But the real question is…is anyone in Vegas betting on this?

But seriously, I doubt anything will change. CCS will probably run as independently as it ever has, I doubt this will lead to skate shoes at Foot Locker (please tell me they aren’t already there…), and the world of skateboarding footwear is already heavily corporate. Just look at the Gav, I bet that guy wears a tie six days a week.

Darrell Stanton. REAL is just about the most “real” skateboard team out there, no pun intended, and the impression I get is that it wasn’t that Darrell wasn’t happy there, he just got suckered into thinking that if Plan B offers you a spot you should take it–no matter what. I still don’t have a clue what happened between him and Plan B, but now he’s on Element, and not that I’m knocking Element, but when you look at where Darrell was and where he is and the coverage he’s been getting, it just doesn’t seem like he’s better off in terms of his own brand. But hey, maybe he’s happier where he is and having more fun. At least I hope so, because if he’s kicking himself every day for leaving REAL then that’s gotta stink.

Dang it, I had like three other guys in mind, and now my mind’s blank and I can’t remember who they were. I’ll have to come back and finish this later. Or maybe I’ll just let you finish it.

Whats with bullying tactics? I’ve this same story from shop owners, the guys at Gravity, Riviera, GFH, etc. Wasn’t skateboarding originally about expression, rebelling against the man and the establishment, etc? Seems like Sector is afraid of competition and thus turning into the Man.

I had a couple Sector completes over the years and even bought one for an ex, but from multiple accounts of the same story, i’ll never buy from the corpo giant again. Let the underog’s who do a fraction of your total business, Sector, have a chance. If your boards are truly better, you have nothing to worry about!!

——————

Well, you’re in luck, here’s your entry Tino.

First of all, I’m not into longboards. I’ve ridden one exactly once in my life. I’m also deeply offended and I hurt inside when I tell people I skate and they say “Oh, like riding longboards?” No, I mean like real skateboarding. You know, ramps, rails, stairs, ledges, bowls, etc. I have nothing against longboarding, although when combined with steep hills I think it’s a lot more dangerous than any other type of skateboarding (ever tried to power slide on a longboard?), I just want people to understand that skateboarding and longboarding are as different as mountain biking and riding a beach cruiser down the street to the video store. More power to you if you enjoy longboarding, but if that’s the only type of skateboarding you do don’t go calling yourself a skater.

Now that I’m done with that soapbox, onto business.

Sector 9 can do whatever they want as far as dictating who they will sell to and who they won’t. It’s called capitalism, and when it’s allowed to work, it works better than any economic system that has been applied on a large scale in the history of the world. Sector 9 can and should do whatever they feel is best for their company. If they’re right, they’ll do well, if they’re wrong, they’ll go out of business, and that’s the way it should be.

That said, Tino also has the freedom to call them jerks, and that’s what you get if you run a business in a free society like ours. You do what you want, but people call you a jerk, people boycott your product, you get labeled as “The Man”, etc.

Thus the question becomes whether Sector 9 should restrict selling their product to those shops who will only sell longboard products from Sector 9 or if they should ignore that issue entirely. Far be it from me to tell Sector 9 what to do since I have virtually zero experience doing what they do, but heck, since when have I been one to keep my mouth shut when I should?

If I ran Sector 9, I would try to put myself out of business. That is, I would have two brands, Sector 9, which would be my “premium” brand, and something else that would be my “cheap” brand. I would entirely separate the marketing departments, even to the extent of putting them in different buildings, and I would give the cheap brand the job of putting the premium brand out of business any way they can, as though they were separate companies.

On the Sector 9 side of things, I would concentrate on making the product as good as possible. We’re talking quality, folks. And I would sell the product based on “Hey, this is the best longboard stuff around, and if you want the best, you’re going to pay through the nose for it and be proud of it.”

On the cheap brand side of things I would focus on getting the job done. “Hey, you there! You want a longboard? I’ve got a longboard for ya. Yeah, it’s not as nice as those Sector 9 boards, but you just want to ride down the street, right? Who cares if it’s Sector 9 or this cheap brand here.”

So what’s all this for? It’s because cheaper brands are going to chip away at Sector 9′s market whether Sector 9 likes it or not. There’s nothing they can do but slow it down slightly. Sector 9 can keep swimming upstream and improving the quality, but the other companies are going to be right behind them eating away at their market share. So what Sector 9 needs to do is create it’s own competitor and put itself out of business, because then they’ll not only be the current market leader, but the next market leader as well. Then they might just do it again and again a few times over.

