoe industry has sneakers that resemble or look like another brands. Again this isn't something new.

>>12736341
Your shoe just happens to look like a walmart-tier piece of shit that falls apart after two weeks of wear.
Looks ugly and lacks originality. The design on the side is pure garbage.
You can't establish a new brand with something this boring and ugly.
>There's hundreds of sneakers from many brands that "virtually are the same sneaker"
But the difference is that those shoes and brands have been around for decades and the new brands that manage to achieve the same popularity are usually backed up by celebrities who help build hype around the product.
If you want to make a popular shoe and build up your brand from nothing, you'll need to make something completely different. Otherwise people will just grab a pair from a company they already know of.

Your product is shit and won't take off, enjoy failing miserably and being in debt for the rest of your life.

>>12737260
So in your its ok to be used and tricked into buying the same sneaker so long as its from an old brand. Got it, im trying to weave out the actual critiques from your raging on but it seems you want me to fail which im far from that. No one from the 25 pairs ive sent out for testing stated the quality was bad, or that they didnt hold up. Design changes and attention to the toe heel was all that was focused on.

You never seen any company come out guns blazing when releasing their FIRST PRODUCT. Nike stole the designs for the Cortez but somehow youll find a way to defend that. My sneaker looks similar to existing designs, its the of the worls apparently. It is a first sneaker, not my companies grandeous ultimate design masterpiece. Chill the heck out, you dont have to buy.

>>12736341
I don't wanna claim to know more about fashion than you--in fact, I'm certain I don't--but I think I can reasonably assume that if you asked any successful designer about what's special about their generic model of sneaker, they wouldn't say "well, the shoe itself is nothing special, we just tried to build a good brand around it". They'd probably tell you about how many prototypes it took to achieve the silhouette they wanted, or the specific qualities of the leather they sourced, or how they saw an old sneaker from the '60s and thought it'd be great to revive it, or how they developed a new construction technique that reduces cost without reducing quality, or how they wanted to express the vernacular of modern street culture in some way that hasn't been explored yet, or any other number of things that show you that their shoe, upon closer inspection, really isn't just like the competition's.

And yeah, branding is obviously a huge, crucial part of selling the shoe and a lot of established brands can coast on it, but behind the branding there has to actually be a product worth buying.

Nobody will ever be more passionate about your product than you are, and you don't really seem to care that much about it, so what's that say about your potential customers?

>>12737392
Believe me im more than capable making people irl believe in the work ive done with this venture thus far. Its why i have capital not just from me but other people who believe in my vision. I think majority of the people are missing the point on this thread literally being about different designing as i stated. The first sneaker were launching shouldnt be some over the top mouthwatering design. When companies start out their products are simple and effective to test the waters. We will do more innovative and never seen designing thats why i have 3D designers and a team. We want to make new improved sneakers

Tell me what comes first the product or the brand itself. The product, from all the information gathered people said either it reminds them of some other sneaker or it was a good looking first starting brand sneaker or that they want a few minor customizations to the design. Nothing else was given which is interesting because it seems to be deterimental here. I love the feedback thus far

>>12734211
It looks alright. Not a single anon would wear read sneakers tho, so you've come to the wrong board colorwise. Its not bad but needs some more work. Keep up familia

File: philosophy.png (89KB, 363x475px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 363x475px

>>12734187
If you're looking to make a new casual brand, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I worked as a running shoe specialist and what I know is that any casual shoes that do sell from special brands off of store shelves are usually crazy expensive, high quality (i guess, never bought them), and have some special brand association. The brand is everything to a casual shoe.

For sport shoes like running, most companies diverge into slightly different specializations. Brooks patents DNA midsole which absorbs different amounts of force depending on weight and stride. Adidas patents Boost, an extremely cushioned midsole that can maintain its cushion ability for not only a long time, but doesn't change in extremely high or freezing temperatures. New Balance shoes are slightly wider and more traditionally sensed, Asics tends to better for people injury prone or in need of pronate solutions. New brands such as Hoka One One pioneered the "maximalist shoe", with as much cushioning and support as possible; had much success so far as a casual walker and among overdistance runners. Newton makes shoes with a protruding midsole on the forefoot to force a runner to run on the forefeet. It tears up calves but for the purpose of strength training calves and foot muscles. Nike's well, the are just popular.

These days casual shoes were what running shoes were back in 1900s up to the 90s. Ever seen a Cortez?

Ever see the walking shoes from New Balance that are ugly? They are amazing for walking and serve great objective and orthepedic function. If only they actually looked good. What I believe is best in terms of getting on shelves is develop not only a unique brand but shoes that are unique in terms of function as well as style. I remember serving one customer telling me they wouldn't try on a casual show because they were vegan (he wouldn't wear animal products or some crap). Not the strongest market to cater, but serving a specific need can bring a flow of base customers.