Hype or just idiocy?

200 is not much for a nice pair of sneakers that you enjoy wearing

>>12725896
200 dollars is not much for a pair of sneakers...in what world is it ok to spend that much for more than likely less quality or money's worth of the sneakers.

File: Reebok-logo-2014[1].png (73KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 2272x1704px

>>12725889

Branding. Even you create a term like 'iSheep' and popularize it people would laugh at the the term and continue buying for their social status.

What kind of sport shoes do you own OP? Chinese 'Fashion'? or goodwills?

>>12725920
Branding...basically tricking you into buying something because you believe in a logo?

So all it takes for you to spend your money is to know that other people are buying it. Basically peer pressure, in what world does that sound adult or rational.

File: turtle.jpg (5KB, 252x150px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 252x150px

>less than a dollar
retarded /r/LateStageCapitalism teen detected

>>12725955
Well no shit nibba thats why you only buy Nikes from the outlets. I live in Orlando so the Nike outlet is just 20 min away from me but I recommend buying replicas only if the shoe you want is wayyyyyy too hard to get and way too expensive

>>12725889
You dont understand how the industry goes isn't it?

Do you think all the Shirts you buy only cost the fabric?

>>12725955
Generally its assured quality, try buying cheap cloths from chinks and you'll most likely to get chinked. Besides that, it depends when the brand's popularity received, brand with its founding designer name would likely not go wrong example: good old Stone Island with its hand painted jacket compared to its modern counterpart, in short companies generally turn shit when it gets a new handover or when its fan is obsessed with his brand and buying whatever shits get thrown into them example: Rick Owens.

>>12725889
never liked nike, too pleb for me. buy some adidas instead

If you look at how much money these big apparel and footwear companies make they're all pretty comparable to other companies in terms of the profit margins they have, maybe you're paying for advertising campaigns and shit but it's not like they're just collecting free money

>>12725990
this. the shoes only cost $1 because the company controls materials, supply, shipping, production, factories, etc... the company has put in billions of dollars into making the most efficient process they can. Of course, most shoes are overpriced bullshit but it's not as if shoes should cost $5 either.

>>12726164
Explain to me why the shoes shouldn't be $5 dollars as opposed to overpricing them to mentally appeal to the idea that you're getting some oh-so grandeur experience.

If the whole idea of overpriced high valued sneakers are the scarcity then they aren't even worth that.

The most collectible and actually valuable assets and products are those that were never meant to be in the first place.

>>12726181
Let's say a shoe costs $5-10 to make. They also have to pay for marketing, quality control (which means losing materials/shoes), salaries of employees and many other hidden costs. Then factor in limited supply that makes a certain model more marketable. Now they sell that at wholesale to a retailer in many cases which means the retailer will have some market likely in the realm of 2-5x. I still agree that plenty of bullshit like yeezys is way overpriced but at a certain point, it's just going to be priced what people will pay for it.

>>12725889
In clothing production there is this thing called 'rule of thirds'
Basically, what stores pay for a product is a third of what consumer pays for the product (this is the reason you rarely see things go more than -70% on sales, the stores are selling the stuff for what they bought it for at that point)
And the actual cost of making the garment and shipping it to place is third of what stores pay for it
But that's the general rule, the bigger and more hyped some brand is, the more they can ask for a product and the lesser known the brand is the less they get, so for example some company starting up can't really ask 3 times the price what the production of the item costs from stores and 9 times from the consumers as there is no consumerbase, demographic and the brand hasn't established its place yet, but companies tend to hike their prices up to that point once they start getting more popular. Good example would be common projects, the prices have gone up a lot in last 10 years probably because now they can actually go with that rule of thirds because of the demands.
And naturally the more popular and big the brand is, the more they can hike up the price and get even better profit, fast fashion shops would be good example. Nike probably as well because of the sheer volume and market cut they have.
Just good thing to know in general and when it comes to clothing I guess but the point is, Nike or Adidas shoes do cost more than dollar to make even though they probably do better than thirds.