As for being restrictive, sure, I’d be restrictive. I would only sell Sector 9 boards in nice shops that are well established or at least well funded. The key word is “nice”. I wouldn’t sell in any rinky-dink shops that are just getting started out of some hole in the wall. As for the cheap brand, I’d sell that anywhere I could to anyone who will listen.

But I wouldn’t tell shop owners I won’t sell to them if they sell other brands. I would try to make it in their best interest to sell Sector 9 boards over other brands, and I would do a lot of work on the advertising/marketing side to create demand for the Sector 9 brand. But rather than fight the competition I’d embrace it and then try and beat the competition to a pulp by making my product so much better nobody else will want the cheap stuff.

The Truth about DC Shoes and the King of New York

The annual King of New York event was founded in the Bronx by Lou Perez in 1995. Lou ran the event every year until he handed over the reigns to me at baby bean Productions in 2006. With first Lou and now baby bean running the show, the event has gotten better and better, year after year.

In addition to the amazing athletes and enthusiastic crowds at the heart of the King of New York event, a team of great sponsors helps elevate the King of New York to the kick— event that it is. Not long ago, baby bean invited clothing and sneaker giant DC Shoes to join the King of New York event family of sponsors. We thought DC Shoes would be a great fit (no pun intended) but unfortunately, DC Shoes completely ignored our invitation.

So it hit us like a ton of bricks when we learned that DC Shoes had stolen the “King of New York” name and concept for its own event. Adding insult to injury, DC Shoes suggested that the “King of New York” event was its own creation!

Now, Lou and I are all about live and let live, and we considered letting DC Shoes slide. But there’s a problem with that: if we didn’t stop DC Shoes from using the name again, riders and skaters, along with everyone else, would begin to confuse the two events. Which event was which? Who was sponsoring what? Which event is that great event that Lou Perez started way back when? When this happens, everyone loses, most importantly all the people who have put their blood and sweat into supporting the King of New York event since 1995.

So baby bean asked DC Shoes to recognize our rights to the “King of New York” event name and not to use the name “King of New York” for events in the future. DC Shoes refused. So we now find ourselves in the middle of an expensive and stressful law suit against DC Shoes. baby bean didn’t want this fight, we would rather spend our time and resources creating great events. But DC Shoes–now part of Quicksilver, Inc., a company with over two billion dollars in annual sales–decided that it would rather hide behind an expensive team of lawyers than do the right thing.

It’s sad that a company like DC Shoes, started by snowboarder Ken Block and skateboarder Damon Way as footwear industry outsiders, is really no different than any other big business. Apparently, DC Shoes thinks deep corporate pockets give it the right to roll right over the little guy.

baby bean is going to do its best to make sure the King of New York event stays where it’s supposed to, but it’s not going to be easy. If you’d like to help, or if you just want to express what you think, let us know. Pass this e-mail along and spread the truth. If you want to call DC Shoes or Quiksilver yourself, go right ahead. Phone numbers are 760-599-2999 for DC and 714-889-2200 for Quiksilver. Thanks for listening.

Danny Parks
baby bean productions

Frankly, this just stinks. First Shane and Ali last week and now this.

It’s hard for me to blame Ben. The guy started using pot when he was 12 and cocaine when he was 14 (marijuana isn’t a gateway drug?). Who’s to say how much of what he became was him vs. the drugs? Who’s to say who he would have become if he had been clean and sober? Who’s to say that he’s fully to blame and not the person who gave him weed when he was 12? What about those who supported him in his habit by participating with him, letting him get away with it, selling drugs to him, or not challening him to give the stuff up when they felt prompted to? In my mind they all share some of the guilt for the murder of the girl (not that we know whether Ben did it or not, but even if he didn’t her death seems undoubtedly related to his somehow) as well as Ben’s own death.

The last footage I remember seeing of Ben was in the Children of the Sun video from New Deal. At the time he was the up and comer, the kid who looked like he really had some talent and might go far, and I guess he did before it fell apart. That was back in ’94. After that I left the country and skateboarding for two years and when I got back never heard about Ben again until this. Sad stuff. Death is hard enough, but dying this way is tragic.

