TRENDING

SHARE:

STAY UP TO DATE

Receive daily posts by e-mail and sign up for the newsletter.

Discuss: Can We Talk About Sneex?

Aug 20, 2024

Two weeks ago, Sara Blakely — the visionary who bravely pulled women out of their pantyhose and plunged them into Spanx shapewear, making herself a billionaire in the process — started teasing a new game-changing product. Teaser videos filled her social feeds. Hints were dropped in interviews and newsletters. The words “revolutionary” and “disruptive” were dropped like names at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

This was going to be BIG.

Personally, from the moment I watched the first Instagram story, I was awash in anticipation. What Blakely-designed creation would I and every other over-30 influencer be turning into a billion-dollar success story this time? Whatever it was, I already needed ten.

Then, at the end of last week, the revelation came: Blakely had “invented” a line of athletic-shoe high heels called Sneex.

As I sat bewildered by the possibility that I now lived in a world where a sneaker high heel was no longer just an urban shoe myth, I struggled to process my confusion. So when influencers began speculating that this ugliness was actually a clever marketing gimmick, I bought in hard. Perhaps Blakely was hiding the real product behind something utterly monstrous to deepen the impact of the reveal?

Yes, that had to be it.

My hopes once again higher than the heel on her prototype-gimmick shoe, I waited for the real announcement on August 20th. I even scheduled time on the first day of my vacation to ensure that I could write a post extolling the virtues of Blakely’s new creation. I was all-in. So imagine the deep chasm of disappointment that emerged like a sinkhole in my heart when I learned that Sneex was not just a bit of public relations genius but the actual, live-in-the-flesh product.

Sneaker high heels are not a love letter, Sara. They’re a wearable cry for help.

They’re also deeply, comically, almost fatally impractical, an SNL sketch gone horribly awry. There is no occasion in my life as an attorney, mother, and woman who loves a dressy event when I need to wear high heels but can also wear a velcro’ed toddler sneaker on stilts. I’m more likely to wear actual stilts. At least then, I could reach things on the high shelves without help from my husband.

Even the author of this Vogue piece about Sneex hid her face behind her hair to ensure that she could not be identified as someone who wears hybrid sneaker heels.

Upon realizing that Sneex was not a nostalgic early 2000s Punk’d throwback, I immediately posted the announcement video to my Instagram. In this difficult time, I needed community more than ever. My readers did not disappoint with their responses.

“These are tragic.”

“Checks Calendar: Nope, August 20, not April 1.”

“Does she need a big loss to write off? This has to be a tax avoidance scheme.”

“This is why rich people need more friends who will humble them.”

“Her whole announcement video shows work pumps the entire time and then she ends up with the ugly sneaker high heel!?!? No. No one asked for that. No one is paying you $595 for that!”

Oh, yes, did I forget to mention that a pair of these Hy-Heels (yes, that’s what they’re actually called) cost more than my monthly car payment? Well, they do.

It’s a testimony to the genius of Sara Blakely that even as I stare at a sneaker high heel that makes my eyes bleed, I still want to order a pair just to see if I’m wrong. Maybe I can wear them to court under the widest palazzo suit pants the world has ever seen. Or under an evening gown hemmed to french-kiss the floor. You know, so my feet can be comfortable but no one ever, ever finds out that I’m wearing sneaker high heels. But if the only way I can bear to think about putting on your shoes is if I completely conceal them from public view, doesn’t that give me my answer?

And also, does Blakely know how much money $595 is? Or is the cost of two weeks worth of groceries for an American family just rounding error to a woman who belongs to the Three Comma Club?

Maybe Blakely thinks she’s competing with Jimmy Choo or Christian Louboutin whose shoes cost even more, but neither brand has ever claimed that their footwear wouldn’t make your toes fracture. They sell those ankle breakers to women who want you to know that they can afford that level of suffering. Louboutin paints the soles red to hide the blood (and to make sure that no one near you fails to notice the thousand-dollar bill on your feet).

In Sneex’ category, Inez and Sarah Flint are playing the pain-free high heel game for around half of the cost. My readers, professional women over-30 are Blakely’s customers, and yet, my own sales metrics tell me that even at $298, the brands mentioned above are still a reach for most women.

InStyle may be sure Sneex are about to sell out, but I highly doubt it. A pricey running shoe-high heel hybrid is likely to generate more pained sideways glances than bringing up AOC at your Great Aunt Mona’s Thanksgiving dinner party.

Jokes aside, I’m genuinely broken hearted about this announcement and the shoe’s delusional price tag. It feels very much like Blakely set out to make a comfortable, traditional high-heel only to realize it was impossible. Then, instead of calling it quits, she decided that she had the gravitas to convince women to trade in their pumps for sneakers with a lift kit. As if we would all strap down the velcro tabs on our Sneex, march down Fifth Avenue arm in arm, and burn our sensible pumps and sky high stilettos in a barrel outside Bergdorf Goodman.

I was genuinely ready for Blakely to disrupt the shoe industry. I was ready to love wearing high heels again, to strut down a sidewalk at midnight on my way to an Uber and have a barefoot, tipsy twenty-something ask me who made my shoes. I deeply wanted to feel that pang of superiority when I told her how comfortable they were. But it was not to be.

