Your biggest issue with Oakley's today

[Ex_Oakley_employee]

i'm not sure if Oakley wants to be a brand for the ''older'' people. If i see what events they sponsor their image is not really focussing on the older people with disposable income. (even though their prices would make you thinks so )
I think company wise Oakley is still doing great even for us ''complainers''? Raise your hand if you did not buy a model that has ben released in the last 4 years.
Let's say 100 people out here are now with their hand in the air. That is such a small amount, Oakley shouldn't even care for. I think on this forum are some of the biggest private clients of Oakley but, If you see it on the bigger scale we are, even with 100+ pairs a person, nothing else then Ants in this big big market.

So 1000 people on this forum who want to hold on the past (including myself) is nothing compared to the thousands and thousands of new clients who like the ''rayban style'' of new Oakleys

Some of this is very valid, this forum is nothing like a proper cross section of normal Oakley customers of course.

But, why bother with going down the Ray Ban style route as an example for instance? This doesn't make sense and something I raised many, many times whilst under employment but never really got further than me seemingly complaining. Lux do not need to. They have two perfectly good marketable brands in their own right, why even bother risking upsetting customers even if it is a very small section? It doesn't help that they made a lot of Oakleys and Ray Bans now in the exact same place in China, this leads unfortunately to a lot of similar looking products just because it's cheap and easy to do so.

As I mentioned above, this is where the big issues are right now. You have the left arm (those who work at Oakley still from pre-merger) pulling in one direction and then Lux execs (who have no real appreciation for the Oakley brand and probably don't have much interest in the product) pulling in the opposite direction.

 

[Calgary Dreaming]

It seems to me the current design is a reflection of the athletes and what they like to wear. In the past the designs reflected the extreme nature of the crazy lead athletes like Glen Plake. These days, who are the big athletes and what do they wear? You get Shaun White to help design something, and you get the Holbrook and Enduro. You look at Bubba Watson and he is wearing the Garage Rock, Dispatch 2 and other lifestyle pairs. Loads of other athletes are rocking Frogskins. The one thing Oakley knows from the past till now, from Jannard on down, is you need to get product on these peoples faces. If the athletes are choosing these lifestyle pairs, it's hard to force them to wear crazier stuff.

 

[dingo ate my baby]

i'm not sure if Oakley wants to be a brand for the ''older'' people. If i see what events they sponsor their image is not really focussing on the older people with disposable income. (even though their prices would make you thinks so )
I think company wise Oakley is still doing great even for us ''complainers''? Raise your hand if you did not buy a model that has ben released in the last 4 years.
Let's say 100 people out here are now with their hand in the air. That is such a small amount, Oakley shouldn't even care for. I think on this forum are some of the biggest private clients of Oakley but, If you see it on the bigger scale we are, even with 100+ pairs a person, nothing else then Ants in this big big market.

So 1000 people on this forum who want to hold on the past (including myself) is nothing compared to the thousands and thousands of new clients who like the ''rayban style'' of new Oakleys

if we're only 1000 people oakley x metal prices wouldn't be surging like they are here and ebay.. more like 10,000 people lol. that are willing to spend 400 or more one more then one pair of glasses.. adds up to 4 million a year. thats if they only buy one pair..

 

[702baby]

my biggest complaint is that they stopped producing matching boxes for special / limited edition pairs and just started using the generic black boxes.

 

[GRFMotorsports]

my biggest complaint is that they stopped producing matching boxes for special / limited edition pairs and just started using the generic black boxes.

I brought this up at RED

 

[Rustpot]

I believe your wrong on that point a bit..Take a look at new the charger mustang and Camero all recreated better younger consumer higher end for older ones .. You build a better product from q ' s from past to attract core customers. You then add new and exciting..You don't see car companies, shoe companies, thow away their past..You have to slowly mold and shape it, retaining the core who are older now and have more disposable income , while at creating buzz for your next generation of customers. You need to make Oakleys core stable to teens like nikes..kids can buy 60 dollar nikes richer ones can buy 300 dollar ones..

This is one of my biggest issues with the forum. I don't mean to single you out, but it's something I need to get off my chest. Everyone wants to gripe about how everything that comes out is "tired" or "derivative". Look at an Oakley catalog from 1999 and you see about as much diversity. Unless you know the brand and the pairs well a Five, Ten, Minute, Straight Jacket, Eye Jacket, XX all look pretty much the same. The real core pairs that most people bought.

Now you want recycled designs? Throwbacks? People get all pissy when Oakley released the old school wires last year, called it a money grab. Wild wires from the 90's were back on retail shelves and this forum collectively BALKED.

The really outlandish stuff wasn't made to sell. They were done because Jim was a madman. Yeah, they helped exemplify the Oakley spirit and whatnot, they also sold for pennies at the old parking lot sales. As awesome as the Shoe One was Jim's still got a warehouse full he can't get rid of. They're great for collectors or people that buy a few pairs. They're terrible for a business that people only buy one of something from. I guarantee the vast majority of Oakley consumers buy 1 pair, and if they buy more it's either a function/fashion combo, or because they broke the first pair.

I think it's pretty clear Oakley doesn't want the $60 market. They never have, even when Jim was running the ship. They're a premium brand, and in 2014 "Premium" means $150 minimum for sunglasses.

