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.
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.
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.
So they are largely to blame for the fact that many people don't wear decent shoes anymore and only wear training shoes?
Why are training shoes not decent ?
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.
What are decent shoes in your opinion?
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
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.
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.
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.
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.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You say I troll, but - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/08/amazons-chinese-counterfeit-problem-is-getting-worse.html
... 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.
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.
Training shoes in an office?
The black training shoes look like dress shoes to the causal observer. They're very comfortable.
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.
Heel striking is not necessarily bad an is normal for most people, https://www.theguardian.com/li...
Cheap storage VM.
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.
Training shoes don't have high heels.
Maybe yours don't!
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.