Dennis Reynolds 2.0 wrote:
I'd be intersted to try running in Skechers. I know a lot of people bash them based on reputation (hell I do it too) but I am sure 99% of the people doing that haven't actually tried the shoes.
On a whim i bought pair of the Ultras , not a bad shoe at all. Outsole compounding needs a little work for better wear , good road feel and support , great value for the money.
I've heard that the Skechers are priced too low for running stores to make enough money on. The mark up on running shoes is usually around 100%.
Say they buy Skechers for $40 and sell them for $80 they only make $40.
They buy Nikes for $65 and sell for $130 they make $65.
That's significant.
My Skechers Ride 3 feel very similar to the second version of the Free (my favorite shoe...I've been running for 38 years)
Don't knock Skechers if you haven't tried them...they are legit.
how do skechers size compared to Nike ? Asics?..
old guy 68 wrote:
I've heard that the Skechers are priced too low for running stores to make enough money on. The mark up on running shoes is usually around 100%.
Say they buy Skechers for $40 and sell them for $80 they only make $40.
They buy Nikes for $65 and sell for $130 they make $65.
That's significant.
That's a crap reason. Sell more shoes! You could get 2 pairs of Skechers for the price of one pair of Hokas. The logic of some people is beyond me.
My running store put in a $250K at-once order today. Real-deal, this community reacts to performance.
I've run in the GoRun 3, the Ultra, and the GoRun 2 Meb. The all fit true to size. I really like the Ultra for training and the Run 3 for intervals. I can't say how long they will last, but that's not a big concern for me. I'll just touch up the outsole with Shoe Goo if it wears too fast.
The old Skechers felt a little too thick in the midfoot for me, but the newer models are better.
Count me as a Skechers fan
old guy 68 wrote:
I've heard that the Skechers are priced too low for running stores to make enough money on. The mark up on running shoes is usually around 100%.
Say they buy Skechers for $40 and sell them for $80 they only make $40.
They buy Nikes for $65 and sell for $130 they make $65.
That's significant.
____________________________________________________________
Count me as a Skechers fan wrote:
That's a crap reason. Sell more shoes! You could get 2 pairs of Skechers for the price of one pair of Hokas. The logic of some people is beyond me.
___________________________________________________________
Hey Skechers fan... I had the owner of a Specialty Running store tell me this was the reason he didn't carry them.
So, the store owner would have to sell two pairs of Skechers to make the same amount of money he would make by selling one pair of Hokas.
It's your logic that is flawed.
The store owner is considering it from his point of view, you from the buyers.
(PS: I always thought that Skechers only wanted to sell their performance running shoes in their own stores.)
But he would also have to invest more money to clear that profit, which isn't without a cost. There's also the probability that people who come to your store to buy a shoe that's not available elsewhere will buy other things there.
Fact , there are far more $90 retail runners than there are $160 retail runners.
That $90 purchase allows add-on purchases of socks , shorts etc etc.
Any retailer with a brain understands the math to increase traffic in their store with certain price points. I would also venture to say somebody who is looking at Hoka is probably not considering a Skechers shoe.
idiots galore wrote:
Fact , there are far more $90 retail runners than there are $160 retail runners.
That $90 purchase allows add-on purchases of socks , shorts etc etc.
Any retailer with a brain understands the math to increase traffic in their store with certain price points. I would also venture to say somebody who is looking at Hoka is probably not considering a Skechers shoe.
____________________________________________________________
Your first FACT is wrong. When you look at the average income of runners it is high. Most runners are willing to spend more money for a shoe they like.
Your last statement is also wrong. I ran in the Free for four years (the second version, which I loaded up on when they changed it....15 pair) I now have the Skechers Ultra, Skechers Ride 3 (similar to the Free) and a pair of Hokas.
I do agree with you that... the smart thing for retailers to do would be to carry a shoe like Skechers.
_
Any retailer with a brain understands the math to increase traffic in their store with certain price points
Your last statement is also wrong. I ran in the Free for four years (the second version, which I loaded up on when they changed it....15 pair) I now have the Skechers Ultra, Skechers Ride 3 (similar to the Free) and a pair of Hokas.
____________________________________________________________
Actually, old guy, his last statement is correct. It is called "Price Discrimination." Thought generally geared toward different price points for same product (i.e. senior citizens discounts for movies), the same principle applies. While you believe most runners are rich, white couples named joe and nancy smith, it would make sense to carry affordable shoes that are geared towards those with less than $300k/year income. I'm not proposing that shoes retailers sell everything from $15-$160, but $70 for a pair of shoes seems reasonable to catch someone with that particular price point.
If you don't believe me, take a look at Neiman Marcus website. They offer Gucci horsebit loafers for $550/pair. Additionally, they offer Cole Haan loafers for $150 - almost a quarter of the cost of Gucci loafers. While CH is a nice brand of shoes, why would they target the CH market and the Gucci market given that most people that visit Neiman Marcus are generally high income earners?
And no, just about every single runner I know is a price hawk and refuses to pay more for a shoe.
