Stephen Curry Team USA Jersey Review (AliExpress, Aimee Smith)

To reward myself for a recent 2nd place (but a cash prize!) finish at an innovation competition at Kellogg, I decided to buy myself a fake jersey. Normally I wouldn’t do this, at least not knowingly (damn you eBay!), but I wanted to look at the process of buying things from AliExpress (an Alibaba company), which helps Chinese vendors sell directly to international consumers. Prior to this, I had been curious about the quality of fake jerseys, and who made the best ones. You can find plenty of reviews of fake jerseys on YouTube, but sub-Reddits like http://www.reddit.com/r/sportsjerseys and http://www.reddit.com/r/basketballjerseys/ are also very useful.

I ended up deciding on a Stephen Curry Nike FIBA 2014 jersey, primarily because as far as I know, it was never sold to the public as Curry is signed to Under Armour. For the seller (there are a number of them), I chose “Aimee Smith”, who has great reviews both online and within the AliExpress storefront – as of my writing this post, she had received feedback from 10,299 people with 99.4% reporting positive transactions. This means about 10,237 people liked “her”, while just 62 people did not. I, for what it’s worth, also liked her.

Before going into the jersey , I’ll talk a bit more about the AliExpress experience:

https://i1.wp.com/style.aliunicorn.com/wimg/buyer/single/standard-definition-logo.png

  • Security: AliExpress is very easy to use – you do not need to worry about credit card security issues, or any other negative fears you may hold about buying from some “random” site in China. AliExpress (and Alibaba) is no random company – they have been doing this a long time, and you will see that in your shopping. AliExpress accepts all major credit cards (American Express, Visa, Mastercard) and also has a clear buyer protection policy. The website is no harder to use (and is likely easier) than any other American site that you like.
  • Responsiveness: It is very easy to ask sellers questions, and Aimee Smith in particular is very responsive. She answered all my questions in less than a day and often, within minutes (keep in mind the different time zones). On eBay, whether you get any responses at all is random based on seller. From my experience, eBay sellers response properly less than 50% of time.
  • Reviews: If you are fairly comfortable buying things on eBay or Amazon 3rd Party sellers, you will be fine on AliExpress. What I especially like about the service is that you can review the specific product from that seller. Thus, I could see what others felt about the specific Curry jersey I was buying from Aimee Smith. This makes sense for AliExpress since their products are not one-off goods (e.g. I only have one to sell, like my limited edition baseball card). This wouldn’t make as much sense for many small volume eBay sellers but it would for some and it would definitely make sense for many Amazon sellers.
  • Shipping / Tracking:  Assuming you get a good seller, AliExpress also does a great job of letting you know the status after you order. Even though you can check your order details on the site, however, the site never sends a detailed receipt via email

If you’re interested in AliExpress, I definitely say try it without fear, but do make sure you check for sellers with strong feedback before doing so, just as you would (I would hope) with purchases from eBay or Amazon 3rd party vendors.

On to the jersey!

I am happy with it. No complaints considering the price and fact that I cannot get (a major incentive to buy fake jerseys is when an authentic version is unavailable) a real one. The Curry jersey cost less than $22 shipped, and I received it in about 2.5 weeks (coming from China, after all) after ordering. If you are interested in fake jerseys, I would not hesitate to get one from Aimee Smith, and all the feedback online I have seen agree.

While I have not worn the jersey to play basketball in, the material is really soft. I am sure it does not have Dri-Fit or any other moisture-wicking technology built-in, but the jersey is light and I could see myself wearing it. In this sense, if you are normally someone who wears t-shirts for athletic wear, I would recommend this as an alternative. I bought a size small (I am 5’6, 140 lbs.) and I feel it was correctly sized.

To get into the details, let’s do a comparison of images from Getty Images,

455063814 455055924a Paul George authentic jersey auction on eBay,

and Nike Store images.clip_image0014clip_image001And for reference, my Stephen Curry Aimee Smith USA Jersey:

I imagine it might be tricky to compare all these images in this kind of vertical-line view, so I’ll summarize what I see as best as I can:

  1. For the USA lettering on the front, the authentic jerseys are flat (almost like a screen print integrated into the jersey material) and the borders around the letters are dark. On the Aimee Smith version, the borders are red, and the lettering is stitched.
  2. I believe the USA badge (on right chest of player above Nike symbol) on the authentics is printed on the jersey, while it is embroidered on the Aimee Smith.
  3. The placement and size of the “4” on the front match Getty images fairly well. There is no FIBA patch on the left clavicle, but some fake sellers have it.

Moving to the back and other components. This time, I will show Getty first, then the Aimee Smith and Paul George authentic alternating different parts.