>>12726199
And just something to note:
While there are exceptions, especially when it comes to footwear other than sneakers, you are probably going to get very high quality for the price with brands like Nike and Adidas compared to designer stuff simply because these companies are fucking HUGE and beyond that, they are also old. They have had all the time and resources to fine tune their products from shoe molds to the rubber blends of their soles and insoles to make them as good as they can while still meeting the consumer with a price they can move the product as much as possible.
If you ever wondered why designers do so many collaborations with sneaker companies is a lot because of that, those companies have all the facilities, experience and technology to offer to someone who is just about designing things. Some brand starting to offer sneaker is lot more costly operation than one would imagine and it takes time for them to develop their product. And they still have misteps here and there, Rick had that one season with sneakers where the sole started turning pink because the sneakers had a glue that reacted with the leather, you don't see Nike and Adidas with things like that because they know what they are doing.

>>12726225
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The bigger the company the less attention to quality they start to give off.

They're old, yes. They have a name people are familiar with, yes. But when it comes to quality and the quantity of such large amounts they give. Then it becomes a problem. Because they have to lower their quality to meet such high demands.

There's a reason Nike and Adidas shoes are seasonal. People can't really wear them for a long time without them beginning to break down. You are aware that they strategize the use of the sneaker and when it should break down on a time rate. They build depreciation into the sneakers for you. So it's hard to defend them in that aspect.

>>12725898
It's the same thing about spending $50 on a meal, at end of the day, you are going to enjoy it, but shit it out..

>>12725889
Fucking cobblersperg stop making these threads

>>12725961
Anon I'm an American living in the Philippines where Calvin Klein clothes are made. The workers get paid about 5$ per day legally. 365 pesos per day. I run a sweatshop and sell to malls and I don't even pay them that much. I'm sure Nike pays them not even a dollar per shoe. I highly doubt it. If I were any of you I'd make my own clothes since it's cheaper.

>>12725961
You're clearly a fucking idiot. These big corporations screw over the fucking consumer and the manufacturing teams in 3rd world countries.

The only reason you're defending them is because you buy their shit. So it makes you look like a dumbass if you didn't defend people legally fucking over the world and fashion industry

>>12725889
there's a comprehensive article about the costs of the major brands major models, it's not $1 and not even $10, quite a few things happen besides production with a shoe, you only take into account the salary of the worker, but there are other costs: materials, shipping, the retailers cut, advertising, customs, taxes etc., even the cheapest shoe will cost $20 for a brand

for instance the production cost of a Nike shoe, which costs $100 at a retailer, is $30 and Nike's profit is just $5, the rest is SGA and taxes

ITT: OP is 2 intelligent for the capitalistic society to consume him, but not 2 intelligent for him to read an Economics 101 book

>>12725889
Does anyone else thinks their clothing line doing far better than their sneakers?

>>12727955
honestly i don't know, they still sell a lot of sneakers

Adidas is supposedly better on that front in the past 2 years, but somehow i don't see this translated onto the streets

if you look around (now that's the Superstar revival is pretty much over and it's not that cool to wear Yeezys anymore), do you see more Adidas than Nike? because i don't and i live in EU, where Adidas is supposed to be stronger although NMDs, UBs were never really a thing around here

plus from the looks of it, the Cortez is coming back hard and soon will replace the Superstars in the 14 yos wardrobe

>>12725889
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA

"We want what we can’t have
Commodity makes us want it
So expensive, damn
I just got to flaunt it
Got to show em
So exclusive, this that new shit
A hundred dollars for a pair of shoes
I would never hoop in
Look at me, look at me
I’m a cool kid
I’m an individual, yeah
But I’m part of a movement
My movement told me be a consumer and I consumed it
They told me to just do it
I listened to what that swoosh said
Look at what that swoosh did
See it consumed my thoughts
"Are you stupid?
Don’t crease 'em! Just leave 'em in that box!"
Strangled by these laces, laces I can barely talk
That’s my air bubble and I’m lost, if it pops
We are what we wear
We wear what we are
But see I look inside the mirror and think Phil Knight tricked us all
Will I stand for change
Or stay in my box
These Nikes help me define me
But I’m trying to take mine
Off"

>>12726254
Well you are just plain wrong, there is enough competition and the consumer base is aware enough were they simply can't just produce shit.

