Adidas said it might have to write off the remaining 300 million euros ($320 million) worth of Yeezy shoes left unsold after it cut ties with rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. The company will decide in the coming weeks whether or not to do a third release of the shoes next year to generate more donations to groups fighting antisemitism.
The shoe and sports clothing company, which cut ties with Ye in October 2022 after he made antisemitic remarks online, has sold 750 million euros worth of the shoes in two stages earlier this year through Adidas smartphone apps and its website. Part of the profits went to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Philonise & Keeta Floyd Institute for Social Change, run by social justice advocate Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd.
I assume that because companies do this all the time. Insurance won’t pay them if they don’t destroy the product and give it away instead.
That’s not usually the reason companies deliberately destroy inventory, and this has nothing to do with insurance. It’s a write-off, meaning they write the loss off on their taxes.
Retailers destroy inventory all the time, but it’s almost always to artificially keep scarcity high. Adidas would not be concerned with scarcity on these products because they have no intention to sell them in the future and are not interested in retaining the Yeezy brand.
Which is an arguably worse worse motivation, but you’re absolutely correct.
What’s a worse motivation?
Choosing to destroy resources to encourage perceived value vs being forced to destroy resources by insurance companies.
It’s all bad, of course. We’re stuck in a really awful timeline.
First of all, neither of those options are a possibility in the above situation. We are indeed stuck in an awful timeline, but this Adidas/Yeezy situation doesn’t add to the awfulness in any way.
Adidas are not concerned with perceived value of Yeezy, so there would be no point to destroy the inventory. It would only bring them bad press.
No insurance company is forcing any retail company to destroy inventory unless it is defective. How would purposefully destroying perfectly good inventory be in any way insurable? Just think about how ridiculous that would be for a second. It would be like your car insurance company ordering you to destroy your perfectly good car. It would never happen.
Stop! You’re using logic on lemmy.
You have not condemned capitalism as the ultimate evil for at least 2 posts and your arguments don’t involve personal attacks against someone who lives in the real world.
You have one (1) post to comply with the lemmy hive mind or risk having multiple out of touch users pushing the down arrow against your posts.
I think you’re confusing Lemmy with Reddit. I have not experienced any of that bullshit hivemind groupthink here yet, but it’s probably inevitable as it grows.