 |
|
|
|||||
At a time when mainstream brands live in fear of getting dragged into a contentious political landscape, theres something curiously benign, almost feel-good, about Florsheimgate. If youve somehow missed it, this particular instance of an involuntary pop-culture brand cameo came about following press reports this week that President Donald Trump has become an enthusiastand de facto brand ambassadorfor Florsheim dress shoes, gifting pairs to cabinet members and media allies. The upshot is that less-than-$150 Florsheims have become the hottest and most exclusive MAGA status symbol, according to The Wall Street Journal. But more to the point, administration insiders who dont find the brand hot in the slightest, and would likely prefer more luxurious footwear, are sticking with the shoes Trump gives themeven, weirdly, if they dont fit. This naturally caught the attention of MAGA critics, who promptly lit up social media with mockery of the 79-year-old presidents taste and allegedly Stalinesque bullying of his compliant minions. And this included some collateral damage for the venerable, and some might say dowdy, Florsheim. But really, even the inevitable dunking (what a dated mall brand!) seemed good-humored. Florsheim, one Bluesky user wrote. When a Gift From Wicks n Sticks Just Isnt Enough. Others added comments like florsheim didn’t go out of business in like 1978? and Florsheim shoes? Man, that guys brain really is stuck in the 80s and Ok I give. Whats Florsheim. And of course plenty of memes. I get the feeling well be discussing Florsheim shoes today.— (@sundaedivine.lol) 2026-03-11T10:18:31.168Z Funny, but well short of a dangerous brand backlash. Nobodys demonizing Florsheim-wearers in general, putting out videos of shooting up loafers, or organizing a grassroots brand-oppo campaign on behalf of Vuitton loafers. To the contrary, it seems, at worst, to be a short-term, almost charming free publicity reminder to those who dont know that the brand is still aroundand, apparently, thriving. Turns out, Florsheim enjoyed record wholesale sales of $92 million in 2025, according to parent Weyco Groups most recent earnings release and call earlier this month, demonstrating resilience in a declining market for non-athletic brown shoes. The Florsheim brand has a choppy history dating all the way back to 1892. Worn by everyone from Harry Truman to Michael Jackson, its a brand deeply embedded in American consumer culture, a staple brand of the suburban shopping malls heyday. But it also endured a bankruptcy filing in 2002. Its now part of the Weyco Group, whose CEO is Thomas Florsheim Jr., a fifth-generation Florsheim. (Sales of other Weyco brands Nunn Bush, Stacy Adams, and Bogs were down last year, dragging down revenue and earnings for the company overall.) Weyco did not respond to an inquiry from Fast Company, but CEO Florsheim told The Journal he was not aware of Trump’s orders (and declined further comment). In the conference call (which predated this weeks Trump fandom news), the CEO was upbeat, calling Florsheim one of the few mens [shoe] brands outside of the athletic category to sustain this level of post-pandemic growth. While the non-athletic brown shoe category has been in secular decline, Florsheim has bucked the trend and gained market share. Whether thats true or not, the association with Trump seems more like a passing entertainment than a brand controversy. At a moment of profound tension brought on by war and the threat of a new global oil crisis, Florsheimgate didnt land like a point of contention; it was more like comic relief. In an interesting footnote, Weyco noted in its earnings call that tariff impactswhich CEO Florsheim has groused about in the pastsignificantly affected gross margins in 2025. Those tariffs have since been judged illegal by the Supreme Court, and the company is optimistic about retrieving $16 million from tariff refunds. Maybe Trumps Cabinet members should keep a spare pair of another brands loafers at the office, just in case Florsheim goes out of fashion at the White House.
