Talk:Crocs

Rules

Re-post general rules about editing articles about corporations.
Only factual information about the corporation and its products.
Information about stock speculation or opinons about the company or its products will be continually deleted.
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Created archive for 2007 talk topics

These topics seemed closed, but I leave them for reference and posterity Talk:Crocs/archive2007...and so we can start new discussions.
Please place new topics in monthly areas, based on when the conversation starts. It is my hope this will enable people to find "new" or "active" discussions more easily.
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Acquisitions Contradiction

This article states that Crocs, Inc. bought Jibbitz for $10 million. Jibbitz's article states that it was bought for $20 million by Crocs, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.7.108 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the actual acquisition was for $10 million in cash, and $10 million in CROX stock options. Many times only the cash is mentioned as the acquisition price, hence the confusion. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Early 2008 topics

Why delete the list of products?

I know this is a bit late, but why was the list of different types of Crocs deleted? I think it was a useful piece of info. Ginbot86 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...A bit of a tough call, but truly it is up to the company to list the actual products. I think it would be appropriate to note the particular product TYPES. We do not want to become a method of introducing new products...
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

popular culture

None of the information in this section specifically pertains to crocs, It is just a discussion of globalization and may be more appropriate in that article, it is certainly not necessary to understand what crocs are, or anything about them. perhaps a sentence or two that just says "crocs are popular throughout the world, likely because of their utility" would be more appropriate, i am deleting this section, if anyone disagrees feel free to restore it. I just want to make sure its understood that this is not meant to be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.26.167 (talk)

New campaign?

During the latest avp volleyball event on nbc, Crocs ads featured a campaign apparently intended to inform the viewer that they make other styles of shoes that adults might find more appropriate. I think in some way the article should mention this attempted change of image/combat of the perceived image TheHYPO (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jibbitz should be its own article

Jibbitz may be related to Crocs, but Jibbitz are not Crocs; it deserves its own article. Ginbot86 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree. I will be creating an article, and replacing the redirect with it shortly. S. Dean Jameson 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  

It is created: Jibbitz
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Items started in October 2008

Oct 10 Edits

A bit of a large edit, but I support the reason. The information does NOT pertain directly to the corporation or its products and seems very opinion based (See WP:NPOV).
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 12 Edits

1. Archived 2007 talk entries; I had a hard time figuring out which ones were "active".
2. I aimed to revamp the main article based on a corporate template, but now find that I need to BUILD a corporate template first. I found a couple other corporation pages; pfizer, Target_Corporation; that look like good examples.
   

Mjquin_id (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edible?

I heard somewhere that Crocs shoes were edible.

Is this true? Should it be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.155 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not true (technically, they're non-toxic, but they're no more "edible" than say, rubber bands are), and no it shouldn't be in the article precisely for that reason. No reasonable person believes this; it is an unsourced, unfounded rumor that doesn't even rise to the level of fringe belief. If I had to make a guess, it started as a joke that somewhere down the line someone believed as being literal truth. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They were probably referring to croc(odile)s, just without making it aware of that fact first - they knew whoever they were talking to was thinking about the shoes, Crocs™. -- 60.241.153.201 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fad

It is euphemistic to say it has the characteristics of a sustained fad. It would be encyclopedic to say it is a fad. Everywhere there is excess inventory and stores are trying to get them off their shelves with huge markdowns. Not to mention the product isn't popular anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, that's an opinion. See also WP:Verifiability and WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/88710-is-the-shoe-business-a-profitable-investment http://seekingalpha.com/article/87109-crocs-it-s-the-product-not-the-economy Management says they are "sizing our business to be profitable on lower projected sales volumes..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are good sources. (I noticed Motley Fool had a more recent article as well). Just be sure to stick to what the articles say versus drawing your own conclusions per WP:SYNTH. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Waldies insertion

This edit had 3 problems.

1. Single source about Waldies history - more citations would be helpful, especially after the ITC ruling, or any court cases.
2. Unreliable source: The SNEWS article is unsigned, and is quite blog-like. Blogs might in some circumstances be used to support a "harmless" assertion in an article. The edit to the Crocs article had deeply POV language, and cannot be considered harmless.
3. User:Footwearhistory seems to have been created only to force this content into the Crocs article.

