Are running shoe companies colluding to set the MSRP of new shoes to be at least $120?

Considering many pairs do not cost $120, no

It's hobby joggers ruining it for everyone, again. They're willing to drop $150 for shoes and $200+ to "run" marathons. I'll be glad when this nonsense is over.

It keeps saying "Discounts not applicable. Restricted by manufacturer" when I put in a coupon code.

Running shoes are now almost as expensive as registering for a rock n roll race

I only buy old new shoes, "last year's model" and stock up. Recently Saucony Guide prior edition $90, "London" design to boot.

It's called Manufacturer Approved Pricing. Look it up.

Most large brands do it. Legal price fixing.

SuperSlimShady 100mpw wrote:

It keeps saying "Discounts not applicable. Restricted by manufacturer" when I put in a coupon code.

Running shoes are now almost as expensive as registering for a rock n roll race

I meant Running Shoes are NOW almost as expensive as registering for one of private equity firm owned RockNRoll Series Half Marathon/Marathon events

(Hopefully this shit crashes soon. $130-200+ for a friggin local half marathon/marathon with shitty bands to distract you, crowded starts, I could go on and on but I won't...)

Don't worry! Trump will make it better. He will bring back jobs to the US! He will put tariffs on foreign made products to protect US companies.

If this actually happens we will be begging to go back to the days when shoes ONLY cost $120.

Nothin' like tariffs on a massive net import/massive consumerism society to "make America great at scerwing itself again!"

Don't worry I swear... there are thousands of Americans who are going to start grass roots companies, and make competing products for cheaper. So don't you worry you'll have a brand new company in 6 months selling shoes for $50.

Faced with utter repudiation and humiliating defeat, libturds are doubling down on their nonsensical rhetoric. This is a f*cking shoe thread for f*ck's sake.

Ain't it ain't wrote:

Nothin' like tariffs on a massive net import/massive consumerism society to "make America great at scerwing itself again!"

Don't worry I swear... there are thousands of Americans who are going to start grass roots companies, and make competing products for cheaper. So don't you worry you'll have a brand new company in 6 months selling shoes for $50.

Hobby Jobber wrote:

I only buy old new shoes, "last year's model" and stock up. Recently Saucony Guide prior edition $90, "London" design to boot.

Yes search for last years model, you can get a lot of shoes 30-50 percent off.

I'm a formerly serious, D1 and post-collegiate runner, with PRs near the median of what people post here. I used to get the latest from Asics, like the Excalibur GT, which was $75 in 1988 dollars. Now I go to Kohls and get the Gel Venture (I think) for about $45. I love them!

Heck, if Skechers can make running shoes, it can't be that hard or costly to do!

PS, I do splurge on racers, though.

Shoes? Seriously? Who needs shoes?

In the bizz wrote:

Hobby Jobber wrote:

I only buy old new shoes, "last year's model" and stock up. Recently Saucony Guide prior edition $90, "London" design to boot.

Yes search for last years model, you can get a lot of shoes 30-50 percent off.

https://www.jackrabbit.com/men-s-saucony-guide-9.html

This. I've never paid over $100 for shoes and can usually find very good shoes in last year's (or 2 years ago) model in the $65-$80 range. They just don't change enough from year to year to make it worth paying an extra $50 for the latest and greatest.

Now with each brand selling shoes on their own websites they do not want a competitor website underselling them. You'll get a better price at your local running store.

I run in Nike Pegasus (current version) and they are under $120. I really wouldn't pay more than that unless absolutely necessary. Luckily the pegs have never been over $110 and I can always buy older versions on Amazon if needed

I recall a study someone did on sales of running shoes ages ago, maybe in the 80s when a lot more models became available and prices began to climb. The study found that runners really favored buying expensive shoes even when there was no evidence that the expensive model was a better shoe. But runners had come to equate price with quality and companies found that cheaper models didn't sell nearly as well.

That idea seems to persist among most of today's runners, who are generally an affluent group. As most of that affluent group don't run very many miles they aren't forking out for expensive shoes all that often and seem to suck it up and pay through the nose maybe feeling like there's some status connected to having expensive shoes.

As someone else pointed out, not all shoes cost $120. There are still a few models that cost under $100. I would imagine that if shoe companies found those shoes were outselling the $120 ones significantly they'd make some price adjustments but that doesn't seem to be the case. But I think most of the blame here goes to the willingness, maybe even preference, of most runners for pricey shoes. There just doesn't seem to be a demand for running shoes that are either cheap, very, very, long lasting, or both. It stinks for runners doing a lot of miles who don't make piles of money.

Does is matter? If people want to pay retail price and can't google, let them pay. Otherwise, if you want a shoe, just google it and you'll see every place that sells it and how much. If you get last year's model, which was the advanced new thing that would revolutionize your running just a year ago, you never have to pay more than half of retail. Much less if you're patient and wait until you spot a great deal. I just paid less than $40 a pair for Kayanos and Nimbus.

The retail price is almost irrelevant to how much running shoes actually cost.

Sasquatch wrote:

Does is matter? If people want to pay retail price and can't google, let them pay.

You are missing the point. The brand sets a price that cannot be changed in exchange for some online retailer having the privilege of selling the shoe online.

Google or not, the price should be the same everywhere.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Sasquatch wrote:

Does is matter? If people want to pay retail price and can't google, let them pay.

You are missing the point. The brand sets a price that cannot be changed in exchange for some online retailer having the privilege of selling the shoe online.

Google or not, the price should be the same everywhere.

All I know is that I've never paid more than half of retail price and usually less than $40 dollars for shoes that have a retail price of $160.