>>12728236
f u l l r i c k

>>12725896
the new mercedes benz s class from just $68,880 drive away...

The way I see it at work I get paid $20/h. I could spend 10 hours trying to make myself a pair of shoes and I'd maybe be able to tie some leather together or something, but even if I were to spend 100 hours trying to make myself a pair of shoes I wouldn't be able to make anything even close to the quality and durability of a $200 pair of shoes. So in the end I'm quite happy to pay money for sneakers, even if what I pay seems like quite a lot when you look at the manufacturing process.

>>12726254
My late brother wore stan smiths as his work shoe as a tour guide on a volcanic island where the air is slightly acidic or something, they had to replace their uniforms at an insane pace considering they were just hiking, the shoes held up remarkably well, the soles yellowed super quick and the paint started to wear off in places too but the shoes held up structurally

>>12728236
>The consumer base is aware enough

You're joke now,majority of consumers just mindlessly buy shit because they're familiar with it. Not because of any kind of quality control or belief it's good

You're giving people too much credit, when it comes to a corporation and the billions they serve. It becomes painfully apparent majority of the consumer base just impluse buy. They give you just enough quality and just enough hype to warrant you buying.

>>12728757
What I implied is that the average consumer is aware of the quality of shoes enough.
Looking at everything in the world through lenses of cynicism is too easy, don't let yourself get caught on it too much.

>>12728759
So an average consumer knows the quality of their sneakers without ever doing any work with sneaker manufacturing and only looking at them and seeing how good they look on their feet.

>>12728820
maybe no, but when you buy a product, which later turns out to be shit quality, will you buy more products from the same brand? probably not
brands need to maintain a certain quality level otherwise they will lose their buyer base fast, nowadays when everything is online, the news, bad reviews spread fast

if you're suggesting that only expesnive sneakers can stand the test of time, it only shows that you have never handled/owned/wore shoes like the AF1s or Stans, which are literally indestructible, cost around $100 and was made in China

if you think that you pay for the quality with the extra money you pay for a pair of designer sneaker, i have bad news for you, for the most part you pay for the brand name and they're making extra profit off of you

>>12728906
>Indestructible

Let's not go that far, you've been saying just two of the 20-50 different models of sneakers produced by these companies that hold up to time better than the already deprecating out the box sneakers on the market.

People pay more for less and that's what I'm driving home. These corporations do not give quality because they have to, they barely give enough so you can't complain and stand here to defend them when need be which you are proving perfectly.

You'd be surprised how many people buy sneakers off of hype even when they know they're trash and garbage or that the quality sucks. People don't buy stuff cause of it's longevity, they buy it cause it's something others rock or know. It's childish shit

>>12728920
>These corporations do not give quality
They do, you are just plain wrong, Regular Nikes or Adidas sneakers are the absolute best bang for your buck as far as sneakers go.

>>12728920
>You'd be surprised how many people buy sneakers off of hype even when they know they're trash and garbage or that the quality sucks. People don't buy stuff cause of it's longevity, they buy it cause it's something others rock or know. It's childish shit
yea, this is what happens when you're young mostly in your teens, but later you discover a lot of things, while becoming wiser you make less shit decisions and learn to buy stuff, which holds up well, yet still doesn't cost a fortune

i mentioned only those 2 models, because those are well known and pretty much always in style

but if you want more, here's more: Superstar, Samba, Gazelle, AM90, AM1, Pegasus etc.

you don't have to pay a cent more than $100 and you can still have a nice variety of shoes for the "eternity"

obviously you don't buy these gimmick running shoes (NMDs, UBs) what's been put out by Adidas lately, because those won't hold up and overpriced, but if you have 3 or 4 of the above mentioned classic models in your rotation, you don't have to buy a single shoe for a decade