Steve Berra: There will always be negatives to any field, to any part of life and really, I think we’re all aware of them. But some of the things that stick out? Obviously, blank boards. But that’s a touchy subject. I understand the dilemma as I was a poor kid growing up. I really do. I don’t, rather, I can’t support blank boards by the shear fact that I’m a professional and it’s directly affected my sales and taken money out of my and my friend’s pockets that could feed our families…

Steve Berra continued… Now, when I say money, I’m not talking about that much either, because we don’t make that much, but it’s enough to where every pro has felt it. I’ve read things where kids are saying that the pros and the companies are just greedy. I think if they really knew how little profit margin there was in boards and how little we, as professionals actually get, they might not speak with so much hate about us and our sponsors. And when I say they, it’s really on a handful of really bitter guys that make it seem like everyone feels that way so maybe it’s not really worth mentioning, but I guess I will anyway. Put this up against the guy who is actually selling the blank boards to the shops, I tell ya’, those guys are the ones making the money. And quite a bit of it. But, you know, that’s capitalism. That’s a free enterprise. Like I said, it’s a touchy subject and I’m sure there will be people on the internet calling me all kinds of things.

——————-

Ok, let’s talk about what just happened. First of all, I’m not a hater on pros, companies, or the like, before anybody assumes I’m one of the “pros don’t deserve anything and anybody who disses on blanks is an idiot” type of people. I really want to understand all sides of the debate, and I’m merely putting forth my views and trying to promote an open discussion. Whenever new information comes along I’m happy to consider it, which is the case here. And here’s what I don’t understand but would like to.

1. How much do pros really make and how does that compare to 15+ years ago? I don’t just mean from decks, I mean from everything. Does the average pro bring in $50K per year? $100K? I’ve heard rumors of hot ams getting paid $50K, let alone decent pros. I know of at least one mediocre and not very well known pro who was making $50K per year, which leads me to believe that any pro whose name is out there makes at least $100K per year.

As for the second part of the question, how much were pros making circa 1990? I’ve heard of pros like Jason Jesse, Matt Hensley, and of course Tony Hawk making over six figures for at least one year sometime between 1987-1993. If that’s the case I would assume it was the same for a healthy number of other pros like Jason Lee, Mark Gonzalez, Hosoi, Lance Mountain, etc. But I would also assume these pros were the exception to the rule, and the average take was probably around $20-30K if a pro were lucky.

Why is this question important? First, because I want to know if pros are really having trouble feeding their families. When kids see skateboarders’ houses on MTV Cribs, pros driving nice cars, and pros flying on corporate jets, it’s hard to believe skaters are having a tough time feeding families. Maybe they are, but it’s just hard to believe.

Second, if the average pro today makes more than the average pro of 15 years ago, where’s the problem? Skateboarding, at least in my opinion, was healthy 15 years ago. In some ways I think it was better. Maybe skaters weren’t getting rich, but us kids knew they enjoyed it. We knew they were doing it because they were having fun and not because they wanted endorsements. If skaters were making money back then it was a surprise to the normal skater to find that out. Today most skaters would be surprised to find out if a pro weren’t making $100K. If the blank deck issue is merely going to bring skateboarding closer to what it was 15 years ago then why should I care? I’m not being flippant, I’m asking somebody to give me a logical reason for caring. I really want to know why I should be concerned about pros losing money to blanks if even with the pinch of blanks they’re making 2-3 times what pros did 15 years ago.

2. How much profit margin is in a pro deck? I happen to have a friend who is one of the guys manufacturing blanks and I know what they cost wholesale. He claims his decks are being manufactured in the same factory as some pro decks (I’m not sure which exactly). I’m inclined to believe him because I ride his decks all the time and they seem to be just as good as any pro deck I’ve ridden. I don’t know what the exact price is, but let’s say it’s around $12 per blank, which I know is pretty close. If he’s getting decks in relatively small quantities for $12 bucks, then large companies are getting decks for that price or less. Now companies do have some other expenses to take into consideration before the pros start making any money. They’ve got advertising and marketing and all the other stuff that goes along with running a skateboard company. So let’s say when you add all that stuff on it brings the price of a deck (for the company) to $20. The deck gets sold to a skateshop for around $35. That means the skateboard company has $15 left over to pay the pro and then they can contribute the rest to profits. I don’t know what a pro gets paid per deck, but in the old days it was $1 per deck until Rocco came along, created World Industries, and started paying pros $2 per deck. Let’s say it’s up to $5 per deck today. That would still leave $10 for the company, or roughly 28% profit margins on decks. That’s a pretty good margin as far as businesses go, especially manufacturing businesses.

Now, perhaps my numbers are wrong somewhere. If they are then somebody tell me where I’m wrong, because I’m not here to pump out something that is completely false, I’m just telling it as I understand it and as I believe other kids see it, which explains why kids don’t feel sorry for pros, but maybe there’s something about the process that kids don’t understand. If so, let’s get the facts out there.