Category:
E-Commerce
For the first time that I can remember, this year I was completely enthralled by the Winter Olympics. In fact, I dont think Id ever watched the Winter Games before, but it really caught my attention this go-round. One event that really stood out for me was the skeleton. For the uninitiated (like I was just a month ago), the skeleton is a slide-based sport where athletes lie face down, headfirst, on a small slide going 80 mph down an icy, declining slope. On the surface, it doesnt look like it requires much from the athlete but to lie down and hang on for dear life until crossing the finish line. But upon further inspection, the sport is far more intricate, requiring the athlete to make subtle adjustments with their shoulders, knees, and even their toes to control and steer the sled. The slightest weight shifts can make the difference between first place and last. As if the Olympics werent competitive enough, the margin of error in this event is miniscule. I was fascinated, particularly about the idea of finding balance. Theres so much talk about work-life balance, work-self balance, and just about any other something-something balance where the two somethings seem to be at odds with each other. To find balance, we make subtle adjustments throughout our days and weeksblocking off time, making time, taking timein hopes of steering our lives and maintaining control of ourselves. However, according to Misan Harriman, balance is less of an act and more of a series of choices that informs action; its not what we decide to do but who we choose to be. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_16-9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_square_thumbnail.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"FROM THE CULTURE","dek":"FROM THE CULTURE is a podcast that explores the inner workings of organizational culture that enable companies to thrive, teams to win, and brands to succeed. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, then this is the most important conversation in business that you arent having.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Listen","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLvojPSJ6Iy0T4VojdtGsZ8Q4eAJ6mzr2h","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470870,"imageMobileId":91470866,"shareable":false,"slug":"","wpCssClasses":""}} Raw and honest moments of humanity Harriman is a photographer, activist, and Oscar-nominated filmmaker whose work has been prominently featured in publications like Vogue, celebrated on awards stages, and widely shared throughout the zeitgeist. His work captures the raw and honest moments of humanityin resistance, grief, joy, and all the many manifestations of our true existence. Our conversation with Harriman on the From the Culture podcast explored the balancing act of profitability and principle, where he argues that profit at all costs carries a heavy price tag that can cost us our authenticity. We make decisions at work that call into question the integrity of who we perceive ourselves to be outside of the office. Tech CEOs sell products to schools that they hardly ever let their own children use. Managers treat their subordinates in ways that would anger them if it were something their spouse had to endure. Whether its the way we communicate with peers or manage our presentation of self at work, far too often there is an imbalance between ourselveswho we say we are and how we are. Our inconsistent performances of self not only cause harm in our work but can also cause a crisis of authenticity. Fittingly, sociologist Erving Goffman likens the theatrical stage to the dynamics of social living, borrowing from William Shakespeares comedy As You Like It, where he writes, All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players. Our presentation of self, as Goffman posits, is a choice we make. We decide which character we choose to play in social life. This choice subsequently demands a series of decisions that coincides with said character. The costumery. The script. The mannerisms. The exits and entrances. They are all by-products of the character we choose to play. That is to say, who we choose to be informs how we choose to be. A choice of character Through this lens, the balancing act of work-life or work-self is a choice of character and commitment to it. And although we attempt to balance the existence of two characters with adjustments here and there, like the athletes in the skeleton event, these seemingly subtle shifts of self can have tremendous impact. The idea then is to remain true to self, one character that is consistent despite the context. This is, after all, the definition of authenticity. As Goffman warns, we should pay mind to the mask we choose to wear because if we arent careful, our mask could soon become our face. This means we have agency in the matter. We can decide who we want to be and, therefore, how were going to behave. We have a choice; but when we dont choose, the context will certainly choose for us. Check out our full conversation with Misan Harriman on the latest episode of From the Culture here on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_16-9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_square_thumbnail.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"FROM THE CULTURE","dek":"FROM THE CULTURE is a podcast that explores the inner workings of organizational culture that enable companies to thrive, teams to win, and brands to succeed. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, then this is the most important conversation in business that you arent having.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Listen","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLvojPSJ6Iy0T4VojdtGsZ8Q4eAJ6mzr2h","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470870,"imageMobileId":91470866,"shareable":false,"slug":"","wpCssClasses":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. military was able to strike a blistering 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours of its attack on Iran thanks in part to its use of artificial intelligence, according to The Washington Post. The military has used Claude, the AI tool from Anthropic, combined with Palantirs Maven system, for real-time targeting and target prioritization in support of combat operations in Iran and Venezuela. While Claude is only a few years old, the U.S. militarys ability to use it, or any other AI, did not emerge overnight. The effective use of automated systems depends on extensive infrastructure and skilled personnel. It is only thanks to many decades of investment and experience that the U.S. can use AI in war today. In my experience as an international relations scholar studying strategic technology at Georgia Tech, and previously as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, I find that digital systems are only as good as the organizations that use them. Some organizations squander the potential of advanced technologies, while others can compensate for technological weaknesses. Myth and reality in military AI Science fiction tales of military AI are often misleading. Popular ideas of killer robots and drone swarms tend to overstate the autonomy of AI systems and