Streetwear and credibility as commodity

Hip-hop and streetwear have always been about access on some level. False scarcity drives up second-hand prices and increases one’s credibility for owning and flaunting notably rare items of clothing. Acquisition of these goods requires knowing when and where to go, and having the means with which to purchase them.

As both industry and press for streetwear have moved progressively more online, it’s been fascinating to see how ideas of exclusivity and access have changed, and the ways in which they’ve stayed the same. Brands have been known to attempt a balancing act within which they maintain a certain amount of presence and have a certain amount of regard, but also remain obscure enough to be valued for both infrequency and credibility. With the internet, it becomes absurd to think that there are things one is unable to purchases so long as the money is there. We are so used to a culture online that promises to deliver to us nearly anything we want — with 2-day shipping no less. How can brands adapt to these norms?

Supreme offers a limited amount of its stock online every season — anecdotally selling out of nearly everything within a short number of days (though currently there’s a few items available). There still is notable rarity and subsequent exclusivity, but the expectation to be able to purchase goods online is fulfilled (however tenuously). Their stock tends to be logo-heavy, and draw from limited-release collaborations with well-known labels like Adam Kimmel and Comme des Garçons.

Nike, in contrast, has changed to a reservation system based on Twitter for when rare and desirable shoes are released. Previously, people would have to camp out overnight and wake up early to get to stores and hope they could get their size; an online-based method ensures customers come out with some belief they will obtain their desired product. Access to their goods, while requiring physical proximity, is increased by having a communicative two-way-dialogue between them and their customers.

Of course, this entire system was introduced after many, many incidents of violence centering around sneaker releases. These are shoes that at times are so rare and desirable that the collective unrest gets violent, and crimes are committed in order to obtain them. Nike’s prominence and the visibility of these actions undoubtedly encouraged them to find a new system that promoted access, convenience, and a lack of physical presence. Supreme may have the benefit of simply being less globally iconic, or may just have less of a history of releases that caused so much turmoil. The expressly racilalized undertones of sneakers — especially Nikes — may or may not have contributed to a sort of public sense of anxiety about such goods as limited and desirable commodities.

It’s interesting see which companies respond to this new and plausibly more substantial vector of access. Some are finding ways to remain less accessible while others attempt to improve access for everyone’s sake. But in both circumstances desirability is still emphasized, and there’s still the necessity of purchasing a good in order to attain a certain level of visible credibility.  At first glance, it would seem that along with access to the internet for commerce, that access for social over the web would decrease some levels of emphasis upon the physical or immediately material. What it’s seemed to do instead was remediate that experience through social media as taxonomized catalogs of these goods and experiences. Photosharing maintains the credible and social experience of acquisition and expression across those lines, if not amplifying their importance and visibility. These new technologies at this point have actually seemed to place a greater emphasis on the owning and wearing of rare clothing, instead of de-emphasizing both the form and the availability.