Why aren't minimalist shoes minamally priced as well?

Here's the deal. Minimal shoes are superior to traditional shoes because they have less engineered techno gadgetry and none of that nonsense engineered cushioning material popularly referred to as a "midsole."

Minimal shoes cost more than traditional shoes because they are born from extensive R&D, carefully engineered for natural foot movements and proprioceptive feedback.

It makes perfect sense.

Either that or companies charged way too little back in 1972.

I don't wear minimalist shoes (I can't. Insanely super high arches, my orthopedic doc who works with athletes recommends good cushioning), but have noticed prices going up on all models, sometimes as much as 20% from one version to the next. As a result, I've been flipping between Asics, Mizuno, Adidas and Saucony, basically buying whatever expired models are available in my size at a discount from Holabird. I'd prefer sticking to one, but they change so much between one version to the next it doesn't really matter anyway.

doclove wrote:

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

Fair point. I generally think of willingness to pay as part of the demand function. And you are absolutely right to say that the relationship between price and demand is sometimes such that there is higher demand for a good at a higher price. It those cases, I would say it's generally the case that those goods are differentiating themselves with reputation...and is indeed a reason why Nike can charge a higher price for something than a firm you've never heard of.

I also think you're correct in saying that the minimalist shoe consumer is likely to be made up of people who don't want a cheap shoe. That could help keep prices higher for longer. Still though, I think as more people want to serve this market, we will see lower priced entrants. Reading some of the comments, this seems to be happening already.

old guy 24 wrote:

I feel more ripped off spending $10-12 for a pair of socks!

This.

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.[/quote]

Here you go:

http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?pdesc=Body-Glove-Mens-Triton-Water-Shoe&i=451394&aID=502R6&merchID=4006

btw, one problem with huaraches in my experience is downhills. The strap really jams in between your toes to the extent I'm afraid it will break.

career shoe guy wrote:

(retailers set the selling price).

Do you know what "MSRP" stands for? How bout "UMAP?"

oh brother wrote:

(Example: someone without Nike's R&D budget, say Sketchers, wants to grow in this sector. They can't really differentiate on design, but they are capable of producing something "good enough" and have the scale to sell it to the mass market. You could see them making a big push here as they look to grow their athletics segment).

You don't know what you are talking about with regard to Skechers. The GoRun was a completely new innovation, that I had never experienced anything like for the past 30 years. They took the concept further with some extra soft flexible cushion in the GoRide, which I followed up with, and they are my current 'go-to' trainers. So I the I tried the GoTrain, and they not only are my favorite, minimal drop and comfortable walking shoe, but I get acquaintances (both female and male) ask me about the cool looking shoes, which rarely happened before.

I'm waiting to eventually try the GoBionic when I get ready to race.

Bob Dobbs wrote:

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

...

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.

^^THIS!

Maybe the answer to your question is the shoe company did not want to see the masses of runners getting 2000 miles on a pair of shoes.

There were three Adidas adzero models, including the PR, that came out around the same time five years ago. I had the white/red stripe model, which was ver comfortable, and I put hundreds of miles on that shoe before the upper wore out. I was bummed when Adidas discontinued the shoes and the replacement manaya(?) was no where near the same shoe!

I got the red/silver version. I think it's been my favorite shoe from the last few years as well. I stocked up on them and am currently using my last pair from the stockpile. I should be able to get a year or more out of it as I got over 2,000 miles on the other pairs and I rotate with other models. But I'll be sorry when the last pair is done.

VERY clever !

These threads about minimalist, barefoot, and the guy in flip flops have me interested to order an invisible shoe kit. I'll probably order the 6mm thickness. It would be neat to run all my base miles in these.

Comments from those who have run in huaraches are much appreciated.