3. What’s the solution? You can’t guilt-trip people into buying something. You might get a few, but you’re pushing against the tide. You can’t force blanks out of the market without reverting to socialism. Actually, with Democrats wielding power in Congress and the Senate that might not be such a long shot. There are only two ways pro decks can compete against blanks. They either have to be better quality, they have to drop in price, or they have to be perceived as being better.

I’ve seen a lot of innovation lately in deck manufacturing. I’m not sure if any of these new types of decks are any better than the normal deck, but it’s nice to see someone trying to make a deck that lasts longer, is lighter, and that has other superior qualities. That might be the answer, but I doubt it. For one, I fail to see how somebody can make something that is so much better than a blank as to justify paying $50 vs. $15. In addition, whatever innovation comes out is only keeping the companies one step ahead. It’s only a matter of time before the people making blanks start innovating as well.

When a product become a commodity then prices tend to drop. We haven’t seen that yet, and I’m not sure why, and it makes me suspect that perhaps pro decks really do cost a lot more to make and sell than blanks. But if there really is a healthy margin in decks as my math above suggests, maybe companies need to drop the price. If they could sell to shops for $25 instead of $35, and shops would only sell decks for $40…well, that would still make it tough to compete with a $15 blank deck. So maybe that isn’t the solution either.

Finally, the companies could make a graphic deck seem better than a blank. I don’t mean they trick kids into thinking it will last longer or flip better, I mean they make kids want to have a pro deck because it’s a pro deck. When I was a kid, I wanted pro decks because I liked the graphics, and skating the pro deck made me feel like I was that pro. Today, I don’t care. Is that because I’m a grownup and care more about money, or is it something else?

I’ll tell you some things I’ve noticed that are different today than when I was growing up. 15 years ago pros used the same graphics for years and the graphics were easily recognizable. Today, pros have three sets of graphics at the same time. 15 years ago, pros always rode their own decks. Today, pros ride the deck of anyone on their team, and sometimes you even see a pro riding a…gasp–blank deck, or a deck that is so covered with stickers that you can’t tell whether it’s a pro deck or a blank. In my day, pros were legends. They were the best of the best. Today, pros are the guys who are washed up. The ams are the ones pushing the envelope. How can I get that excited about buying the deck of a pro who is being blown away at the demo by the 13 year old kid on flow who I’ve never heard of and who may or may not be riding a recognizable pro deck themselves?

Maybe some of the problems can’t be solved. Maybe it’s just the way things are and pros and companies will need to adjust accordingly. Maybe there is something they can do. But a few centuries of well-recorded business history suggests that guilt trips won’t work.

1. Pros make more money today than they ever have. When I was growing up, I think Tony Hawk was probably one of the few pros, perhaps the only pro, to make over six figures. Today you’ve got more than a handful.

2. Pros can make money off of a lot of things without selling out. When I was growing up, nobody had a pro model shoe. Today everybody does. There is more opportunity than ever.

3. Reynolds says without pros there wouldn’t be any more good videos. Frankly we’ve got too many good videos. There are so many that a new video doesn’t mean much anymore. When I was growing up we were lucky to get a new skate video once per year. When Reynolds was growing up there weren’t half the videos there are today, but he still got psyched to skate.

4. Tony says blank boards mean a departure from respecting pros, but all I hear is a guy who makes $20M per year telling me his bottom line isn’t what he wants it to be. It’s disappointing to see somebody I respect making more money than he’s ever made, making more money than 99.99999% of this world’s people will see in their lifetime, complaining that he’s not making enough.

Blank boards aren’t a sign of waning respect for pros, it’s a sign that kids want to skateboard more than they want to work. At a minimum wage job it takes several extra hours to earn the money to get a pro deck vs. a blank that is just as good for skating. Who would choose to work for 4 more hours instead of getting a blank and skating during that time?

5. Competition drives innovation, lowers prices, and grows industries. Without blank decks as a source of competition skateboard manufacturers wouldn’t feel the pressure to be innovative and make better decks. They wouldn’t feel the pressure to grow the industry larger to increase their sales. They wouldn’t feel as much pressure to make their company stand out by having good pros and ams. Without that pressure, skateboarding would stagnate. There wouldn’t be as much progress. It’s good to have a little fear and discomfort. Truth be known, blank decks might be saving the industry rather than hurting it.

