Slashdot Mirror


Nike Thought It Didn't Need Amazon -- Then the Ground Shifted (wsj.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, Nike was one of the biggest holdouts against Amazon.com, refusing to provide its sneakers and athletic clothing for sale on the hulking e-commerce site. Its products were so cool, the company reasoned, it didn't need or want the help. Recently, Nike reversed course. Behind that decision lies a dramatic shift in the balance of power between brands and Amazon (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; syndicated source). For decades, big consumer brands carefully controlled which retailers could sell their wares and at what prices. And for years, Amazon left the brands alone. Lately, the explosion of third-party sellers on the site has led to authentic goods from companies such as Nike, Chanel, The North Face, Patagonia and Urban Decay being sold on Amazon even though they don't authorize the sales, undercutting their grip on pricing and distribution. Even though Nike didn't send Amazon its products either directly or through approved wholesalers, Nike is the most purchased apparel brand on the site, according to a Morgan Stanley survey. A recent search for Nike products on Amazon turned up roughly 73,000 items. These days, there are so many third-party resellers, who generally are allowed to resell goods they have lawfully acquired at whatever price they want, that companies see few ways to stop them.

61 comments

  1. Nike not on Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's racist.

    1. Re:Nike not on Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon sucks they add Swedish tax to everything (their UK site)

  2. Re:Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love amazon affiliate link program it help my revenue stream
    -creimer

  3. And? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we supposed to care about what happens to asshole companies that blantly overprice their merchandise? Fuck 'em. This serves them right.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are we supposed to care about what happens to asshole companies...

      This is from the WSJ. This is news for adults, people like me who are dead inside. I don't care whether you care about asshole companies. It shows fascinating trends for the online economy, and what happens to companies who are not keeping up with their consumers' shopping habits.

    2. Re:And? by Radish03 · · Score: 2

      There are other implications of this business practice beyond just what price gets charged for the product.

      Amazon has a huge grey market of third-party resellers who sell a mix of regular and 'international edition' (a.k.a. lower cost goods meant for non-english-speaking markets) products for much cheaper than you'd pay elsewhere. For tech products, where this distinction is very subtle and often entirely software-based, many manufacturers make the blanket declaration that Amazon isn't an 'authorized' reseller. The consumer gets screwed over with no warranty or support, and security patches may or may not brick your device (especially if the reseller tried to mask the fact that they were rebranding international editions as english editions).

    3. Re:And? by tajribah · · Score: 1

      Fine, so we finally have good motivation for the manufacturers to stop trying to trick the customers by selling different products under the same name ;-)

    4. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to care about what happens

      The purpose of propaganda stories like these is to make you care, and ultimately to make the political class care so that legislation dealing with Amazon can be brought in. This is how special interests and big business manipulate public opinion and state power.

      Now, I don't like Amazon much. Frankly I think that they have grown too big -- inflated by tsunamis of cheap Fed credit over the last 20 years. But you have to understand that this is why Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. He knew his competitors, the suppliers he's squeezed, and worried retailters would eventually hire Media mercenaries to undermine Amazon's image. So he's bought newspapers and journalists of his own to try and control that narrative. This is how mega-corporations fight.

      The Media is a weapon used to manipulate our society. Forget about Amazon and Nike. Pay attention to the propaganda process itself. That's the real source of power.

    5. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best comment I've read in months (here).

      Politicians don't get their marching orders from news stories, though. The propaganda is ammunition so it will appear they are "fixing the problem" (problem no one knew existed in the first place).

  4. Sneakers are a weird market by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

    It's really the only thing as an automation freelancer that I continually see job posts for. Something about sneakerbots is profitable to the right people and I've never understood why. They treat that shit like it's wall street high frequency trading.

  5. Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nike had a fairly substantial role in making the modern shoe what it is today.

    I love how supposedly educated/smart people here are so ignorant of history and science. Sure the science and evolution of the shoe isn't "sexy", but one can only imagine what shoes from the 1960s and earlier were like, where the answer is bad.

    1. Re:Ignorant of history much? by johanw · · Score: 2

      So they are largely to blame for the fact that many people don't wear decent shoes anymore and only wear training shoes?

