Why aren't minimalist shoes minamally priced as well?

The reason that Nike shoes cost more than Wal Mart is more to do with LO (Labor & Overhead) costs. Any reputable footwear brand works with factories that enforce fair labor practices. These brands also invest in people, machinery, development and continue to push the envelope to improve quality from both a product as well as an environmental position. The Wal Mart philosophy is not to lead, but to follow… There is no investment here, just the philosophy of delivering trend relevant product to market as quickly as quickly and cheaply as possible. The only research done is to copy a legit brand designs and having the cheapest factory build them.

BTW – I would suspect that most reputable brands work on a 48-55% margin on FOB. The reason that Racing flats are so costly is that the mold costs have to be amortized over fewer pairs.

I use Body Glove water socks (Triton model) which I bought for $20 at Sport Chalet. I bought two pairs since they're so cheap but haven't yet worn out the first pair after a few years. I'm sure no-name water socks from a drugstore or Walmart would be cheaper. One modification I made was to replace the elastic laces with a regular shoe string. With that change, they don't flop around on my feet anymore.

I've also made Huaraches (leather soles, strips of bicycle inner tube for the straps) for about $7 each. Those are ok but not as good as the water socks.

Both these are better than a lot of minimalist shoes because most of the shoes have pretty stiff soles. The Vibrams are flexible but I've never liked them too much.

here are some very cheap minimal shoes http://www.invisibleshoe.com/

As an experiment, I took an old pair of Nike Free 3.0s to the cobbler and had him grind the heels down to the level of the forefoot.

It cost me $15, and now -- as Free 0.0s -- they feel much, much better than the originals ever did. And I loved those. So I had the same thing done with a second pair. Again, great results.

I figure I'll probably get another 2,000 miles out of each pair.

Good thing, too. The reviews of the latest version of the 3.0 aren't good.

I'll never understand why Nike discontinued the progression from 3.0 to 0.0, which I thought was the original plan. They've really missed a chance to compete better with all the other minimalist shoes on the market now.

Boring Old Man wrote:

I use Body Glove water socks (Triton model) which I bought for $20 at Sport Chalet. I bought two pairs since they're so cheap but haven't yet worn out the first pair after a few years. I'm sure no-name water socks from a drugstore or Walmart would be cheaper. One modification I made was to replace the elastic laces with a regular shoe string. With that change, they don't flop around on my feet anymore.

I've also made Huaraches (leather soles, strips of bicycle inner tube for the straps) for about $7 each. Those are ok but not as good as the water socks.

Both these are better than a lot of minimalist shoes because most of the shoes have pretty stiff soles. The Vibrams are flexible but I've never liked them too much.

This is more like what I'm interested to wear. What are water socks? I got a pair of beach shoes from Walmart for $6 a few years ago and they lasted a long time.

Bob Dobbs wrote:

As an experiment, I took an old pair of Nike Free 3.0s to the cobbler and had him grind the heels down to the level of the forefoot.

It cost me $15, and now -- as Free 0.0s -- they feel much, much better than the originals ever did. And I loved those. So I had the same thing done with a second pair. Again, great results.

I figure I'll probably get another 2,000 miles out of each pair.

Awesome. I got a grinder from Harbor Freight, specifically for grinding down running shoes.

twilight comparison wrote:

here are some very cheap minimal shoes

http://www.invisibleshoe.com/

Huaraches. How do you like them?

Kyle, what fool would want goats leather uppers on a running shoe?

Its companies like this that market pseudo-running crap to hobby joggers that are a part of the problem.

Nothing in any minimalist shoe Ive ever seen can justify a price much more than $30.

R&D

J.R. wrote:

Bob Dobbs wrote:

As an experiment, I took an old pair of Nike Free 3.0s to the cobbler and had him grind the heels down to the level of the forefoot.

It cost me $15, and now -- as Free 0.0s -- they feel much, much better than the originals ever did. And I loved those. So I had the same thing done with a second pair. Again, great results.

I figure I'll probably get another 2,000 miles out of each pair.

Awesome. I got a grinder from Harbor Freight, specifically for grinding down running shoes.

Nice. I'll have to look into that.

here is the conspiracy video about this topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci_6CQ5R558

Because people will pay more to get less.

Ballet slippers next on the running circuit.

Pricing will really depend on the supply and demand of the product. If the shoes is really in demand, it will really increase in price.

Kicker wrote:

Because people will pay more to get less.

Ballet slippers next on the running circuit.

Our coach in college handed out ballet slippers for us to wear in cross country races many decades ago.

Bob Dobbs wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Awesome. I got a grinder from Harbor Freight, specifically for grinding down running shoes.

Nice. I'll have to look into that.

This is the one that I got.

you guys have no idea what you are talking about. i am a former competitive runner with 30 years in the shoe business including most of the last 20 in Asia where i source, develop, negotiate prices, produce, inspect footwear...and i can assure you that pricing and producing your running shoes is not the rip off that you think it is. they are not made in Thailand or Sri Lanka (primary sources are China, Vietnam and Indonesia at the moment) and they are most certainly not made by kids making 25 cents an hour.

Demand had little to do with it (other than buying more pairs from a factory will get you a lower price per pair from the factory which means the shoe company will sell them to a retailer at a lower price which means the retailer will sell them to you at a lower price) and shoe companies do not "jack up" the price to consumers (retailers set the selling price). In fact, every shoe company I know does everything they can to keep the price as low as possible.

When I see the Saucony Bullet selling for $58, the adidas Adzero PR selling for about the same when it was around, the Puma H Street selling for about the same and then I see the Mizuno Wave Universe selling for $120 or so, I have a hard time believing that Mizuno is doing everything possible to keep the price down.

But if you had the time and were willing to break down the making and marketing of the Wave Universe and compare it to something like the Bullet I might be convinced.

Niche market, and most people in it are the types who will pay lots for all sorts of things.

A minimalist shoe that is minimally-priced is basically a low-end XC spikeless model. I had been running in them for over a decade before the Five Fingers / Nike Free / NB Minimus caught on. I have to admit I really like Inov-8's most minimal models (Bare-X 180 and Bare-X 200), and I am willing to pay a little extra for them, but for anybody on a budget who wants minimal, a $60 spikeless XC shoe should do the job. Want really minimal? Try a ballet slipper.

1. Research and development costs

2. Cost to get the goods to market (raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, etc.)

3. Promotion of the goods

4. Demand for the goods

5. Supply level for the goods '

You missed one thing - what people want to pay for things

Plenty of people would turn their noses up a a $40 dollar coat but buy the same coat if the label said $200