C’mon guys, are you really hurting that bad? Do you really expect kids to buy pro decks out of charity? Tony, you’re a businessman as well as a skater, you should be smarter than this. Business doesn’t work on charity. You’re fighting a losing battle by choosing the wrong strategy. Even if you’re right and blanks hurt the industry, bad mouthing blanks isn’t going to work, so why bother? Focus on making kids want to buy pro decks. Find a way to make pro decks better than blanks other than just graphics.

You pros might think I’m not your friend, but I am. I want pros to be successful financially, but this strategy isn’t going to work. In the long run, trying to make kids buy pro decks by giving them a guilt-trip is going to hurt you and the industry. It shows kids you don’t understand them and what motivates them and creates a separation between you and your customers. As you get more and more out of touch kids will sense this and move to brands they feel are more “real” and you’ll find yourself in the position of Powell in the early 90s, wondering what happened to the glory days and how you lost them.

I’ve never been a skateboard company owner or a team manager or anything like that in the skateboard industry, but I do own a company and I have employees, and I’ve had to let some employees go, and I’ve had employee quit and move on. What I often tell my employees when they come to talk to me is this “Look, I’m not happy that you’re leaving, because we need you and we like working with you. But you do what you feel is right for you, what’s best for you and your family, and we’ll do what we have to in order to get along.”

The fact of the matter is that when someone comes in and talks about leaving, chances are they’re already gone. And in most cases they’ve already been thinking about it for months, and they finally just made their decision. Do I really want to even try to talk them out of leaving? If they stayed around would they be a good employee or would they work half as hard because they’d be bummed they didn’t have the guts to tell me they were out of here? I figure if they feel they’re making the right decision then let’s get on with it and part on good terms.

But I’m afraid in the skateboarding industry people take things a bit too personally. When someone leaves it’s like they’re turning their back on their family. But it doesn’t need to be that way, and if it’s not I guarantee everyone will be happier about things in general and it would go towards reducing some of the tension I think exists in the industry between certain riders and companies.

Here’s my advice to team managers, owners, and such. When you put somebody on a team, be up front and honest with them. Tell them that if the time comes that they feel they need to move on that you’re not going to be angry with them, but you’ll support them in whatever decision they feel is right for them. But also tell them that if things aren’t working out from the other direction, you’ll work with them, you’ll let them know that they have to step up or change or whatever is necessary, but if they don’t then you’ll have to let them go for the good of the company because you can’t put an entire company at risk for one rider.

If everyone would take this attitude then it would go a long ways toward preventing bad feelings that aren’t good for anyone and I wouldn’t be surprised if riders stuck around longer at companies where the managers/owners took this attitude. This advice goes for small, regional companies and shops with teams as well.

Of course this doesn’t make it easy. Nobody likes to have a good rider quit their team, and nobody likes having to tell a rider they’re off a team. It’s not fun, but some simple steps can help soften the blow and prevent years of unproductive bitterness.

And sometimes surprises happen. I’ve had employees who quit on me who then came back to work for me years later and were valuable members of my team. I don’t think they would have come back had I made a big deal about them leaving in the first place.

I don’t believe there’s anything morally wrong with Nike’s businss approach to skateboarding, they’re business people and their job is to make more money. Skateboarding is an opportunity for them to do that. But as they succeed it will change the culture of skateboarding, and that’s something I don’t want to see happen and certainly don’t want to contribute to.

Feel free to buy their shoes for running, soccer, football, or your other mainstream sports, but if you’re buying or wearing Nike’s skateboard line, or especially sponsored by them, I’m sorry, but you’re a sellout.

In case the article disappears from it’s source, here is the text:

Skateboarding exec to lead new Nike sports culture initiative
The Portland Business Journal – March 3, 2006

Nike Inc. has named Sandy Bodecker, head of its skateboarding division, to serve as vice president of sports culture.

The newly created position aims to tap a youth market with clothing and footwear inspired by sports like skating, surfing and snowboarding.

Bodecker, 52, is a 23-year Nike veteran who helped establish Nike’s position in the global soccer market. Nike’s earnings from soccer today approach $1.5 billion. Most recently, Bodecker headed Nike’s skate business, overseeing product innovation and building relationships with skate retailers, athletes and consumers.

Skating has grown more mainstream and more fashion conscious in recent years, and Nike leaders are eyeing the area as an important growth opportunity.

Nike (NYSE: NKE), based near Beaverton, also has a rocky history with skateboarding. The company re-entered the skate niche in 2001 after it pulled out of the market in 1996. Nike also bought Savier in 2001– a small company th