I took a crack at deciphering the Crocs phenomenon late last summer for Radar. The official line is that they are comfortable. They are also very cheap and — as designer Yves Behar suggests — they are incredibly “consumable — a little bit like a popsicle.” You just hang them up like bushels of bananas near the exit and they fly out the door.

Another factor behind their success is their perceived utility. Although they were designed to be boating shoes, a lot of people think they were designed for nurses (who have long worn clogs and were quick to adopt Crocs) and chefs (thanks, in large part, to Mario Batali, who wears them everywhere–except the kitchen.) Crocs, in fact, look a lot like a line of European medical clogs made by Calzuro, which is what Batali wears to work. Anyway, as David Brooks well described in Bobos in Paradise, Americans love almost anything that is “professional grade” and Crocs have certainly benefited from this utilitarian aura.

Plus, you can’t miss them. Even photo editors who can’t tell Gucci from Prada can see when somebody’s wearing Crocs. This has resulted in an epidemic of celebrity Crocs sightings in the tabloids and the company has wisely abetted this “Starbucks effect” by heavily seeding their product with celebs, including at last year’s Emmy Awards.

The full story is here. Sorry for walking the line of shameless self-promotion, but hopefully it contributes to the conversation. I’d be interested to hear other theories.

I have a pair of the crocs flip-flops; and honestly? They’re some of the most comfortable shoes I’ve ever owned.

That’s pretty much my only reason for having a pair.

I am a new crocs convert, much to my husband’s annoyance. They are just really comfortable. They are the perfect dog run shoe because I can hose them down when they get dirty.
Also, while my other shoes may try to be cute or sexy or athletic and fail, the crocs aspire to nothing.

They aspire to nothing! I like that. And the hose-off factor is an interesting point, too. Though of course I’m curious about the annoyance of your husband — whoever he may be.

Jim — if you’re out there… that link didn’t seem to work. I will search the archives of Radar tomorrow, though.

Thanks for all opinions and thoughts … more are welcome.

Wait, I think this is it, yes?

It’s the perfect summer 2006 piece. (I’m disappointed to see the word “bobo” but thrilled to see the quotable LucJam weighing in.) What I’m to grasp is, despite the constant use of the word “fad,” it seems to be hanging on. I feel like this has crossed into some post-fad realm. It’s reached the escape velocity necessary to prevent it from being a Nehru shirt. It’s something else.

I think. . . .

We’ll have to see if they make it through the summer. I think it’s interesting that they actually made it to the coasts relatively late so it’s tough to tell where we are in the cycle — although Crocs did have a killer first quarter.

And here’s the link to the Radar story. (I had trouble finding it even in the previous post.)

http://radaronline.com/features/2006/09/clog_jam.php

RWalker,
I live in the land of the crocs (unfortunately) – Boulder, CO. Even to many of us locals the popularity leaves us scratching our heads, I can only equate it to the UGGS phemo – the rise of the ugly shoe. Wearing a pair is like walking in a styrofoam (sp?) chinese take out container – is this a good thing? And they are made in China – no manufacturing is based in the US.

I liken the crocs craze to the jellies of the eighties. (Those clear plastic shoes … which were really only popular with women.)

The interesting thing I saw yesterday at Disneyland was the branded shoes you could get there. Then they had “flair” you could add to the shoes (capitalizing on the people who like to buy all those enamel pins, I’m guessing). They were little button-like items in the shape of mickey or whatever that would fit into the little holes in the crocs.

I don’t care much one way or the other, if they’re comfortable and not a menace, go for it.

Hi Cybele, I definitely agree with the Jellies comparison — and with the Croc difference of getting men as well. I’ve seen some pix of the ones with the mickey mouse holes.

Also, J, I’ve definitely considered the similarities and differences to Uggs. They certinaly match on the polarizing factor. (As even this brief thread has shown!)

Jim, thanks for the clear link…. And you’re right, deducing the cycle is hard on this. They are much in evidence here in the provinces, that much I can say…

Honestly, I’m baffled too. My roommate, a nurse who works long shifts on her feet, was prescribed a pair by her doctor — she is embarrassed about the way the Crocs look but vouches for the comfort level. So much so that when the Crocs ballet flats emerged recently as a new style, I bought a pair (a cheap experiment), thinking that they’d have all the comfort but (slightly) less of the ugly. Verdict: meh. My birkenstocks are much comfier. Though I have to say, if I was a gardener with muddy feet or back at summer camp running in and out of the lake all day, I’d probably be sporting a pair too. And, never underestimate the power of peer consumption — kids want them because other kids have them (and I’m sure parents love them because they’re good for growing feet, easily cleaned, etc.). Seeing a gaggle of kids all Croc’d out in the park doesn’t phase me. Seeing a grown man in Crocs on the subway or on 5th avenue does. Can’t put my finger on why, beyond the obvious goofy rubber shoe factor. I dunno…