If there are factual errors in the Crocs article, please discuss them here, and they will be addressed in a neutral, encyclopedic way. --Lexein (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've since found this http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/if-the-foam-shoe-fits/ which mentions Waldies. A couple more like that and the Waldies history goes in. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NPD Market Research

I've removed this claim from the Media and Stock Price section per WP:REDFLAG

Yet in 2008, Crocs was ranked the number one casual brand in the athletic specialty sporting goods channel for men, women, and children by the NPD Market Research Group.

Source does not appear to support the claim. If the source does support the claim and the source is behind a customerwall or paywall, it should be quoted in the citation, with a correct URL if possible.

In contradiction to the claim, Crocs published no PR, and no news outlets reported any such assessment by NPD. The only search result for Crocs +"number one" appears in this Crocs press release in 2006. In it, NPD warns that Crocs has challenges (emphasis mine):

Another challenge for the company is that it has produced a “very one-dimensional product” and must find ways to re-engineer the brand because that product is easily imitated, said Marshal Cohen, chief analyst with The NPD Group Inc., a market research firm.

“Number one, the hard part, is to sustain that momentum,” he said. “Number two is to ward off the competition.”

"Number one" refers only to the work Croc's must do, not to Crocs' standing in the marketplace.

--Lexein (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My crocs are falling apart. I thought crocs and rainbows had guarantee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.40.186 (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image restored

In this edit the image of Bill Maher with Crocs was removed without discussion. Per WP:BRD I've reverted, and am discussing. The deletion reason given "It is unnecessary to show a picture of the program to understand that Bill Maher made fun of Crocs..." is opinion, not a policy/guideline/essay-based reason. The image serves two purposes: it illustrates Maher and his comedic take, but more importantly it non-controversially illustrates the breadth of completely independent coverage the shoes once received in widely broadcast media, beyond the scope of the manufacturer's PR department. This particular image was selected rather than news reports about Crocs sales or their risks on escalators, to avoid either positive or too-negative POV. Of course, this is the English-language Wikipedia (not just US), so if there are CA, UK, AU, or NZ images of the shoes in media, perhaps one of them might be better to add. --Lexein (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Clogs

Why do people refer to Crocs as a type of clog? The essence of a clog is the wooden sole, and as far as I can see Crocs have no wood in them anywhere. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from Crocs' superficial resemblance (thickness, clunkiness), Crocs marketed them that way, as a differentiator from flip-flops and sandals. See also Clog (shoe)#Fashion. --Lexein (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I see little resemblance between Crocs and clogs. If the only reason for the reference is that Crocs' called them that, then the fact ought to be clear in the text. There is no reference to anything similar in clogs-fashion. Para 1 is referring (obliquely) to Clog (shoe)#Sweden. Para 2 is talking about platform shoes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough of them look like clogs (to other people, not you), I suppose. Images. The title of their website is "Crocs™ Official Site | Shoes, Sandals, & Clogs | Free Shipping". We can observe (but not declare in an article) that Crocs (especially the early models) don't fit into the other shoe categories. They're more closed than sandals, less closed than shoes, and enough of them share traits with old world clogs (thick soles, partial open design, etc), that people just sorta slumped into calling them clogs. Anyways, enough WP:RS sources say "clogs" that we should have no problem using that word here. If you decide to write a deep research paper about the history of "why do people call Crocs clogs", I'll certainly read it. --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) defines a clog as a "thick piece of wood", and later as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole". The key factor which a peruse of the WP article will show, is the wooden sole. Crocs appear to have no wood in them at all. The Almondbury & Huddersfield Glossary of 1883 quoted in the OED states "Clogs, shoes with wooden soles" (my emphasis). I would suggest to you that the OED is more scholarly than the company website, indeed the latter might even be regarded as WP:SPS. Unfortunately the images you reference seem to be entirely Crocs, and have no images of traditional clogs at all. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue the point further. The original question was why Crocs were called clogs, to which the answer seems to be "because marketing men thought it a good idea". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? The OED has nothing to say about Crocs, and is irrelevant. Nobody is saying that Crocs are clogs, but that people call them clogs. I know nobody called anything but clogs "clogs" until the 2000's, simultaneous with the growth of, say, Crocs. The company, and many RS (from this century) also refer to at least some models as clogs. Your fight is not with me. Sorry you didn't see the same images I saw. Seems to me, marketing + PR + products not fitting in prior categories = new use of a word. In the meantime, this is not a general forum about clogs, it is a place to discuss improving the article. Try modern fashion sources about "clogs". --Lexein (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential References List

I found this to start it all off: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/uncertainty-at-the-top-worries-crocs-boss/story-fn91v9q3-1226305649220 -- 60.241.153.201 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)