July 24, 2015
Chuck Taylor: Old school is cool again
There was period of time in the 1970s when wearing Converse All-Star sneakers became decidedly uncool. The sneakers, which were mostly worn in gym classes and on the basketball court, were first replaced by Adidas and then other brands that were lighter, offered more support and lasted longer.
Since being acquired by Nike in 2003, Converse sneakers, often referred to as Chuck Taylors or Chucks, have made a comeback with an expansion of colors that have made them more of a fashion statement than a performance athletic shoe to be used on courts of any kind.
Earlier this week, Converse announced a new version of the classic sneaker, the Chuck Taylor All Star II, with enhancements that address a number of complaints about the product that have hung around for decades.
"We listened and took it to heart that people love their Chucks and want sneakers that are built to enable them to do more," said Richard Copcutt, vice president/general manager of Converse All Star, in a statement. "The Chuck II is the full expression of this consumer obsession, staying true to the DNA of the original."
![[Image: Chuck Taylor]]()
The new Chucks look pretty much the same as they have forever, but boast changes that include higher quality canvas construction, greater cushioning with Nike’s Lunarlon sockliner, a foam padded tongue, and a perforated micro suede liner to allow feet to breathe during hours of wear.
"It is a perfect time to introduce this new shoe," Matt Powell, a sports industry analyst at the NPD Group, told Adweek. "We have seen major advances in lightweight and comfortable materials in the last few years. The original Chuck Taylor is stiff and heavy. This new shoe will improve both weight and comfort."
While Converse is admittedly putting much of its energy behind the Chuck II launch, the company plans to continue to offer the original. The old Chucks retail for around $50 (low-top) to $55 (high-top) while the Chuck IIs will go for $70 (low-top) or $75 (high-top).
- The Chuck Taylor All Star II – Converse/YouTube
- Converse ushers in new era with groundbreaking Chuck Taylor All Star II – Converse Inc.
- Converse hopes the Chuck Taylor II is a game changer – CNNMoney
- Converse Unveils the Chuck Taylor II. Here’s What It Looks Like, and How They’ll Market It – Adweek
- Converse
BrainTrust
Ryan Mathews
Founder, CEO, Black Monk Consulting
Ian Percy
President, The Ian Percy Corporation
Kevin Graff
President, Graff Retail
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Why has the classic Converse sneaker been able to make a comeback while other formerly iconic brands have not? Will the Chuck Taylor All Star II become a hit or will consumers stick with the original?
Poll
In the world of fashion there is one golden rule: “What is old is cool again.”
Whether Chuck II becomes a hit depends upon who is wearing it — and where and how it shows up in social media. The difference in launching brands today is that social media drives a lot of brand awareness and advocacy.
Chuck II might have some legs, especially for Back-to-School. The good news for parents is that the price of the Chuck II is only about one-third of other celebrity branded shoes out there.
First of all, back when Chucks were all we poor kids could wear, they weren’t all that iconic. They’ve only become retrospectively iconic.
In fact, they fell by the wayside almost as soon as the harmonic convergence of Boomers having money, Nike inventing the performance sport shoe category and America’s focus on fitness came into transcendental alignment.
They were revived as a fashion item — ironically as a sort of hipster abnegation of fashion — in the same way Doc Martens became less a workingman’s shoe and more a statement of punk rebellion.This anti-fashion fashion wave has lifted many brands from Dickey’s to Carhart out of the closets of the proletariat and into the wardrobes of the One Percent.
And, for the record, it isn’t the only “old” brand to be born again and enjoy a hipster renaissance. Can you say, “Lacoste” and “Old Spice”?
I don’t know if this means we’ll see a resurgence of P.F. Flyers or Keds — the real poor kid’s shoe — but my bet is breathing new corporate life into the classic Chuck will fairly quickly dim the hipster fires. It’s just … well … so corporate dude.