455160982imageimageimageimageOther than the “4” on the back being too high relative to the Curry name, the back looks pretty good as well. While I could not tell how accurate the lettering was based on the Getty Images photo, comparing the Aimee Smith Curry to the Paul George authentic reveals that the “R” looks pretty close. Again, the Aimee Smith is more of a Swingman jersey in which all letters and numbers are stitched, which is not the case with the authentic. The jock tag at the bottom front of the jersey is much different between the two jerseys, which is also true of the collar tag. Nonetheless, if you had nothing to compare either with, it would be difficult to say that one of them appears fake.

As I mentioned before, the quality of the jersey is excellent – it probably looks no worse than an authentic Obsidian Warriors Swingman alternate jersey I bought from the NBA store a few months ago for 4 times the price. It could have easily sold as an authentic Nike USA swingman and it is likely better than an authentic replica Andre Iguodala Nike USA jersey that I own. I hope this helps, but feel free to ask me questions!

10 Things to Learn from Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate the World (Mihir Bose) [Soccer, Sports Business]

imageContinuing my research into soccer-business (see my previous post, 10 Things to Learn from Sounders FC), I recently finished Mihir Bose’s Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate the World. Although the book may discuss the TV contract negotiations / creation of the Premier League in the early 90’s a bit too much, there is a lot of great insight into the modern game (from a business perspective).

Here are 10 things that I would like to highlight from the book:

  1. All the major English clubs have targeted these fans and Chelsea have been particularly active trying to target disillusioned fans of other clubs who are not doing so well. These fans follow success and do switch loyalties.
  2. Indians probably watch more live Premier League matches, including the 3pm Saturday kick-offs, than most do in Britain.
  3. When the Premier League was founded in 1992, La Liga in Spain and Serie A in Italy were the dominant European leagues, secure in their own homelands and in the wider world. Italian football had even invaded England’s football scene, being broadcast every Sunday afternoon on Channel 4. But in the last 20 years all that has changed.
  4. In another curious reversal of the American experience, football embraced segregation in order to cope with fan violence. The Americans spent much of the 1950s and 1960s trying to eliminate segregation based on colour from their society. English football in the 1970s decreed that fans could only watch if there was strict segregation between fans of rival teams. For all the changes that have since occurred in football, this separation of home and away fans still exists, with grounds having large signs directing them away from each other. And even in new stadiums such as the Emirates, Arsenal’s ground, it is made clear even in the executive box areas that fans should not be wearing the colours of the visiting teams.
  5. Against this background, it is hardly surprising that English football failed to attract non-white fans. This failure persisted even throughout the 1990s when English football made strenuous efforts to oppose racism. The most prominent initiative, Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, was launched jointly by the PFA, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Football Trust, and within a year all but one of the professional league clubs in England and Wales had signed up to its 10-point plan. This effort was supplemented by multiple individual initiatives from clubs, fanzines and community groups. However, in 2001 the FA Premier League’s national fan survey found that only 0.8 per cent of “active top-level fans” were Black British or British Asian. This represented a rise of only 0.1 per cent since the previous survey in 1997, and compared to a total minority ethnic representation of 13 per cent in the UK population. The same survey found that 7 per cent of all Premier League fans had reported witnessing racism against other fans and no fewer than 27 per cent had reported racism displayed against players at matches.
  6. Hilly’s great idea was to take the score and the time and put it on the screen. I remember thinking, “Oh fuck — why have we not thought of that before?” It had never been done. Anywhere in the world. Can you believe it, only 20 years ago when you were watching football, you’d switch on and you didn’t know who was playing, you didn’t know the time, and you didn’t know the score.
  7. The Champions League was born! The new marketing concept was both innovative and commercially adapted to the changing market conditions. Each sponsor would receive exclusivity in its product area, not only in the stadium as was previously done, but also on TV, with commercial airtime spots and programme sponsorship. By linking stadium advertising together with on-air sponsorship, it became almost impossible for non-sponsors to associate with the competition. The three pillars of stadium advertising, commercial airtime, and programme sponsorship generated a “multiplying media effect” that offered new levels of recognition to the sponsors. A “less is more” approach was taken and a maximum of eight international sponsors was decided upon. The sponsor package included four stadium advertising boards, ticket allocations, and identification on TV interview backdrops and in the VIP and press areas. Each of the sponsor ticket holders was also invited to specially arranged hospitality suites before and after the matches.
  8. In the years since 1995 the Bosman ruling has led to other changes in the transfer regulations. It led to transfer windows allowing player transfers only twice in a season, once at the start and once in the middle. But most significantly, it greatly increased player power. The court ruling meant that footballers were now free to move when their contracts expired. And this in turn paved the way for footballers to earn multi-million-pound salaries. Sport could no longer be exempt from EU competition rules and had to be treated like any other business. The net effect was that unless a club arranged a transfer before the player entered the last year of his contract he was free to move at the end of it. This tilted power decisively in favour of players and away from clubs. Now players, particularly high-profile stars, were masters of their own destinies. And as free-agent players they could suddenly demand huge signing-on fees and salaries on the basis that the club they were joining did not have to pay anything in transfer fees. Football clubs were powerless to prevent their best players from leaving at the end of their current deals. Conversely, players under contract could demand bigger, better and longer deals — because the threat of being able to leave for free, especially if they would otherwise command high transfer fees, was something clubs could not ignore.
  9. In his very first season Abramovich spent £111.3 million on transfers. Not only was this more than anyone had ever spent before in English football, but the Russian dramatically changed the terms of trade. He paid the full transfer fee at the timing of signing the player. This broke with the usual convention of fees being spread over a period of time. Cash on the nail proved a lifeline for clubs facing cash-flow problems. Indeed, it was immensely beneficial to clubs such as West Ham who were then under financial strain, as the then club chairman, Terry Brown, acknowledged. Since 2008 and the purchase of Manchester City by Abu Dhabi United Group, Chelsea have been challenged and even overtaken in transfer spending. In 2010–11 the club spent £141 million on players, the third successive season they had spent more than £100 million, double that of Manchester United and comfortably ahead of Chelsea at £91 million.
  10. While the 20 Premier League clubs had an income of £2.3 billion, the remaining 72 clubs in professional football in England between them had an income of under £700 million. Two of them, Port Vale and Portsmouth, are in administration and 13 of the clubs in these three divisions are classified by financial experts as in distress, meaning that they have serious court actions against them, including winding-up petitions and high court writs, or have been issued with striking off notices for late filing of accounts or have county court judgments against them.

