Now We Know

Style On The Dot

Oct 28

More light is shed on the doomed partnership between Adidas and Kanye West. Thanks to investigation by The New York Times, it is now thought that "for almost 10 years, Adidas looked past Mr West's misconduct as profit soared"

Last year, before he was eventually ditched by Adidas, Kanye West boasted on a Drink Champs podcast: "the thing about me and Adidas is like, I could literally say anti-Semitic shit, and they can't drop me." As it turned out, that was quite true, until Adidas was "pressured to" (pull away from him), as Fortune pointed out last October. An investigation into what really happened back then by The New York Times, published yesterday, recounted "shocking" behaviour that could be traced to the vary first design meeting in 2013 (under the first contract), after the two sides inked the confirmation of their partnership. Until the anti-Semitic rants went too far and other brands, including Balenciaga, parted ways with Mr West, Adidas considered him too lucrative to chase him out of their stable, even when inappropriate behaviour was evident in the Adidas office. Sales of Yeezys, according to NYT, surpassed US$1 billion a year. When the partnership had to end, Adidas announced, somewhat regretfully, that they stood to lose US$1.3 billion in sales. The unsold shoes were put back into the market last May; they netted Adidas US$565 million in sales, according to the Financial Times. Even after the break-up, Yeezy is a money-maker for Adidas.

Kanye West was the highest-paid Adidas collaborator who is not an athlete. Back and by then, sneakers were mostly not worn for sports, and it is doubtful if Yeezys ever were. The rapper has by then become a "cultural phenomenon", as the media hailed him, not a sports influencer. Despite his seeming flair for creating footwear that his fans want and, in due course, sneakerheads crave, not many who buy his kicks were aware that in the making and sale of Yeezys, Mr West was not shy in showing a side of him that was not only unprofessional in a corporate setting, it was unbecoming under any circumstances. In that first design meeting in the Adidas headquarters that NYT described in the roughly 30-minute read that they called "the fullest accounting yet of their relationship", he was so displeased with what was proposed to him that he took a marker and drew on the toe of the illustration of a shoe... a swastika. There were, as stated, Germans in that gathering. It was a foretaste of things to come, but no one at Adidas could imagine that it would end with a break in their partnership.

...he was so displeased with what was proposed to him that he took a marker and drew on the toe of the illustration of a shoe... a swastika

Showing offensive symbols was not the only action that he offered that was deemed unseemly—nor did Adidas considered it to be so, or if they did, they did not show it. Apparently, anti-Semitic remarks followed, so did comments that were "sexually offensive" (this happened in his own office and among his own employees too). His behaviour was described as "erratic" and he pressed for "ever escalating demands". These were not spelled out, but among them was bettering what they could offer the collaborator: "In negotiations over the years, Adidas kept sweetening the deal, doubling down on its investment and tethering its fortunes more closely to him." In the second contract of 2016, Mr West was paid more, but this time, there was an additional clause, as seen by NYT: the deal could be terminated if there were anything that could propagate "disrepute, contempt, scandal" to the Adidas brand. It is not known if Mr West read that standout provision or if he chose to ignore it. His continued his attacks on the Three Stripes, such as suggesting that he should be the brand's chief executive or accusing his partner for "blatant copying" of his designs.

Although it appeared that Adidas had made sure to protect itself contractually, they chose to tolerate Mr West's nonsense and miscreant behaviour. The NYT report suggested that "Adidas's leaders, eager for the profits, time and again abided his misconduct." Last month, on an In Good Company podcast, Adidas CEO Bjørn Gulden even defended his ex-collaborator, saying "I don't think he meant what he said and I don't think he's a bad person - it just came across that way." The remarks, widely reported by the media, came after the release of those in-stock shoes that were initially not meant to be for sale, which could suggest that Adidas has no intention to be in Mr West's bad books. Praising the rapper as "one of the most creative people in the world ... both in music and what [he] will call street culture", Mr Gulden added somewhat acquiescently, "When you work with third parties that could happen. It's part of the game."

One of the most popular sneakers that resulted from the collaboration: the Yeezy Boost 700 Wave Runner

Part of the game, it seems, was to spare and spoil. Mr West could practically do anything he wanted, including suddenly moving the Yeezy operation in the US—at one time in Los Angeles—to Cody, Wyoming. And expecting the staff to relocate, describing those who were willing to go with him divisively with "terms like 'believer' and 'pilgrimage'", according to staffers at the time. It is not clear if Adidas received prior notice or approved of the move. Ensconced in Western US, these people did not let on if they were still subjected to his reprobate corporate habit, such as freely showing pornography to his team, even when they did not ask for it. In the NYT report, it stated that following the swastika episode of 2013, "Mr West made Adidas executives watch pornography during a meeting at his Manhattan apartment, ostensibly to spark creativity." Two years later, in the midst of preparation for the first Yeezy collection at New York Fashion Week, there were complaints among his crew "that he had upset them with angry, sexually crude comments". Mr West's sexual proclivities showed no signs of abating when, last month, in Venice, he was publicly seen in a middle of what was thought to be a sex act, on a boat.

It is hard to see or comprehend how Mr West's appalling attitude, demeanour, and professional practice could have been tolerated for close to a decade. Harder still to imagine that any organisation would subject members of their staff to what could tantamount to abuse. "When he exploded in bitter outbursts at Adidas managers," NYT noted, "the company typically sought not to rein him in but to appease him." And wat did appeasement beget? Just as startling is the continued high sell-through of the Yeezy sneakers, which should have been considered tainted goods. (Adidas has decided to pause the sale scheduled for November and would not be selling any Yeezy for the rest of the year.) It is hard to look at a Yeezy 350 V2, for example, and not see the person behind the kicks. Repeatedly he is hailed for the cultural impact he has made and for "kicking the door down in the fashion industry", as his defenders love to say. As it turned out, Kanye West has been kicking himself down too.

Illustrations: Just So