Taking a note from the musical Fiddler on the Roof: as my friend Tevia would sing, “Nostalgia, Nostalgia.” Just like wide ties and narrow ties, everything has it’s time and place. Now it is Chuck’s time.
It’s a mystery.
Einstein is reported to have said that all you have to do is match the frequency of the future you want and it cannot help but be yours. “This is not philosophy,” he said, “it’s physics.” Sometimes we accidentally match that frequency and our desired future materializes in magical ways that defy rational analysis.
So in this case was it color, design, the Lunarlon sock liner, calling the shoe “Chucks,” the price point? We’ll all offer opinions but we really can’t explain it. Truth is somehow the energy or frequency of this product matched the energy or frequency of what certain customers are looking for. When that happens you have marketing magic.
Why do some videos go viral without effort but it’s almost impossible to deliberately make a video go viral? It’s always about the energy.
This will sound strange to those who see the world as Newtonian or mechanistic. But I’m personally coming to the point of believing that the more we understand how frequencies and energy work the more we’ll be able to turn our highest possibilities into realities. We all know that everything in the universe is energy turned into form. Likewise, every retail or shopping experience is a series of energetic encounters. What might happen if we really understood how that works?
I’m not sure why Chucks have been so venerable, unless it is maybe that they were one of the clothing items, like Levi’s, that never went completely out of style with the hip crowd. Suffice it to say that the first time I met the VP of Sales for Red Bull 10 years ago for dinner, he was wearing Chucks.
But I do know who could tell us if he would speak — our old RetailWire buddy Doc (Michael) Banks was a huge fan of Chucks. He spoke frequently of how he had never given up his Chucks through college, retailer ad man days, international consulting and right up to the end as an entrepreneur in CA. I think he would have given up his beloved BMW before he gave up his Chucks. And I’ll take all bets that he is strolling in them where he rests now.
Wear ’em well, Doc.
Seems to me the Converse success over the past few years was as the “anti-brand.” Yes, people wore them for the cool/nostalgic feel, but many wore them because they WEREN’T Nike, Reebok or Adidas.
No idea if this new shoe will be a hit. But what will always be true is that the brand should never try to compete with the big corporate athletic brands
Chucks have always been cool and uncomfortable, with no support in the footbed. A new, comfy version is going to sell like mad.
Please note this comment is from someone that still plays tennis wearing Stan Smith shoes. People ask me why. It’s simple, they fit my feet. Then my wife saw an article that said they had some street cred. Almost made me stop wearing them but I still do.
It is amazing what comes around a second time like the word “cool.” I was first shocked when on a project a financial analyst said that’s “cool.” The third time he said it that day I realized I had missed the beginning of the word cool being cool again.
Why did Chucks last so long? Because they adapted and were adopted by new generations for a new purpose. They went from sportswear to fashion. Another item that has done the same is yoga pants.
Were Chuck Taylors ever out of favor? Maybe it is a city thing, but I can’t remember when they weren’t popular. Several years ago my grandsons even gave me a pair for Christmas to match theirs.
In NYC, they are quite ubiquitous. high top and low, men and women, denim and shiny silver, bold colors and pastels.
I am glad to hear they are upgrading them, I am due for a new pair. maybe I will go red low tops this time?
Don’t miss the fact that Chucks were never cool — and thus they never fell from a trend. They were and are a foundation form of footwear. Like my Topsiders. They were the basic boat shoe. Chucks, a basic sport shoe. Then somebody said these are cool. Sperry Brand teams hipped up the Topsiders and some went to the discount racks fast. The basic Sperry never went to the racks. Chucks just stayed on plain.
So Chucks and other brands are not making a comeback, it is just some cool people are coming back to the basics — cause cool is getting too confusing.
The Chuck II will do well — it just extends the foundation of basic.
The basics are here, as they always were. Be cool, come back to the basics.
The Chuck Taylor All Star shoes were the shoe of choice for those of us who played high school sports in the 1960s. We saw college players, as well as older high school players sporting the look on the hardcourt and selected other fields. At that time, they were more expensive than other sport shoes, but they were a better quality.