 

[AusOakley]

They don't make enough frames for people with smaller faces

 

[dingo ate my baby]

This is one of my biggest issues with the forum. I don't mean to single you out, but it's something I need to get off my chest. Everyone wants to gripe about how everything that comes out is "tired" or "derivative". Look at an Oakley catalog from 1999 and you see about as much diversity. Unless you know the brand and the pairs well a Five, Ten, Minute, Straight Jacket, Eye Jacket, XX all look pretty much the same. The real core pairs that most people bought.

Now you want recycled designs? Throwbacks? People get all pissy when Oakley released the old school wires last year, called it a money grab. Wild wires from the 90's were back on retail shelves and this forum collectively BALKED.

The really outlandish stuff wasn't made to sell. They were done because Jim was a madman. Yeah, they helped exemplify the Oakley spirit and whatnot, they also sold for pennies at the old parking lot sales. As awesome as the Shoe One was Jim's still got a warehouse full he can't get rid of. They're great for collectors or people that buy a few pairs. They're terrible for a business that people only buy one of something from. I guarantee the vast majority of Oakley consumers buy 1 pair, and if they buy more it's either a function/fashion combo, or because they broke the first pair.

I think it's pretty clear Oakley doesn't want the $60 market. They never have, even when Jim was running the ship. They're a premium brand, and in 2014 "Premium" means $150 minimum for sunglasses.

Jim wasn't a mad man, If anything he cunning was and still is A marketer and showman. Who got shoe ones from red? Thats proves the point right there he is a great marketer..This has been done in business forever. It had never been that way in sunglasses. It not recycling I am after.You take a bit of the old put in the new..This done in cars, shoes,houses, clothes, etc

 

[Rustpot]

You take a bit of the old put in the new..This done in cars, shoes,houses, clothes, etc

And forgo innovation.

Cars are done that way for certain reasons. The original was not a rehash. It was penned by a designer who could innovate. The recent iterations are from someone who can imitate. The spirit of the 60's are gone, trying to stick there is a cheap way to sell cars to people that grew up idolizing autos of that era. Same with Dodge recycling names and designs. It's a grab at Baby Boomer cash more than anything.

Clothes are a whole different story. They follow fashion trends. Do you know what that means? It means designing and making products that appeal to the masses as a fashion statement. That's why we have SO MANY 80's throwback styles right now. Blocky, flat faced. Holbrook. Silver F. Two Face. Breadbox. Garage Rock. Frogskin. Et Al. We're in an 80's fashion surge. Well, not the surge so much anymore. Some of the cues are throwback to 50's, like the TwoFace and the temple details on the Holbrook. Take a look at the old horn rimmed glasses. Big Taco and Garage Rock have cues from the 60's surfer movement era.

When the 90's come back around we'll see the attitude and grunge come back. Cutoffs and flannel tied at the waist are only a few years away unless we turn back to the 70's (god I hope not). But that's the era that Oakley hit its swing. When Metallica was the biggest band on earth. When everyone dressed like a Nirvana music video.

Trying to stick in the 90's will mean the death of Oakley. They know that. Stagnation is death.

And yes, Jim was a madman. I meant that more as a compliment. He went against the grain. He made stuff to make stuff, not necessarily to make money. But the outlandishness of the company was part of the image, and it helped broaden the image and increase sales. Was he a sly fox? Yeah, I think so. Was the Red event a big sham? Yeah, I think so.

 

[dingo ate my baby]

And forgo innovation.

Cars are done that way for certain reasons. The original was not a rehash. It was penned by a designer who could innovate. The recent iterations are from someone who can imitate. The spirit of the 60's are gone, trying to stick there is a cheap way to sell cars to people that grew up idolizing autos of that era. Same with Dodge recycling names and designs. It's a grab at Baby Boomer cash more than anything.

Clothes are a whole different story. They follow fashion trends. Do you know what that means? It means designing and making products that appeal to the masses as a fashion statement. That's why we have SO MANY 80's throwback styles right now. Blocky, flat faced. Holbrook. Silver F. Two Face. Breadbox. Garage Rock. Frogskin. Et Al. We're in an 80's fashion surge. Well, not the surge so much anymore. Some of the cues are throwback to 50's, like the TwoFace and the temple details on the Holbrook. Take a look at the old horn rimmed glasses. Big Taco and Garage Rock have cues from the 60's surfer movement era.

When the 90's come back around we'll see the attitude and grunge come back. Cutoffs and flannel tied at the waist are only a few years away unless we turn back to the 70's (god I hope not). But that's the era that Oakley hit its swing. When Metallica was the biggest band on earth. When everyone dressed like a Nirvana music video.

Trying to stick in the 90's will mean the death of Oakley. They know that. Stagnation is death.

And yes, Jim was a madman. I meant that more as a compliment. He went against the grain. He made stuff to make stuff, not necessarily to make money. But the outlandishness of the company was part of the image, and it helped broaden the image and increase sales. Was he a sly fox? Yeah, I think so. Was the Red event a big sham? Yeah, I think so.

I do agree with some of what you have said. It is simply two point of views. witch isn't a bad thing.