    2. Re:Ignorant of history much? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Why are training shoes not decent ?

    3. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look into how your foot is supposed to work and how it actually works when wearing sneakers. A lot of lower back pain and foot problems are due to modern shoes. High heels are an abomination.

    4. Re:Ignorant of history much? by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      What are decent shoes in your opinion?

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    5. Re:Ignorant of history much? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You haven't really explained why training shoes are worse than the "decent" shoes that people used to wear.

      High heels are an abomination.

      Training shoes don't have high heels.

    6. Re:Ignorant of history much? by MightyYar · · Score: 0

      Anything expensive from Italy, I'd wager.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trainers have a reputation of falling apart within months. Plus the ridiculous prices people were willing to pay for some gimmick like glow strip lights or motion activated LED's. Teenagers would save for months to spend £200 on some trainers, only to have that gadget break within a month. The porous material absorb sweat from the feet and not allow them to breath. Regular usage would require them to be "aired" to let the moisture out.

    8. Re:Ignorant of history much? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Trainers have a reputation of falling apart within months

      I've had several pairs of Nike trainers last me between 2-4 years. That's good enough for me. Typical point of failure is just the sole wearing down too far.

    9. Re: Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you mix the sole material with chemtrails, it makes people more obedient.

    10. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Daemonik · · Score: 0

      A good pair of leather shoes can last a decade. Plus you can get them made to your foot and the money goes to a local shop and not $200 to Nike who pays $3 to a Chinese manufacturer for making them.

    11. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're great for running and working out in also

    12. Re:Ignorant of history much? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Most of the Nike shoes I've bought were between $50 and $100 per pair. A custom made leather shoe would cost $250, plus additional cost for having it re-soled after a few years, plus extra time/money spent to get your foot measured and pick up the shoes. Total cost per year is comparable, but the trainer is much more comfortable. I can even run in it, if I find myself late for the train.

    13. Re:Ignorant of history much? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      which brand? lately even the nice brands from the snobby stores like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus seem to fall apart in a year or so.

      Lately I'm buying Geoxx and other cheaper mid price or lower price brands.

    14. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trainers have a reputation of falling apart within months

      I've had several pairs of Nike trainers last me between 2-4 years. That's good enough for me. Typical point of failure is just the sole wearing down too far.

      I've had "modern shoes" last me about a decade. Granted, I don't buy regular trainers, they don't feel well with my feet usually, so I go for bulkier stuff, mostly trekking shoes, that have enough padding to compensate my flat feet. It's hard to find them, but when I do they're usually very good quality.

      I tend to use them 24/7, non-stop (I don't have that many pairs), and yet they last regularly longer than 5 years. When they break, it's usually because I abused them somehow. Last pair I just ruined it unwittingly putting it to dry near a fire, after accidentally getting them soaked while actually trekking, not realising I'd dry out the glue doing that and that they'd come apart. Before that, they lasted about 7 years, IIRC.

      They don't look pretty after that long, but they're very very comfortable. I wouldn't wear a leather shoe if they paid me to.

    15. Re: Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL... I pay $10 for sneakers at Walmart. I understand they may not be scientifically engineered but I don't care. I cannot comprehend paying 10x as much for a shoe just because it has a swish logo on it.

    16. Re:Ignorant of history much? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Everything about them promotes heel striking as a running style. Humans are supposed to land on the balls of their feet so the calf can act as a spring.

    17. Re:Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you'll learn far more looking it up yourself than reading a post you disagree with and then dismissing it out of hand. Basically shoes pamper your feet too much. It's like wearing mittens on your hands 24x7. Putting on padded shoes changes how you take steps. You end up putting far more pressure on your joints rather than on your foot muscles. That extra joint pressure wears them out far faster while leaving your feet weaker. A lot of people have weak arches because they're constantly pampering them instead of giving them a workout. Then they're told they have weak arches and pamper them even more.

      Those decent older shoes didn't have spongy padding. There were some studies which demonstrated when people walk on padding they step harder in order to feel the steps. Without padding, people had lighter steps. The lighter steps means you're not forcing your foot down but instead letting your steps be more driven by gravity. Most shoes aren't wide enough at the toes either. You should be able to spread your toes out to improve your balance when putting your foot down. You can't do that when wearing the average shoe.