Blakely lifted the curtain on her revolutionary, game-changing, disruptive invention to the sound of silence. But it appears she couldn’t hear the crickets over the din of hundreds of yes-women and Gayle King telling her how phenomenal it was. But her customer base definitely heard the quiet as we returned our credit cards to the safety of our wallets.

{all images are credited to the Sneex website}

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Amy says:

    Some of us lived through the wedge sneaker days and we do not feel the need to relive them, especially at a designer price point. Uffda.

  2. Amy says:

    Apparently I still have comments. I keep looking at “Sneex” as a brand name. I know in my head it’s a play/evolution out of “Spanx,” but I’ll be damned if I can’t help but read it as “Sneeze” and then want to say “bless you.”

  3. Kelly says:

    On the one hand the quotes from the Vogue article imply non-sneaker shoes are coming, on the other there are no half sizes available? This is so unhinged, and I will probably read multiple article about it.

  4. CitrineDC says:

    These shoes are beyond cringey. But Abra, your write-up, on the other hand, is brilliant, so funny! Maybe you can grab a pair at Marshall’s in 6 months!

  5. sara says:

    oh my god? what a fail.

  6. Betsy says:

    The emperor has no clothes!

    These are terrible.

  7. Kristen says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/05/sally-quinn-high-heels/

    I think Sally said it best, “
    Because I’m giving up one aspect of my image, that’s why. I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but on the other hand I wore shoes that killed me to appeal to men. I have to admit that I’m somewhat ashamed of my hypocrisy here. I felt sexy and empowered in high heels; I know I can still be these things without swanning around town in stilts”

  8. Emma says:

    Wow. These are so awful. And I’m a mid 30s professional with a pretty well compensated professional job, and $300 is on the higher end of what I will pay for really nice shoes. I spent $400 on my wedding shoes, and that’s the most I have ever spent. I cannot imagine wanting these ever if they were $30 at Payless. Who market tested these? Are some people so easily influenced?

  9. Rory says:

    I thought those were ugly back in 2003 and I have not changed my mind.

  10. Anna C says:

    These are horrifying on so many levels – from the design to the price point. Especially in our current economy, who wants to drop $600 on shoes??

  11. Kristen L says:

    I have been anxiously awaiting your commentary and, as usual, did not disappoint! Thank you for saying what we are all thinking… but more eloquently than I ever could!!!! What a disappointment.

  12. Lindsay says:

    I love how Sneex thinks its the design that makes high heels uncomfortable and not the fact that your heel is not naturally lifted 3 inches all the time.

  13. Anna says:

    I haven’t followed the Sneex release super closely other than seeing the social media posts, but I just read The Broadsheet write-up, and they mention how Blakely made structural changes to the shoes to address some of the biggest comfort issues with heels. It seems like none of the substantive changes have anything to do with the appearance, so why make them look horrendous?

    • Belle says:

      I know one of the big changes was opening the toe box. I’m not sure you can keep the traditional shape and do that, but maybe don’t go full sneaker?

      • Anna says:

        That’s true, but even more opportunity to do something actually original. Heels as sneakers isn’t original. Seems like a copout.

  14. s-p-c says:

    Terrific post, Abra. Remember when Cole Haan dress shoes had Nike Air technology? That’s the type of approach that works to make professional shoes more comfortable, rather than making casual shoes more uncomfortable.

  15. J says:

    I could see the pair she is holding on a bride at a wedding reception under a big dress that hides them. But not for $595.

  16. Alisha says:

    This was the article and the friend I needed to process this.

  17. J says:

    Agree wholeheartedly. Ordered 2 pair to give them a shot – well worth the $15 return fee to satisfy my curiosity- truly as bad in person as they look online, not to mention they are really not that comfortable in my humble opinion- not enough to justify paying for them or wearing them with a straight face.

    Wondering if the R&D team missed these as well?
    https://antoniasaintny.com

    https://marionparke.com/pages/about-marion-parke

  18. Ashley says:

    You hit the nail on the head. This was not thought through and she is out of touch with Real women and price gouging such a high price for an athletic shoe with a stiletto makes no sense logically. If you’re gonna make a comfy heel , make it look sexy!!!

  19. Shanna says:

    They are a fun splurge. Comfy as hell. And WAY cuter than some of the ungodly shoes that also kill your feet. Just got the pink.
    PS: I saw these in a magazine (Vanity Fair) worn by a woman in the article, used Google lens to find out what they were and sent the link to my husband for my upcoming birthday. Not “influenced” to buy. Reading the snarky, stuck up hate for these just makes me want to wear them ALL THE TIME. Thanks!

    • Belle says:

      If you enjoy them and will use them, then they’re great for you. But I and the many other commenters on this article will likely never buy or wear or even try on a pair. And contrary to what the fawning hosts of the Today show may believe, if 90% of people are confused by or repulsed by your product, it’s not the next billion dollar idea. As for the tone of your comment, this is a fashion blog, it comments on fashion. There is no wrong, or right, just a product that will be quietly retired from shelves in a couple of years.

  20. Hayley Sykes says:

    TOTALLY AGREE. These things are vile, and they are also scarily similar to those horrible platform sneakers that were everywhere in the naughties.

things that caught my eye

AS FEATURED IN