I misunderstood the original comment. The person was posting a strategy to keep shoes from wearing out too quickly. So you're right, my comment does not make sense, sorry.
Yes, shoe companies generally want people to wear out their shoes quickly to sell more shoes, and they also change up the models offered so that when a serious runner sees their shoe is no longer going to be offered, they buy up as many as possible.
I had your initial reaction as well since I personally use the same shoes continuously as long as possible (current every day pair is probably 14 months old and not slowing down), but then I realized that I have in fact gone through running shoes at a pace of 2-3 a year and I did also buy dress shoes this year (though I guess those will last many years to come).
Anyway it's a bit of blathering, but I generally consider myself as someone that does not buy very much stuff at all, but I still somehow managed 4-5 pairs in the last 12 months. Maybe I'm not as pure as I assume...
edit: Never mind upon reading the article more closely it's clear it isn't describing someone like me. I still take a long time to decide to buy things and even then I usually decide against it. Regardless of my shoe count this year, I definitely don't just buy random crap non-nonchalantly.
Though I completely agree with you, the problem these guys are trying to solve is when does the mid-sole break down, which can happen before your shoes look worn.
The bigger problem is that depending on the shoes and milage and runner, I believe the destruction of the shoe will vary.
Having said that, I too don't think there is a market here, but think your idea of a discount on my next pair of shoes is a great idea.
The shoes thing is so true. Especially runners, or any kind of athletic shoe really, where they feel the need to update not just the styling but the whole construction of the shoes every year. So when you need a replacement you basically have to start from scratch every time, because there's no guarantee even buying the new shoe in the same line will be a remotely similar experience.
> The item that drives me nuts with disposability at the moment is sneakers. I walk & work out a lot and I'm finding a lot of the running/training type shoes wear out in 3-4 months, the sole is shot but the uppers are totally fine. I'm trying to find more durable shoes to wear for casual wear & walking that actually last.
I work for a niche company[0] that manufacturers high quality running shoes as well as healthy everyday footwear and depending on the particular model and its sole design we offer a resole service, which many customers take advantage of.
I am not sure if I understand your first sentence. Regarding the second, no, they encourage wearing out shoes quickly and repurchasing often or purchasing many pairs. Two pairs purchased to alternate is something done to maximize longevity, so in the long run it is cheaper than buying one pair and wearing it daily. It is in a shoe repair shop’s interest, though, and that’s where I first heard the tip.
One can argue "what-ifs" ad infinitum with no real efficacy or usefulness. Comments of this ilk are completely unhelpful. The parent comment is merely saying that, if one plans on wearing a type of shoe for an extended period of time (dress shoes like an Allen Edmonds Park Avenue, for example, have hardly changed in decades), one might as well buy the best, and have it last for a long time. One actually saves money by doing so.
Because the initial price would be steep. Let's say you spend $70 dollars on shoes and they last 2 years, so that's $350 for 10 years. It would be hard to design a single pair of shoes, especially at the beginning, at lasts 10 years. The goal would be to replace that pair after 5 years.
No one would pay $350 for a pair of shoes from an unknown company, but if I'd offer them for $3/month it's a different story.
I find it fascinating when there's still room for innovation in crowded seemingly done to death markets like running shoes. There's always a sub-niche to go after, in any sufficiently large market there will be power users that are totally willing to shell out $250 for a 4% improvement. Given that these shoes according to the article last for 200 miles that's a couple of marathons and couple months of training tops before having to be replaced. Reminds me of the Tinker Hatfield doc on the Abstract series on Netflix.
I would say runners might be in this category. I often get emails from Altra, RunningWarehouse and a host of other shoe companies and I will open them up and take a look. I think it was about a month ago that I received an email from RunningWarehouse about some shoes I hadn't thought of at a good deal and I went ahead and bought them even though I didn't need another pair. Another time about 3 months ago Altra sent over a email about a special edition pair which again didn't need already have 5 pairs of shoes but I bought them anyway.
The reason I go through and buy them is because I know I will eventually need another pair and I would much rather buy a pair on sale then need a pair and have to pay more.
- i do agree that this is not a real problem. i do exactly as you say, i check my soles every now and then, and if i see any deterioration, the shoes go straight to the bin. i wouldn't be a user of this product, having said that;
- your idea of "email (me) every X months with a 20% of coupon for the SAME PAIR" i think is a great idea. i tend to buy 2/3 pairs of the same running shoe every time. if instead i could establish a rule that after x distance i get sent a new pair that would be another thing off my to-do list. there is definitely a subscription model here somewhere.
But if you decide you will wear the same type of shoes for 10 years and you think you will save money by buying the $600 shoes only to find they actually fall apart after two years, you're now spending $300 per year versus $100 per year. That doesn't make economic sense. The only way to know they will last for 10 years is to actually wear them for 10 years.
I think your comment is completely unhelpful, because you're dismissing my point by simply repeating what the other person said. "You save money because you save money". No, if your shoe gets destroyed before you've worn them for six years, you're losing money. You don't seem to have addressed that point at all.
> Shoes are this way for a lot of people, in that some of us can keep a pair of shoes long enough that the next fashion cycle has happened and you can't find anything like that again.
Try working from home. It's guaranteed that by the time you need new shoes nothing resembling your current shoes that you know and love is available any more.
Same for a lot of other clothing items that you only wear outside.
"That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes."
I don't know much about running shoes, but about trekking shoes. And there I can attest, that higher quality exists and indeed costs more and is worth it. I assume the same to be true for running shoes, no matter that they have a big marketing budget, that should rather be R&D. (All marketing should be.)
my question is: do amateur runners even buy $250 shoes? I don't think they do spend that much money on a Running Shoe at that stage. Also, how can this be not good marketing if the Shoes does exactly what the marketing message tries to portray?
Yes, shoe companies generally want people to wear out their shoes quickly to sell more shoes, and they also change up the models offered so that when a serious runner sees their shoe is no longer going to be offered, they buy up as many as possible.
reply