      High heels are worse than tennis shoes. They quickly deform your feet do to their pointiness and all the pressure they put on your toes. Tennis shoes do so slowly (not wide enough so they slowly squish your toes). The higher the heel and the pointer the toes the worse it is.

      You can't spread out and move your toes like you can your fingers can you? Your joints can make those movements but you've never developed the muscle awareness to do so. There are videos of people who can use their feet just as well as their hands. Pictures of people who don't wear shoes have a much broader toe spread. Does that really matter in the modern world? Probably not, but the joint wear does.

    18. Re: Ignorant of history much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High heels are an abomination

      Translation: I/my girlfriend has kankles.

    19. Re:Ignorant of history much? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Heel striking is not necessarily bad an is normal for most people, https://www.theguardian.com/li...

    20. Re:Ignorant of history much? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read your link all the way through. It simply suggests that heel striking may not be Cthulhu level evil and that there's more to a good gait than just shifting to the forefoot. It also suggested that over-stride may be more important to correct.

      I have no issue with any of those statements.

    21. Re:Ignorant of history much? by s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner · · Score: 1

      Training shoes don't have high heels.

      Maybe yours don't!

    22. Re:Ignorant of history much? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ah, sure, mod me flamebait - but notice the only suggestions above for what a "decent" shoe is involve the words "handmade" and "leather". Classic snobbery.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  6. Time for a new slogan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old and busted: "Nike: Just do it"
    New hotness (approved by POTUS): "Nike: Just grab her by the *****, unless she's Amazonian goddess with a magic lasso, then just let her do you."

    I'm sure some wordsmith will figure out how to shorten this up. The best short version I can come up with is: "Nike: Just get ****ed."

  7. Where is the IRS and Tax offices not on their ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nike does an Apple - and pays very little tax, all things equal.
    The respective tax authorities now have Amazon to prove cost base, and possibly prove price transfer tax avoidance. Who knows what Amazon sales numbers may prove.

    With Ebay charging 15% - Arbitrage is difficult to impossible.
    With Amazon and price match (they are smarter than Ebay) arbitrage WILL occur.
    Now if Nike gestures one finger - the tax and IRS will have them cold. If they join the game, they can manipulate prices enough to give the IRS the finger.

    Nike are joining to extend the end game because it makes sense. But some brand name expert says Amazon WILL devalue price premiums for all brand names.All Amazon and Ebay need to - is say no listing fee and 1/2 success free for say NIKE products - to get the ball rolling. repeat and rinse for other brands.

  8. Re:Or they are counterfeit by Luthair · · Score: 1

    This was my thought also, the 'authentic' goods are probably in no small part fake. if Nike is controlling the supply chain then third party sellers won't have access to their goods at wholesale prices hence they'll need either significant markup or will be counterfeit.

  9. Nike? by tquasar · · Score: 1

    Their shoes never fit my wide feet. My brother in law gave me a pair and I put them in the trash. Later I read the shoes became collectible and were selling for $100 USD in Japan.

    1. Re:Nike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their shoes never fit my wide feet. My brother in law gave me a pair and I put them in the trash. Later I read the shoes became collectible and were selling for $100 USD in Japan.

      Isn't $100 about what they cost new anyway, unless you're talking about the really cheap ones?

      Even the expensive Nike's are cheap crap that doesn't last long. For the cost, they seem to fall apart ridiculously soon.

    2. Re:Nike? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Nike Air Monarch IV comes in very wide widths. Its the oldest design i continually see Nike produce.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:Nike? by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

  10. The ground shifted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did creimer also jump on the bandwagon?

  11. Freedom by jdavidb · · Score: 2

    These days, there are so many third-party resellers, who generally are allowed to resell goods they have lawfully acquired at whatever price they want, that companies see few ways to stop them.

    Good. We'd all like to be able to stop people from competing with us, but nobody should have the power to do so.

  12. Good by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A first step is taken, now let me import your shoes from South East Asia where they cost a fraction of what you gouge here.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or it's remaindered stock. Or it's grey imports from a region where it's vastly cheaper because price is based on maximising profits, not minimising cost to the consumer.