The Chuck II has also been an upgrade in terms of quality, with better materials and a lighter weight product. The retro look appeals to many, as it represent fashion-forward, and the price is a sharp discount to many of the $120 to $220 sport shoes that are on the market.
Nike has executed very effectively on these essential steps. It has created a winner — a theme that Chuck Taylor always effectively promised in the ’60s and ’70s — the “Shoes that winners wear.”
Quick shout-out to Roger Saunders, who recalls that we actually used to wear Chucks to PLAY SPORTS!
Remember when you had to have TWO pairs? One to wear to school and one to leave in your locker so you wouldn’t scar up the hardwood floor on the basketball court?
Thanks for the flashback, Roger!
I lived in Converse All-Stars as a teen, replacing each pair only after the soles started peeling off and flapping with every step. The thin fabric inner liners stained my tube socks yellow.
At $75 bucks a pair, the new upgraded version sounds like a deal worth checking out. I especially appreciate the absence of shiny, plasticky decoration that sends me running from other so-called athletic shoe brands.
I forecast a great success for this model, which will appeal to hipsters and boomers alike. How soon can I get a pair?
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
In the world of fashion there is one golden rule: “What is old is cool again.”
Whether Chuck II becomes a hit depends upon who is wearing it — and where and how it shows up in social media. The difference in launching brands today is that social media drives a lot of brand awareness and advocacy.
Chuck II might have some legs, especially for Back-to-School. The good news for parents is that the price of the Chuck II is only about one-third of other celebrity branded shoes out there.
First of all, back when Chucks were all we poor kids could wear, they weren’t all that iconic. They’ve only become retrospectively iconic.
In fact, they fell by the wayside almost as soon as the harmonic convergence of Boomers having money, Nike inventing the performance sport shoe category and America’s focus on fitness came into transcendental alignment.
They were revived as a fashion item — ironically as a sort of hipster abnegation of fashion — in the same way Doc Martens became less a workingman’s shoe and more a statement of punk rebellion.This anti-fashion fashion wave has lifted many brands from Dickey’s to Carhart out of the closets of the proletariat and into the wardrobes of the One Percent.
And, for the record, it isn’t the only “old” brand to be born again and enjoy a hipster renaissance. Can you say, “Lacoste” and “Old Spice”?
I don’t know if this means we’ll see a resurgence of P.F. Flyers or Keds — the real poor kid’s shoe — but my bet is breathing new corporate life into the classic Chuck will fairly quickly dim the hipster fires. It’s just … well … so corporate dude.
Taking a note from the musical Fiddler on the Roof: as my friend Tevia would sing, “Nostalgia, Nostalgia.” Just like wide ties and narrow ties, everything has it’s time and place. Now it is Chuck’s time.
It’s a mystery.
Einstein is reported to have said that all you have to do is match the frequency of the future you want and it cannot help but be yours. “This is not philosophy,” he said, “it’s physics.” Sometimes we accidentally match that frequency and our desired future materializes in magical ways that defy rational analysis.
So in this case was it color, design, the Lunarlon sock liner, calling the shoe “Chucks,” the price point? We’ll all offer opinions but we really can’t explain it. Truth is somehow the energy or frequency of this product matched the energy or frequency of what certain customers are looking for. When that happens you have marketing magic.
Why do some videos go viral without effort but it’s almost impossible to deliberately make a video go viral? It’s always about the energy.
This will sound strange to those who see the world as Newtonian or mechanistic. But I’m personally coming to the point of believing that the more we understand how frequencies and energy work the more we’ll be able to turn our highest possibilities into realities. We all know that everything in the universe is energy turned into form. Likewise, every retail or shopping experience is a series of energetic encounters. What might happen if we really understood how that works?
