They sell for at least $100 a pair, materials can't be too expensive, they beat Japanese for labor and pay them hay. What am I missing? Why hasn't someone came in and sold quality running shoes online for $50?
They sell for at least $100 a pair, materials can't be too expensive, they beat Japanese for labor and pay them hay. What am I missing? Why hasn't someone came in and sold quality running shoes online for $50?
Could be totally off wrote:
They sell for at least $100 a pair, materials can't be too expensive, they beat Japanese for labor and pay them hay. What am I missing? Why hasn't someone came in and sold quality running shoes online for $50?
Because then they would not make as much money.
Like any product, there is overhead and a staff who designs and does marketing. Those people need to be paid. Then the retail outlets have to pay their overhead and employees on top of the cost price.
All parties must make a good profit or else what is the point?
Companies with great marketing or great technology need to get paid more money for the products because they cost more to make.
For the level of quality and selection you get these days the prices are reasonable because there are profits balanced by good competition.
Shoes have not been made in Japan for decades.
Each step in the chain needs to make money, the biggest chunk goes to the running store, but they are hardly rolling in it.
That is why if the shoe retails for $100, you can buy it on the web for $80 (or thereabouts), until it becomes old stock, then you can buy it on closeout for less.
But the big brands (and there are many) want to sell in a running store because that is easiest for everyone, and at least SOME of the shoes have to be sold in running stores. So, in order for every link to make a little money, said shoes need to be $100 in a store.
You could start a web-only brand but the consumers could not try the shoes on, so there would be many returns. There is a good reason why things as diverse as running shoes, bikes, car tires, TVs, stereos and cars are still sold in stores ... even though we have the internet now.
The wholesale margins aren't that crazy, what is crazy is when the brands sell directly to the consumer at full retail. This is a huge trend in the industry and you can see why. A shoe that wholesales for $55 can be sold at retail for $100. The store makes $45 profit and the brand makes $25. If the brand sells it directly to the customer for $100 they make $75. The stores don't like it but they have no choice.
Running stores buy shoes for about half of what we buy them for.
Ex- a shoe that cost $55 for a running store to buy will have a suggest retail price of about $110-120. As said above, there is a lot that goes into it, the R&D costs of the shoes (paying employees, molds, materials, etc.) and then the running stores have to buy the shoes in which they also have to pay overhead and employees.
Now if you got any brand specialty store and pay full market retail price... then that is a rip.
Supply Vs. Demand
Do they sell at that price?
Is there an overstock?
When the shoes are not selling at the MSRP, then the prices will come down. For now, supply and demand are about equal.
Gross not same as net people
Designing, marketing, distributing
There could be $50 shoes out there but you either haven't heard of them or assume they're crap because of poor marketing
In the 70s you could run a marathon for $5-$7 and buy shoes for $25-$30.
Now a marathon costs $100-$250 and shoes are $80-$170.
Because Real runners buy less than a 1/1000 of all running shoes. The rest goes to joggers who are most concerned about colors.
The big brands don't like their product discounted and they have ways to make sure retailers keep their prices up.
In the 70s pregnant women smoked too.
profit margins of races..... wrote:
In the 70s you could run a marathon for $5-$7 and buy shoes for $25-$30.
Now a marathon costs $100-$250 and shoes are $80-$170.
While it may be more expensive when compared correctly, you display ignorance by comparing as if $1 then is the same as $1 now. It's not.
Assuming your numbers are correct, from 1970 to 2015, you'd multiply them by 6.23 to get the correct comparison. Shoes would be cheaper on average and marathons more expensive, but nowhere near what you're suggesting.
Retardalert.. wrote:
profit margins of races..... wrote:In the 70s you could run a marathon for $5-$7 and buy shoes for $25-$30.
Now a marathon costs $100-$250 and shoes are $80-$170.
While it may be more expensive when compared correctly, you display ignorance by comparing as if $1 then is the same as $1 now. It's not.
Assuming your numbers are correct, from 1970 to 2015, you'd multiply them by 6.23 to get the correct comparison. Shoes would be cheaper on average and marathons more expensive, but nowhere near what you're suggesting.
LOL! But I excuse your idiocy because you warned us with your handle.
In the 70s shoes were 4-5 times as expensive than a marathon. Now shoes are 0.75 * times as expensive.
the sad truth wrote:
Because Real runners buy less than a 1/1000 of all running shoes. The rest goes to joggers who are most concerned about colors.
far more running shoes go to the general public as shoes to walk around in or blue collar work in.
and yoga soccer moms.
the sad truth wrote:
Because Real runners buy less than a 1/1000 of all running shoes. The rest goes to joggers who are most concerned about colors.
This. The price is high because most consumers think there is value in fancy colors and the latest BS shoe technology. It is so firmly ingrained in our mentality that we will actually pay more than we want to.
I think a lot of "real runners" buy last years model of their favorite shoe because they realize the updates are generally cosmetic.
Is it true that the foam in shoes "expire"?
Read Marx. Price must exceed cost for profit to be possible. Workers and consumers are victims.