  14. Re:Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You troll, but really, if these particular resellers aren't selling counterfeit goods, this seems like a self-correcting problem for Nike. You, a consumer, will always be able to buy those brand new genuine Nike shoes from Nike for cheaper than if you buy them from me, because I also needed to get them from Nike, and in order to turn a profit, I must sell them for more than I bought them for.

  15. Sneaky sneaker sales by spinitch · · Score: 1

    https://solecollector.com/news... ~50% on a $100 MRSP b4 other discounts like loyalty volumes buy 2-3 pairs etc.. Maybe some enterprising dealers figure out how to game promotions in modest volumes scoop up inventory and resell on e-commerce? There is a lot of retail margin that can be shaved. Plus as others mentioned Gray imports where sold in another country cheaper whether due to foreign exchange fluctuations or other favorable pricing factors. Stores offer loyalty programs for future purchase discounts but these are modest vs some of the e-commerce sites. Mobile phone companies typically can use IMEIs to help track gray and unauthorized product distribution. Maybe a new kind of sneaker net will evolve to counter the price cutters.

  16. Nike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remind me what this is again? Oh, clothing or shoes or some shit? Oh, people care about brands in shoes still? Oh? I'm confused? You mean they are going to work with Amazon to fix prices?

  17. if Nike conceded, what about everyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we supposed to care about what happens to asshole companies that blantly overprice their merchandise? Fuck 'em. This serves them right.

    Yes, because Amazon currently takes 50% of all online shopping dollars spent. That's a lot of control.

    If a mega-corp like Nike can't fight the current of Amazon, what chance does anyone else have?

  18. Re:Or they are counterfeit by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I prefer the New Balance 623v3Training Shoes in black for the office and in white for the gym. I've been wearing this brand for 30+ years.

  19. Re: Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You say I troll, but - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/08/amazons-chinese-counterfeit-problem-is-getting-worse.html

  20. Ground Shifted? by intellitech · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... then the Ground Shifted

    So.. Nike lost its footing?

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Ground Shifted? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That's a shoe-in for the pun of the week!

    2. Re:Ground Shifted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon sneakered up on them.

  21. Re:Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not true. You don't understand the remainder market:

    The manufacturer produces a product and sells it to the wholesaler for 25% of list price. The wholesaler sells the product to the retailer for 50% of list price. The retailer sells it to the consumer at somewhere around list price (more when it first comes out, less as time goes on.) When the NEW version comes out the retailer returns their unsold merchandise to the wholesaler for credit towards their next purchase. Even with this return credit, the wholesaler has made a profit on the deal.

    Typically manufacturer - wholesaler contracts prevent the wholesaler from selling below cost until the item is replaced by a newer model in the manufacturer catalog, which may only be a matter of a few months. Sometimes wholesalers will sell stock to the remainder dealers ahead of schedule if the product is not selling thru to retailers quickly enough...assuming they think the manufacturers will not catch them, or the penalty for getting caught is less than the cost of keeping the products sitting in the warehouses.

    Now, the wholesaler sells the product to the remainder dealer for 10% of the list price (they already made a profit -this is just EXTRA PROFIT). The remainder dealer then sells the product to discount merchants for 20% of the list price. The discount merchant sells the products for 50% of the list price -or whatever they can get. Discount merchants typically do not have the option of returning unsold merchandise for credit like regular retailers do, so selling at a low price is better than no sale.

    According to the doctrine of first sale (codified in 17 U.S.C. 109) we can sell, display, or otherwise dispose of any (non-counterfeit) item we have without needing the permission of the manufacturer / brand-owner / copyright holder. So third party merchants may not have the latest fad item, but we can sell whatever we do have for whatever price we want.

  22. Re: Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Training shoes in an office?

  23. Re: Or they are counterfeit by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Training shoes in an office?

    The black training shoes look like dress shoes to the causal observer. They're very comfortable.

  24. Re: Or they are counterfeit by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You honestly think these look like dress shoes, to anybody?

    To the casual observer. No one has ever asked me to lift the hem of my pants to show them the NB logo.

    It's more like, nobody really cares to give constructive feedback to the 350 pound fat man who has given up on his appearances.

    If I have given up on my appearances, I wouldn't be employed.

  25. Re: Or they are counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We thought you were employed because of your "miracle" skill and 200 recruiter emails a day?