$80 for a t-shirt or $70 for a tank top? Would love to hear the justification for their prices.
$80 for a t-shirt or $70 for a tank top? Would love to hear the justification for their prices.
Swiss stuff is expensive to export... over-built, over-priced.
The $250 on jacket is amazing. Have had it for 18 months and it’s held up really well. Great in many conditions. Super super thin.
Basic business plan. You have to remember that they aren't selling to the Letsrun crowd. Many recreation runners have disposable money. You price it higher people think they are getting a better product and it might be slightly better.
ON has to decide will the sell twice as many shirts at $40 than $80. Just an estimate but you are better off selling 1,000 shirts at $80 that 2,500 at $40
Heard a story a few years ago about a restaurant that had several cases of wine that they were having trouble selling at $30 a bottle. They marked it down to $25, then $20, then $15 but still couldn't sell it. Then they marked it up to $80 a bottle and in a week, it was all sold.
One reason is that it is high quality, well-thought out stuff.
The other is that they aren't aiming for mass market clothing. You can go to any mall or fea market and see people with the Swoosh, three-stripes, UA, or Puma logos on they clothing. That isn't going to happen with On and I expect On and a lot of their customers like it that way.
Because there are idiots out there who will pay.
Their shoes are sub par. All of them.
It's the same reason why people pay for Vineyard Vines or quickly depreciating, overpriced cars. There's not too much of a difference between it and regular stuff, but it's a status symbol if you have it.
clother wrote:
It's the same reason why people pay for Vineyard Vines or quickly depreciating, overpriced cars. There's not too much of a difference between it and regular stuff, but it's a status symbol if you have it.
They may think it's a status symbol, but it's an idiot symbol.
Idiots everywhere. wrote:
clother wrote:
It's the same reason why people pay for Vineyard Vines or quickly depreciating, overpriced cars. There's not too much of a difference between it and regular stuff, but it's a status symbol if you have it.
They may think it's a status symbol, but it's an idiot symbol.
Exactly. There's a very niche community of people that care if you wear it. (ie. upper class, middle age, not particularly fast runners) If you're trying to fit in with those people, sure, buy all the On you want. Everyone else just thinks you're not too smart with your money.
To prevent poor, ugly people from wearing them.
Yeah agree I overpaid for On Clouds and the running shirt, but the On Running jacket is worth the price. Super lightweight, breathable bottom half with water resistant top half. Functional hood with a firm bill can be cinched down over a hat or beanie in tough conditions and also functional chest pocket.
I wear it as a windshirt down to windproof layer over fleece vest in the winter rain or snow. I'm a couple years in on mine. Great for travel -- looks good around town in the gray version.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
clother wrote:
Idiots everywhere. wrote:
They may think it's a status symbol, but it's an idiot symbol.
Exactly. There's a very niche community of people that care if you wear it. (ie. upper class, middle age, not particularly fast runners) If you're trying to fit in with those people, sure, buy all the On you want. Everyone else just thinks you're not too smart with your money.
If you look at any bigger road race that segment is the biggest (middle aged middle class, fairly slow), not the LRC geeks. If you come to a road race wearing cheap stuff you will been seen as odd.
This post was removed.
Wealthy people love to play and watch tennis.
(Country Clubs)
Roger Federer is ONs biggest athlete endorser.
Therefore the upper class demands ON gear as a class symbol and ON supplies them with the gear at an upper class price.
That’s it.
clother wrote:
Idiots everywhere. wrote:
They may think it's a status symbol, but it's an idiot symbol.
Exactly. There's a very niche community of people that care if you wear it. (ie. upper class, middle age, not particularly fast runners) If you're trying to fit in with those people, sure, buy all the On you want. Everyone else just thinks you're not too smart with your money.
Poor people are so sensitive.
lovelybones wrote:
$80 for a t-shirt or $70 for a tank top? Would love to hear the justification for their prices.
Given how relatively hard it can be to find a lightweight rain proof jacket - and simply that jackets are a more substantial thing that one buys less of - I can understand "splurging" on a few expensive jackets (and pants). [And I love the phrase "water resistant." I think that is as compared to a jacket made of cotton gauze!]
But geez, the second I see a short-sleeved shirt or tank top that costs $50 or more, I immediately disregard it. And while I'm pretty cheap, I do have more than enough disposable income and have never been terribly shy about spending a lot on running clothes and shoes. It's simply consumer "principle," I guess. I've bought enough shirts and tanks over the years to simply know that it's completely possibly to make a great shirt for less than $50.
Interesting, too, the companies that play it both ways. Nike is probably the best example. Can sell perfectly good running shirts for $35. But then also sell ones for twice or more of that. Complete BS from an "added value" standpoint, but I guess silly people have money to burn.
[Ditto for shorts....although not completely, given that Nike has apparently permanently un-learned how to make a correctly-sized liner....after getting it right for at least 40 years]