Behaving in a way that is bad for one self, however, which does not fall under the definition of self-harming.

Example:

"Fred, who used to be a perfectly nice guy and who I've known for years, posted a dick-pic on all our company's social media profiles. He's really doing a Musk right now."

Maybe they can save space, and shove the Funko crap into the shoes before they burry them.

They could take the hit for a change and donate them all to charity. Plenty of countries take shoes that are still wearable for people that can't afford them.

What the CEO said is that they considered that, but decided not to since the recipients would simply sell them on for their cash value. Not sure why that's a point against. Presumably if they give them for free they don't owe West any royalties, the recipients can get cash value for them, and whoever buys them will be happy enough or ignorant enough to not care about the brand associations.

I'm also curious as to why they decided that re-stitching them is "not very honest". I haven't seen them but I suspect they are very distinctive / butt-ugly out of their very narrow target niche, so either the minimal work to hide a logo wouldn't really hide the branding (leading to royalty issues), and completely redoing them would be too expensive.

Last thing.... $1.3bn???? Even at really extortionate rates for a sneaker ($100+), that's 13 million pairs!!! Were they really expecting to sell that many???

EDITED to add.... I just had a look and (a) they range from bland to awful and seem to retail at $400-$2000+. Seriously WTF?????

Well, yes... but a pair of trainers selling for two grand doesn't cost much more to make than a pair selling for fifty bucks, or thirty... they haven't _lost_ 1.3Bn, they're just not going to make that profit.

" Were they really expecting to sell that many???"

PT Barnum wouldn't have shared your doubts.

The article deals with that. They'd just be sold back into the market and someone would make a big profit. It's doubtful that the someone would be the intended beneficiaries.

Maybe the best solution would be to donate them to a charity or charities who would sell them and use the proceeds.

FTFY

That or it's an art project or publicity stunt, but considering the self-sabotage and damage to his career, who really knows.

Or indeed who really cares (Other than minimal entertainment value).

Yeezus, them's some ugly shoes. It would be unfair giving them to earthquake survivors, they've been through enough.

CEO Bjørn Gulden told analysts on a company earnings call on Wednesday: "The people that are saying send the shoes to Turkey or somewhere where people don't have shoes or there has been a tragedy happening, I think you agree that these are not normal shoes," he said.If the shoes were donated, "they will come back again."

So this heartless little shite is saying he won't donate his otherwise useless shoes to people who really need them, because they might sell them on? Surely the whole point of charity is to give something to people who have lost EVERYTHING. If someone who's house and worldly possessions have all just been completely destroyed, can sell on a pair of donated shoes to some rich idiot elsewhere in the world for a few hundred $$$, so that they can help to feed their family, and start to rebuild their lives then surely that's a great thing?

Talk about a business completely missing a trick - they could have been the business that ensured that no-one in the earthquake zone went without a decent pair of shoes - instead they've just proved that they are another business who has become completely detached from basic decency and humanity, and in this case it's not even putting the shareholders first - literally nobody wins just due to sheer corporate stupidity

One problem with this argument....

They're 'not' a "decent pair of shoes". They're fashion sneakers that are made for lounging around in. Actually use them for any other purpose (eg this new fad of 'walking') and they'll fall apart in no time.

You could even argue that by withholding them, he's saving the refugees more anguish.

Why can't they donate them to a number of good disaster charities (e.g. www.dec.org.uk) who then arrange to sell them for a profit and use the money to help people? It would be like a $1bn+ donation to charity and avoid the royalties issue.

This is exactly what many people are suggesting, but Adidas' current position is that if they can't make a profit on them, then nobody else should be able to make a profit on them either, despite all the good it could do.

Tell's you all you need to know...

It might also get them into a countersuit by Kanye.

If they dispose of goods and say they were shifted at zero cost, knowing the recipient was going to sell them at a higher price, they could well be open to a claim of trying to frustrate the contract Kanye has with them.

My guess is that the people who sold them at a profit wouldn't be those in need, nor would they be just selling a pair but a container's worth. I can't blame him for wanting to feed a few black-marketeers.

Let them eat cake.

What has this got to do with IT? Could someone explain the IT angle on this one.

Bootsnotes, dullard

I don't know the tech / IT angle, but i do know Kayne West likes fish sticks

I wish I could upvote you more than once for that reference.

Excellent point - it's because while we're an ever more diverse and inclusive bunch, most of us on here are angst-ridden old blokes who need somewhere to vent our furious anger rather than rage-quitting and plunging the future of IT (and by extension the whole universe) into a dark and terrible future.

Articles like this therefore serve an excellent and useful purpose - it's not all happy blinkenlights...

Adidas... has a website?

Chances are, even if Adidas gave the damn things away they'd still have to pay royalties. Plus, it would be seen by many as Adidas profiteering (i.e. generating market awareness for being so 'generous') - and that itself would/could be translated into 'making a profit' and therefore fall under royalties conditions.

Mind you, I'm confused this statement: Destroying them would "raise sustainability issues,". What would happen differently if they were sold then? Maybe it's me, but I read that as saying "the environmental impact of our product lines cease to be a problem as long as they're sold and not in our warehouse".

Heaven forbid they should consider donating them to charity instead of destroying them...

I must confess that they look like something I would never wear in a million years, quite apart from the sleb marketing angle. Sad that the yoof of today is so brainwashed.

Oh, wait. It's in the "bootnotes" section, so that's fine. More than fine, it's like a section specifically made for this story.

To whom?