Herbsley
Steadily Retiring
This is not meant as a 'diss thread' by any means - but I simply continue to scratch my head about Oakley's obsession (and I use that word without exaggeration) with their poster-child Mr S White.
Is he really THAT big in the USA that Oakley should be hanging so much on their opinion of his appeal?
I mean, I can understand back in the day getting someone like Michael Jordan on board. Even though he played his sport in the USA, he was genuinely recognised as a global star. Big-name talented player, huge Nike contract, starred in a bizarre Looney Tunes film, etc. So yeah, I can understand why Oakley put him in a pair of Mars and a silly hat, and took some photos of him.
But SW?
Really?
Who knows, perhaps he is in fact a huge star in the USA, and it is my UK residence which puts me in a position of ignorant bliss regarding his status. But then perhaps that is the point I'm trying to make. He is not enough of a global presence as an athlete or even as a (I hate this word) 'celebrity'. Granted, I understand he must be pretty good at his chosen athletic activity - given that he wins medals and championships etc - but I worry that as his Oakley Collection grows (and grows) the brand is putting too much faith in their gamble on the general public's opinion of one man.
With girl's hair.
So I put it to you all for opinions.
Everything I read on this Forum is pretty much negative or, at best, indifferent about SW and his status it seems as the main face of Oakley these days - way above the other athletes they sponsor. For example, I for one could care less.
But folks on here - i.e. collectors - still buy his glasses because they need to complete a collection, or because they look nice, or whatever. I understand this. But thinking of Joe Public, who I assume must also buy Oakley sunglasses (even though I almost never see any), is Mr White such a huge star in the USA that Oakley are right to place so much financial faith in the man in order to attract new business worldwide?
And another question - is there another proper global superstar (athlete or otherwise) that they could/should be using instead?
At the risk of sounding like an examination paper . . . .
Discuss.
Is he really THAT big in the USA that Oakley should be hanging so much on their opinion of his appeal?
I mean, I can understand back in the day getting someone like Michael Jordan on board. Even though he played his sport in the USA, he was genuinely recognised as a global star. Big-name talented player, huge Nike contract, starred in a bizarre Looney Tunes film, etc. So yeah, I can understand why Oakley put him in a pair of Mars and a silly hat, and took some photos of him.
But SW?
Really?
Who knows, perhaps he is in fact a huge star in the USA, and it is my UK residence which puts me in a position of ignorant bliss regarding his status. But then perhaps that is the point I'm trying to make. He is not enough of a global presence as an athlete or even as a (I hate this word) 'celebrity'. Granted, I understand he must be pretty good at his chosen athletic activity - given that he wins medals and championships etc - but I worry that as his Oakley Collection grows (and grows) the brand is putting too much faith in their gamble on the general public's opinion of one man.
With girl's hair.
So I put it to you all for opinions.
Everything I read on this Forum is pretty much negative or, at best, indifferent about SW and his status it seems as the main face of Oakley these days - way above the other athletes they sponsor. For example, I for one could care less.
But folks on here - i.e. collectors - still buy his glasses because they need to complete a collection, or because they look nice, or whatever. I understand this. But thinking of Joe Public, who I assume must also buy Oakley sunglasses (even though I almost never see any), is Mr White such a huge star in the USA that Oakley are right to place so much financial faith in the man in order to attract new business worldwide?
And another question - is there another proper global superstar (athlete or otherwise) that they could/should be using instead?
At the risk of sounding like an examination paper . . . .
Discuss.