I’m not sure why Chucks have been so venerable, unless it is maybe that they were one of the clothing items, like Levi’s, that never went completely out of style with the hip crowd. Suffice it to say that the first time I met the VP of Sales for Red Bull 10 years ago for dinner, he was wearing Chucks.
But I do know who could tell us if he would speak — our old RetailWire buddy Doc (Michael) Banks was a huge fan of Chucks. He spoke frequently of how he had never given up his Chucks through college, retailer ad man days, international consulting and right up to the end as an entrepreneur in CA. I think he would have given up his beloved BMW before he gave up his Chucks. And I’ll take all bets that he is strolling in them where he rests now.
Wear ’em well, Doc.
Seems to me the Converse success over the past few years was as the “anti-brand.” Yes, people wore them for the cool/nostalgic feel, but many wore them because they WEREN’T Nike, Reebok or Adidas.
No idea if this new shoe will be a hit. But what will always be true is that the brand should never try to compete with the big corporate athletic brands
Chucks have always been cool and uncomfortable, with no support in the footbed. A new, comfy version is going to sell like mad.
Please note this comment is from someone that still plays tennis wearing Stan Smith shoes. People ask me why. It’s simple, they fit my feet. Then my wife saw an article that said they had some street cred. Almost made me stop wearing them but I still do.
It is amazing what comes around a second time like the word “cool.” I was first shocked when on a project a financial analyst said that’s “cool.” The third time he said it that day I realized I had missed the beginning of the word cool being cool again.
Why did Chucks last so long? Because they adapted and were adopted by new generations for a new purpose. They went from sportswear to fashion. Another item that has done the same is yoga pants.
Were Chuck Taylors ever out of favor? Maybe it is a city thing, but I can’t remember when they weren’t popular. Several years ago my grandsons even gave me a pair for Christmas to match theirs.
In NYC, they are quite ubiquitous. high top and low, men and women, denim and shiny silver, bold colors and pastels.
I am glad to hear they are upgrading them, I am due for a new pair. maybe I will go red low tops this time?
Don’t miss the fact that Chucks were never cool — and thus they never fell from a trend. They were and are a foundation form of footwear. Like my Topsiders. They were the basic boat shoe. Chucks, a basic sport shoe. Then somebody said these are cool. Sperry Brand teams hipped up the Topsiders and some went to the discount racks fast. The basic Sperry never went to the racks. Chucks just stayed on plain.
So Chucks and other brands are not making a comeback, it is just some cool people are coming back to the basics — cause cool is getting too confusing.
The Chuck II will do well — it just extends the foundation of basic.
The basics are here, as they always were. Be cool, come back to the basics.
The Chuck Taylor All Star shoes were the shoe of choice for those of us who played high school sports in the 1960s. We saw college players, as well as older high school players sporting the look on the hardcourt and selected other fields. At that time, they were more expensive than other sport shoes, but they were a better quality.
The Chuck II has also been an upgrade in terms of quality, with better materials and a lighter weight product. The retro look appeals to many, as it represent fashion-forward, and the price is a sharp discount to many of the $120 to $220 sport shoes that are on the market.
Nike has executed very effectively on these essential steps. It has created a winner — a theme that Chuck Taylor always effectively promised in the ’60s and ’70s — the “Shoes that winners wear.”
Quick shout-out to Roger Saunders, who recalls that we actually used to wear Chucks to PLAY SPORTS!
Remember when you had to have TWO pairs? One to wear to school and one to leave in your locker so you wouldn’t scar up the hardwood floor on the basketball court?
Thanks for the flashback, Roger!
I lived in Converse All-Stars as a teen, replacing each pair only after the soles started peeling off and flapping with every step. The thin fabric inner liners stained my tube socks yellow.
At $75 bucks a pair, the new upgraded version sounds like a deal worth checking out. I especially appreciate the absence of shiny, plasticky decoration that sends me running from other so-called athletic shoe brands.
I forecast a great success for this model, which will appeal to hipsters and boomers alike. How soon can I get a pair?