Skechers is a household name popular in the athletic and casual shoe sector. Ever since its inception in 1992, the company has grown into a major world player in the global shoe market, characterized by its affordability, style, and comfort. Skechers is an international corporation that deals with sports and lifestyle products. The straightforward answer is that the firm of Skechers does not take any open stance in support of Israel or any other nation in geopolitical conflicts.
To prevent losing customer bases with significant numbers of customers, most multinational companies, such as Skechers, will adopt a non-opinionated approach to these politically sensitive topics. Included in the business activities are the suggested sales of Skechers item, which occurs worldwide, including in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Selling goods in a nation does not, however, mean that one supports political views or governmental practices. As part of a global business strategy, many corporations operate in several nations with varying political environments.
History of Skechers
Robert Greenberg, who since its creation in 1983 had been the founder of LA Gear before leaving this company to pursue Skechers had established Skechers in 1992. The first emphasis that the company put on was men’s street shoes with utility boots, which were popular during the era of grunge fashion. The initial major product of Skechers was called Chrome Dome, which is the grunge-style unisex boot that was introduced in the year 1993. It was popularizing the brand soon, and it sold in key department stores such as Nordstrom. In the late 90s, Skechers entered international markets and also diversified its products to include athletic footwear in 1998, which entered into competition with giants of the industry such as Nike, and even women’s and kids’ footwear.
In 1999, the company made its initial public offering before expanding incredibly in the 2000s to become the winner of such awards as the Footwear News Company of the Year in 2000. Skechers is an international footwear retailing organization. It was the biggest footwear company in the world in the 2010s; it was involved in several lawsuits, one of which was 40 million $, later given as compensation for false advertising in 2012. The company that has kept its base in Manhattan Beach in California, has grown to be a household name worldwide with a vast product line-up.
What legal disputes most affected Skechers’ brand and product designs?
Skechers has also been taken to court on the basis that it has stolen technology and designs of its competitors, including adidas, Nike, among others. In fact, Nike sued Skechers, claiming that they had used a copying strategy to create Skecherized versions of their sneakers when it claimed that Skechers had infringed its design patents of the popular Air sole shoes, such as the Vapormax and Air Max 270. Similarly, for similar reasons, Adidas has also brought up suits against Skechers. One more notorious example was the case of HandsFree Licensing Labs (HFL), a company based in Utah that brought a suit against Skechers on account of using its patented Hands Free Slip-In technology, in approximately one-third of its products, without consent.
This is a patented technology that makes shoes easy to get into and or off. According to the lawsuit, Skechers used it without a license, impacting numerous product lines such as Arch Fit, GO WALK, and Summits. Following the allegations of patent abuse of its heel cup design, Skechers has aggressively sued L.L. Bean and others and has settled with the competitors to prevent them from copying the identical shoe designs until the patent expires in 2038.
Skechers also filed lawsuits to protect its brand and the so-called S logo of the brand by using lawsuits to attack what Skechers sees as trademark dilution and counterfeiting in locations such as India and against Chinese corporations. These actions demonstrate Skechers’ ongoing efforts to protect its brand from counterfeit products, which customers may buy fraudulently, thereby devaluing the brand.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Skechers 40 million because it said that their Shape-Up sneakers allegedly made a false claim. The company faced many lawsuits after they were accused of making false advertising that Shape-Ups could help consumers tone their muscles, lose weight, and enhance their posture. The FTC arrived at a decision that Skechers had damaged the reputation of the brand as far as marketing of products was concerned by misrepresenting clinical trials that it had relied on in making such statements.
The relationship between Israel and Skechers
Skechers and Israel have a largely commercial and business relationship. Through a joint venture agreement with MGS Sport Trading Ltd., its regional distributor, Skechers has a strong presence in Israel and has done so for roughly 15 years. The joint venture has several retail outlets of Skechers in Israel in major cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The relationship will enable Skechers to push the brand into Israel, particularly by using its global infrastructure and local market knowledge aggressively in Israel.
In Israel, Skechers are available to the general retailer in a broad range of product assortments of men, women, and kids’ footwear- lifestyle and performance.
Boycott campaign against Skeachers
Almost all campaigns to boycott Skechers are launched by activists and customers concerned about the company allegedly supporting Israel. Michael S. Greenberg, Skechers’ president, is well known for Zionist leanings, and he has even posted pro-Israel information on social media platforms; as such, this is the main reason why they are doing so. Consequently, groups in solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement have in particular urged boycott of Skechers brands in condemnation of Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
As a measure within a broader effort to pressure those companies believed to aid Israel, the boycott efforts urge others against patronizing, selling, or being employed by Skechers. The campaigns, which usually target companies perceived as having support or any affiliation to Israel, are often a component of the bigger activist-led campaigns in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Such initiatives have been largely found in internet forums and activist groups in which Skechers is among other brands that have been targeted as part of a boycott against Israel.
How have past Skechers boycotts affected its sales or reputation?
Earlier boycotts have not had a major effect on the global sales of Skechers and its brand reputation. Boycott campaigns that are related to, or triggered by, what is said to be Skechers supporting Israel or any political agendas in particular never impact the economy greatly or on a larger scale, in general. In another example, consumer boycotts of Israeli products, such as in Pakistan, have largely been symbolic and thus have had no real effect on Skechers’ sales or the Israeli economy, in general. Notwithstanding the involvement of conscience consumers, compositional shifts in the market are usually affected more by other macroeconomic factors, such as inflation or availability of substitutes, than boycott activity.
Effect of the boycott on Skechers’ sales
More generally, research on Asian brand boycotts, such as those against Skechers, demonstrates that while social media campaigns can initially elicit negative reaction, working with influencers and using media techniques frequently results in a positive shift in consumer perception. Following such initiatives, Skechers realized a recognizable reduction of unwanted opinions by the audiences in Malaysia and Indonesia. Also, boycotts instigated by political causes have not been as successful in affecting the trade performance of companies such as Skechers as compared to other trade issues, such as tariffs imposed on imports from China. Problems arising with tariff-related trade and decline of stock price were met by Skechers, yet they are not the same as the sales decline caused by the boycotts.
Conclusion
Skechers boycotts attract the attention of activists and social media, but in reality, they do not directly affect the company’s reputation and global sales. The economic effect of such actions is normally mitigated by market forces, and the brand still has excellent global commercial success.