A Kellogg MBA Perspective on What Happened with Google Glass and What Should Be Next

Over the Winter Quarter, our Technology and Innovation Strategy class at Kellogg culminated in a final research paper. The paper looked at the shuttering of Google Glass and what Google’s next steps should be. As part of this, I got to look deeply into the current state of Virtual Reality, which I have been following and waiting for (hello Oculus!) since I was a child, and Augmented Reality. I will be posting portions of the paper (it’s quite long) in digestible chunks here over the next week. Our team was comprised of Melissa Caldwell, Raghu Chirravuri, Olga Gordon, Jeff Hoffman, and me, Michael Nguyen. 

To see all of the sections, see my tag virtual reality.

Google Glass: A Brief History

Google Glass photo.JPG

The idea of Google Glass was born out of a brainstorming session about the future of computing by Google’s founders and several key executives in 2009. Google decided to pursue a portable computing technology that could be attached to the body or worn on glasses. A team of developers, scientists and researchers was recruited and the project was placed inside its own experimental lab called Google X. By 2011, there were conflicts within Google X over issues such as privacy and appropriate public use cases. Sergey Brin argued for the release of the Glass prototype despite agreement among the project engineers that the design was not ready. Brin argued that the uses and societal issues caused by the introduction of Glass should be discussed transparently in a public forum with the users and pushed for the immediate release of the prototype.[1]

Glass was publically announced in April 2012. An estimated 2,000 units were pre-ordered.[2] In the spring of 2013, Glass was launched exclusively at “Basecamp” stores located in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London at a $1,500 introductory price point. Although there was significant interest and hype surrounding the product release, Glass was introduced with bugs and suffered poor reviews stemming from short battery life and poor screen and camera quality. At first, sales were by invitation only and mostly extended to journalists, developers, and tech media.

Google did not accurately predict the societal backlash against Glass, including privacy concerns. Months before Glass was released, states started passing laws to prohibit use of wearables while driving. People began to associate the device with invasion of privacy. Google responded to concerns by releasing an etiquette guide in February 2014, approximately a year after Glass was released.[3]

Many developers abandoned their Glass projects citing lack of consumer demand and support from Google as the main reasons for halting their operations. The developers who continued to create products for Glass have pivoted their strategies for enterprise application rather than consumer use.[4] In January 2015, Glass stores were shuttered and the project’s key employees were reassigned to different areas of Google. Google’s release of Glass mirrored their software releases in that they provided access to the device and garnered feedback from users. However, this strategy backfired as the device was a very expensive prototype, prompting many early adopters to publish negative reviews publicly.

Aside from the failed marketing launch, Google did not address all of the impediments required to adopt this new technology on a large scale. The team never found a “killer” mass-market app or use case that would encourage mass penetration, leading to consumer and developer confusion over how to actually use this new technology. Although Google has announced that Glass is dead, there appear to be signs that Glass is being repurposed for enterprise uses or concept redesign as the project has been moved to the leadership of Tony Fadell and the Nest team, known for its Internet-of-Things connected home devices such as smart thermostats.[5]

Glass for Med

We recommend re-launching Glass with a medical focus in order to establish a foothold where it can gain new users, learn about how consumers will use its devices, and the ways to work with developers to improve device functionality. This strategy coincides well with Google’s focus on using technology to improve quality of life for people and can help lean away from the negative connotations of Glass, rebranding it as a product that enables the good in society, working with doctors to revolutionize the healthcare industry.

