This week, when Bloomberg Magazine arrived at my doorstep, the photo of the gold-chain-laced red and white Nike’s immediately caught my attention as the cover stated, “This is Not a Shoe, It’s an Asset Class.” I flipped through it while sipping my coffee, and glanced at the photos of a facially-blurred out teenager casually sitting amongst thousands of sneaker boxes in multiple settings, including what looked like the outdoor deck of his home, and also a warehouse overflowing with boxes of shoes. All of this he’d apparently shared on the Instagram feed of his self-made company, West Coast Streetwear. I shook my head at the braggadocios look-what-i-have style of Gen Z’s influencer class, but also shrugged with a bit of respect that a 19 year-old had the hustle and strategic foresight to use “specialized computer programs such as Cybersole, Kodai, and GaneshBof” to build an empire of sneakers for lucrative, and legal reselling.

Hours later, a friend of mine who is a true sneakerhead, sent me a link to Bloomberg online, I thought, to read the same article I’d flipped through earlier. Instead I was directed to an update with a new headline: “Nike Executive Leaves Following Report about Son’s Business.”

It turned out, Joshua Hunt’s interview with the proud (cocky?) 19 year-old, wanting to prove his success to a journalist who needs documentation for journalistic integrity, unveiled a severe conflict of interest, and essentially, insider trading between mom and son. Credit card receipts and phone numbers for West Coast Streetwear were registered not to the Founder and CEO, Joe Hebert, but to his mom, Ann, a Nike employee of 25+ years. When questioned, this discovery pulled the string of confidence right out of the 19 year-old who  immediately stopped responding to the reporter, and unraveled the career of a woman who spent her life climbing the corporate ladder at one of the most well-known brands in the world.

As this story continues to permeate newsfeeds, I couldn’t help but think about how the lives of these two people, more importantly, that of Ann Hebert, had been essentially exposed (and Ann’s, destroyed), through the hubris of a 19 year-old. While her son had decided that thanks to his inside connection, he was raking in way more money as a sneaker reseller than a would-be college student, Ann had finished college in the 1990′s and within 2 years, started in ‘various sales rep roles’ at Nike, eventually climbing up the corporate, and once very male ladder at Nike, to Vice President, General Manager of Nike in North America. That is a significant mountain to climb. And while, according to Nike, she reported her son’s ‘side hustle’ back in 2018, it’s likely that the extent to which his business had grown, and that she was so deeply involved, definitely precluded her from any protection Nike would or could provide to a 25+ year loyalist employee. 

Imagine. Giving 25 years and 10 months to a company. Working for them for so long you knew all of the inner workings of it and the industry itself, and your son, who shared your mind for business, came up with his own company, that would allow him to live the same, or a more comfortable life that you yourself, worked so hard to provide. I can see the naiveté. Or maybe the ease of culpability. Ann Hebert is clearly implicated and involved, but that doesn’t make her downfall any less palatable to me. Maybe she would’ve been exposed, or maybe her son Joe could have continued to make his millions without implicating mom. Reselling of shoes is a gray area that I don’t claim to fully comprehend, and with software that allows you to automate bidding on rare shoes, its an industry and “asset class” that is clearly a corporate model that is already in existence. 

But, like many Gen Z’ers before him, it was Joe Hebert, and his naive desire to overshare, that caused his side hustle to crush his mom’s corporate climb of a career. There’s no outrunning this one, no matter how fly the shoes are. 

Hello Everyone,

So, I know I haven’t been on here in a while. I’ve been keeping busy with teaching classes, keeping myself afloat, etc. Plus, this Texas storm put a lot of things in disarray. There were a lot of people whose homes were flooded, as well as without electricity, heat, water, food, etc. A lot of the grocery stores had run out of food. In my case, I was without water for two days because the main pipe in my apartment complex had burst, so they had to turn the water off to keep apartments from flooding. I had to search for water. We are slowly, but surely starting to get back to what’s now considered normal.

So, the story. I just read an article about the Nike Executive that had to resign because her 19-year-old son charged her corporate credit card over $130,000 to fund his resale sneaker business. Ann Hebert, who had been with Nike for over 25 years and was most recently the company’s vice president and general manager for North America, had made the decision to resign from Nike. Her son, Joe Hebert, told Bloomberg Businessweek about his operation to purchase sneakers, and flip them for high profit. Reports say that he purchased $132,000 worth of Yeezys on his mom’s corporate credit card, and flipped them for a $20,000. He claimed that his mother had nothing to do with his business, but he obtained the shoes by knowing the right people and simply living in Portland, OR, where Nike headquarters is located.

After reading this article, here are my issues:

Why is this article calling him a 19-year-old teenager when he is a legal adult? (I find it funny how people of other races and ethnicities are considered children and teenagers, but African American children and teenagers are considered adults before they actually become adults, but we’re not going to talk about that today!)

Does this woman not look at her credit card statements? Does she not look at what charges are made on her account?

She didn’t see the boxes of shoes and wondered how her son was able to make this large purchase?

Does she always freely give her son her corporate credit card, or did he steal it? 🤔

I have never heard about this woman before, and I want to say that I feel bad for her, but there is so much confusion as to how this happened. Growing up, I never had access to anything of my parents until I was responsible enough to handle certain things. Of course, my mother taught me about those things, and there were times where she would send me in places to handle financial errands for her. She would always have her checks written out, and she had it organized as to what company received what check. As I became older, she explained money, paying bills, and credit to me. I’d never even seen my mom’s bank statement until I was almost in college, and I never seen any type of financial statements when it came to her place of employment, so I’m very confused as to how this 19-year-old young man was able to obtain his mother’s corporate credit card to make these purchases. I feel bad for her because she spent 25 years with Nike, and last year, she was just promoted to vice president and general manager. She was with this company for 25 years, and now she has to resign because of her son and his actions.

So, my next set of questions:

Is she now going to work with her son?

Did she lay out a detailed plan for her son to pay her back? (I already know the answer to this is NO.)

Again, how did your son get your CORPORATE CREDIT CARD?!

Is her son going to pay Nike back? (look at the answer to 2nd question)

If I was this lady, I know that my son and I would have to have a talk about his actions. If you would like to know more about this situation, you can read this article:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-hebert-nike-resigns-joe-sneaker-resale/

This is too much for me.