understate the role of human beings. Success, or failure, in war usually depends not on machines but the people who use them. In the real world, military AI refers to a huge collection of different systems and tasks. The two main categories are automated weapons and decision support systems. Automated weapon systems have some ability to select or engage targets by themselves. These weapons are more often the subject of science fiction and the focus of considerable debate. Decision support systems, in contrast, are now at the heart of most modern militaries. These are software applications that provide intelligence and planning information to human personnel. Many military applications of AI, including in current and recent wars in the Middle East, are for decision support systems rather than weapons. Modern combat organizations rely on countless digital applications for intelligence analysis, campaign planning, battle management, communications, logistics, administration, and cybersecurity. Claude is an example of a decision support system, not a weapon. Claude is embedded in the Maven Smart System, used widely by military, intelligence, and law enforcement organizations. Maven uses AI algorithms to identify potential targets from satellite and other intelligence data, and Claude helps military planners sort the information and decide on targets and priorities. The Israeli Lavender and Gospel systems used in the Gaza war and elsewhere are also decision support systems. These AI applications provide analytical and planning support, but human beings ultimately make the decisions. Researcher Craig Jones explains how the U.S. military is using artificial intelligence in its attack on Iran, and some of the issues that arise from its use. The long history of military AI Weapons with some degree of autonomy have been used in war for well over a century. Nineteenth-century naval mines exploded on contact. German buzz bombs in World War II were gyroscopically guided. Homing torpedoes and heat-seeking missiles alter their trajectory to intercept maneuvering targets. Many air defense systems, such as Israels Iron Dome and the U.S. Patriot system, have long offered fully automatic modes. Robotic drones became prevalent in the wars of the 21st century. Uncrewed systems now perform a variety of dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks on land, at sea, in the air and in orbit. Remotely piloted vehicles like the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper or Israeli Hermes 900, which can loiter autonomously for many hours, provide a platform for reconnaissance and strikes. Combatants in the Russia-Ukraine war have pioneered the use of first-person view drones as kamikaze munitions. Some drones rely on AI to acquire targets because electronic jamming precludes remote control by human operators. But systems that automate reconnaissance and strikes are merely the most visible parts of the automation revolution. The ability to see farther and hit faster dramatically increases the information processing burden on military organizations. This is where decision support systems come in. If automated weapons improve the eyes and arms of a military, decision support systems augment the brain. Cold War-era command-and-control systems anticipated modern decision support systems such as Israels AI-enabled Tzayad for battle management. Automation research projects like the U.S.s Semi-Automatic Ground Environment, or SAGE, in the 1950s produced important innovations in computer memory and interfaces. In the U.S. war in Vietnam, Igloo White gathered intelligence data into a centralized computer for coordinating U.S. airstrikes on North Vietnamese supply lines. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencys strategic computing program in the 1980s spurred advances in semiconductors and expert systems. Indeed, defense funding originally enabled the rise of AI. Organizations enable automated warfare Automated weapons and decision support systems rely on complementary organizational innovation. From the Electronic Battlefield of Vietnam to the AirLand Battle doctrine of the late Cold War and later concepts of network-centric warfare, the U.S. military has developed new ideas and organizational concepts. Particularly noteworthy is the emergence of a new style of special operations during the U.S. global war on terrorism. AI-enabled decision support systems became invaluable for finding terrorist operatives, planning raids to kill or capture them, and analyzing intelligence collected in the process. Systems like Maven became essential for this style of counterterrorism. The impressive American way of war on display in Venezuela and Iran is the fruition of decades of trial and error. The U.S. military has honed complex processes for gathering intelligence from many sources, analyzing target systems, evaluating options for attacking them, coordinating joint operations, and assessing bomb damage. The only reason AI can be used throughout the targeting cycle is that countless human personnel everywhere work to keep it running. AI gives rise to important concerns about automation bias, or the tendency for people to give excessive weight to automated decisions, in military targeting. But these are not new concerns. Igloo White was often misled by Vietnamese decoys. A state-of-the-art U.S. Aegis cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988. Intelligence mistakes led U.S. stealth bombers to accidentally strike the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, in 1999. Many Iraqi and Afghan civilians died due to analytical mistakes and cultural biases within the U.S. military. Most recently, evidence suggests that a Tomahawk cruise missile struck a girls school adjacent to an Iranian naval base, killing about 175 people, mostly students. This targeting could have resulted from a U.S. intelligence failure. Automated prediction needs human judgment The successes and failures of decision support systems in war are due more to organizational factors than technology. AI can help organizations improve their efficiency, but AI can also amplify organizational biases. While it may be tempting to blame Lavender for excessive civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, lax Israeli rules of engagement likely matter more than automation bias. As the name implies, decision support systems support human decision-making; AI does not replace people. Human personnel still play important roles in designing, managing, interpreting, validating, evaluating, repairing, and protecting their systems and data flows. Commanders still command. In economic terms, AI improves prediction, which means generating new data based on existing data. But prediction is only one part of decision-making. People ultimately make the judgments that matter about what to predict and how to use predictions. People have preferences, values, and commitments regarding real-world outcomes, but AI systems intrinsically do not. In my view, this means that increasing military use of AI is actually making humans more important in war, not less. Jon R. Lindsay is an associate professor of cybersecurity and privacy and of international affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||