Before its shift in focus, Google Glass was in the early stages of the adoption curve with hospitals and doctors – the most tech savvy among them were using the technology. There are a myriad of applications for medical professionals; examples include helping guide surgeries, documenting and transmitting audio and video of procedures, and allowing increased access to patient information. Many hospitals have been willing to adopt iPads to replace clipboards and folders and we see Glass adoption as an extension of this technological shift. Glass will prove superior to the iPad as it is more sanitary and can be operated hands-free. Some hospitals like Massachusetts General and Beth Israel Deaconess[1] have already shown interest in figuring out the best ways to use the technology.

We propose Google partner with beacon hospitals to roll out the Glass program hospital-wide and connect doctors with application developers to help design more ways to use the technology. Google can act as a facilitator between the developers and doctors to tailor apps specifically for Glass. By focusing on a few hospitals, Google will be able to work very closely with the doctors and developers, creating a feedback loop to help Google have a firm understanding of how exactly people use the technology in a wide variety of use cases and what could be applied beyond medicine. This will also give more people exposure to Glass, where they can directly benefit from use of it, through faster doctors appointments.

Success will be measured primarily in the information that Google is able to collect from the hospitals, doctors, patients, and developers. Feedback from each of these parties will be integral in understanding how Glass can be used more widely, specifically what type of experiences can best leverage the platform as well as ways to train people on the best ways to use Glass. Utilizing the hospital pilots to increment the product as well as seed a network of evangelists more effectively than the Explorers program will allow Google to continue to perform R&D on this AR technology in an outward facing manner while creating new PR and marketing opportunities, helping to repair Glass’s tarnished brand. Over time, Google will be able to gauge the external market for Glass and enter when it feels like both the product and consumers are ready.

3D Content Hub

In parallel with developing niche applications for Google Glass, we believe Google should leverage AR/VR technologies to create a 3D content platform similar to YouTube. Leveraging Google’s strengths in advertising, experience in platform building and their portfolio of assets like search and Android, we see a 3D content platform as the next paradigm in online content. It will be aimed at both businesses and consumers, allowing both parties to create and view 3D content. With content categories like product demos, training videos, and entertainment, this new platform will grow traffic to Google, increase advertising revenues, and attract users to Google’s other products like Android, shopping, and search.

To successfully build and scale such a 3D platform, Google will first need to identify a VR/AR technology that can be used to record and display AR/VR content. This technology could be based off Magic Leap or some other technology currently in development. The next phase will be to build a YouTube-like content platform that enables upload, search and discovery of AR/VR content. Google could use Search, android and Youtube to drive traffic to this new platform and get users engaged. We believe that it is also important to train customers (both business partners and end consumers) on the new technology to make it easy to record and view content on the platform. In addition, Google could seed the platform with content by hiring or partnering with content developers. Incentivizing content creation will produce high quality content and attract viewers to the platform, who will in turn create and share content. Google has done this successfully in the past with YouTube and we believe that they can achieve similar success with this new content platform.

Success in building this new platform can be measured by comparing the size of the captured AR/VR content market. Another indicator of strong growth is the number of content creators and subscribers. As the platform grows and advertising is incorporated into it, advertising revenues could be a measure of commercial success. Lastly, synergies between this new platform and Google’s existing products could be measured by incremental growth in Android, shopping, and search.

Conclusion

The reason that creating footholds in the Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality spaces is important is in how the battle for these technologies mirror the web browser, smartphone, and tablet wars. In the recent technological age, networks effects are key to success, making it imperative to be an early mover to create a seamless and usable experience for users trying out new technologies. This is why each of these competing firms are focused on capitalizing on the next consumer leap in technology usage: they want to set the standard for consumers. These firms moving quickly in the AR and VR ecosystems, as it is clear this is where consumer and commercial technology is going.

We believe that it is crucial for Google to aggressively pursue both VR and AR solutions to be the platform of the future. By utilizing the foundation that Glass built and expanding use within hospitals, we can better understand usability issues and build solutions specific to doctors, but apply learnings more broadly. Additionally, with our capabilities in building developer platforms, we should continue to pursue our content hub as a place where developers can develop content to be consumed by masses. A combination of these moves will allow Google to continue to be the industry leader in the future, a position that will afford us new ways to capitalize on advertising and build a more complete picture of consumers than our competitors.


[1] http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/12/forceps-scapel-google-glass/

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html

[2] http://glassalmanac.com/history-google-glass/

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/us-google-glass-insight-idUSKCN0IY18E20141114

[5]An insider’s look at the tumultuous launch of Google Glass http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-launch-2015-2 Published Feb 28, 2015. Accessed March 1, 2015.