Why Aren’t Minimalist Shoes Minimally-Priced?
- Thread starter Barefoot TJ
- Start date
I keep searching for the ideal shoe. It doesn't exist for me. I spent more on shoes last year than I should have. My budget this year $0. I don't care if they come wrapped in my favorite food (seaweed, rice and something that smells like VFF's) any guesses, and comes with a six pack of Northwest Pale Ale, I'm not buying them.
To contribute to the original question. So many factors go into determining the price for something. With the minimal shoes, I think the companies just started with a price similar to their regular shoes and discovered that people paid that price. Then discovered that people were buying more. Example - Vibram with so many different models available. So many now that you can't even keep up. I am glad that so many minshoes are coming out, competition will drive price down. I could go on and on, but I'll keep it short.
Good article.
To contribute to the original question. So many factors go into determining the price for something. With the minimal shoes, I think the companies just started with a price similar to their regular shoes and discovered that people paid that price. Then discovered that people were buying more. Example - Vibram with so many different models available. So many now that you can't even keep up. I am glad that so many minshoes are coming out, competition will drive price down. I could go on and on, but I'll keep it short.
Good article.
When the VFFs were first available (Classics, Sprints, and first generation KSOs), they cost about $70-$80. Now, you can buy the newer generations for $100 - $120. I think they feel out what people are willing to pay for them as they make sales and then adjust the price (upwards in this case) until their sales reflect a lull.
I can't remember when the last time it was I bought myself a pair of shoes.
I can't remember when the last time it was I bought myself a pair of shoes.
+1, The first year in my transition I spend a few $ more that usual on "barefoot" shoes.
Neil_D
Chapter Presidents
The old saying "Charge what the market can bear". Years ago, in a business I was involved in we sold an item and it was cheaper than the others in the market so we thought it would sell. It didn't. Sell it too cheaply and people believe it is inferior and wont buy it just as they wont buy it if it is too expensive. Find the middle point that running shoes sell for and price it there and it will sell. Strange but true.
A friend of mine wanted to buy some Pace Gloves recently, the local running shoes shop (Foot Locker) had them priced at $189.95, ridiculous. I searched online and found an Australian site selling them at $149 including postage so I told my friend to negotiate the price down in Foot Locker, they wouldn't budge so, lost a sale. Retailers are whinging about how tough it is here, sure it's tough if your making 100% profit on your stock. Ended up buying them from and Ebay store in the U.S. for $99+postage
Neil
A friend of mine wanted to buy some Pace Gloves recently, the local running shoes shop (Foot Locker) had them priced at $189.95, ridiculous. I searched online and found an Australian site selling them at $149 including postage so I told my friend to negotiate the price down in Foot Locker, they wouldn't budge so, lost a sale. Retailers are whinging about how tough it is here, sure it's tough if your making 100% profit on your stock. Ended up buying them from and Ebay store in the U.S. for $99+postage
Neil
With people getting 2000 miles out of a pair of VFF I don't see a reason to complain. I was replacing my running shoes every 300-400 miles. I don't know how many I have on my minimuses but it has to be pretty close to 1000 (and still going strong), my zems are probably around 600 (and about dead) and I bet my altras will outlast both of them mileage wise. I'm guessing at least 2000. So sure I spent about 250 dollars on three pairs of shoes. But those three shoes replaced 9-12 shoes of what I would have bought. The companies almost have to charge the same amount (or more) to make up for the fact that you never have to rebuy their shoes.
Neil_D
Chapter Presidents
Don't forget thought that you are getting more miles out of the VFF's mainly due to the efficiency of your running form rather than as a function of the shoes. The shoes have less material in them but you have compensated by changing your running style. I wouldn't expect to pay more for a set of car tyres because I was a careful driver, not aggressively accelerating and braking.
Neil
Neil
I disagree. I don't think I run that much differently in VFF vs. Trail Gloves vs. Hatoris and dare I say it, vs. barefoot. The VFF last forever compared to the others(excluding BF). The VFFs provide quality and are the least expensive shoe per mile on the market, not because of form but because of durability. The others that I have tried are of inferior quality and I don't really know why they are priced higher.
Neil_D
Chapter Presidents
TG have Vibram sole. I don't know the exact specs but I expected the sole to last because of this but it did not. The VFF out lasted TG by 4 to 1 for me(to date, VFFs still going).
No that isn't the main reason my shoes last longer at all. They last longer because of what it is that I'm having to replace. In normal shoes the evo foam starts breaking down. Minimal shoes don't have that, so you can use them till the soles die. I never replaced my running shoes from the sole breaking down I replaced them because when the foam isn't in the proper place it makes the shoe feel bad.
Also that misses the point that while sure they are cheaper make, they still have overhead. There is more to making a product than the cost of the materials for one particular pair of shoes. There is money in the design, distribution, marketing ect.....All that requires a large number of shoes to be sold. If they are selling a 1/8 of the number of shoes because their shoes aren't breaking down as quickly, then they need to make up that extra somewhere, they make it up by having a larger profit margin. I don't think the evo foam and extra padding they put in normal running shoes really cost all that much. Its probably only a couple bucks cheaper per shoe to make, thats not where all the costs come in.
Also that misses the point that while sure they are cheaper make, they still have overhead. There is more to making a product than the cost of the materials for one particular pair of shoes. There is money in the design, distribution, marketing ect.....All that requires a large number of shoes to be sold. If they are selling a 1/8 of the number of shoes because their shoes aren't breaking down as quickly, then they need to make up that extra somewhere, they make it up by having a larger profit margin. I don't think the evo foam and extra padding they put in normal running shoes really cost all that much. Its probably only a couple bucks cheaper per shoe to make, thats not where all the costs come in.
