Jordan Brand will be remastering (building better quality shoes) starting in 2015

[ryanjumpman420]

OG Air Jordan 2s were made in Italy.

 

[hulk7280]

Actually, it changes things quite a bit. As I said, your figures are taking the monumental cost of MJ's endorsement (both big money up front PLUS a percentage of every sale), and spreading it out amongst all the shoes Nike makes throughout the year, including the dozens and dozens of lower grade, POS shoes for which there are next to nothing in R&D costs, endorsements, ads, etc. It's very easy to skew cost that way. However, we're specifically debating the cost breakdown of Air Jordans, not Nike as a whole. This eradicates the figures you presented for a couple of reasons. First, you have generic figures for Nikes made as a whole at one specific plant, which is irrelevant to a discussion specifically about Air Jordans. Second, we have no idea where you got your figures from, let alone the legitimacy of your source(s) for this anti-Nike section of a random website for storage of someone's University of Michigan papers.

Bottom line is there is no way in hell I'm buying that Nike paid *11 times more* for materials and Asian sweatshop labor than they paid American designers to design (and redesign after testing) the shoes, laborers to make the prototypes (multiple times), athletes to test them out (multiple times), prime time TV commercials (millions of dollars), magazine ads (millions of dollars) and MJ for his portion of pay and percentage of profits (at least a million by '95). I guarantee you if we looked at statistics specifically from the '95 Air Jordans made, you'd see very, very different figures from the ones you presented.
I'd say it was the other way around. I think it was pretty obvious no one was saying inflation has absolutely nothing to do with the price increase (just very, very little), while it seemed like guys like you were trying to make it sound like it has all, if not most to do with the current prices.

Point number 1: 

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with with R & D costs of shoes, as I said before, R & D costs of shoes are very low percentage of the shoes in general.  So trying to compare the R & D that goes into a Lebron 12 vs a Jordan 3 is almost NIL.. So your argument that there is zero R & D costs, so the shoes shouldnt be more expensive is not valid.

Point number 2:

as I said before, endorsements are roughly 13 percent of Nike's budget, so basically 13 % of the price of the shoe is pay the athlete. 

Point number 3:

Inflation does play a role, when you consider that a dollar 20 years ago is worth more then a dollar today..

for example, in 1990 100 dollars is equivalent to about 181 dollars today.. so If i bought a pair of Air Jordans for a 100 dollars in 1990, today those same shoes scaled to inflation would be 181 dollars.. So personally to me I dont understand how you dont think inflation is a MAJOR factor in pricing..

just pricing in general of EVERYTHING has risen.. shoes, clothes, gas, housing, food, damn mcdonalds happy meal, yet for some reason people expect the price of Jordans to stay the same???  Makes absolutely zero sense.. I

here is an inflation calculator...

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1990&year2=2014

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
Point number 1: 

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with with R & D costs of shoes, as I said before, R & D costs of shoes are very low percentage of the shoes in general.  So trying to compare the R & D that goes into a Lebron 12 vs a Jordan 3 is almost NIL.. So your argument that there is zero R & D costs, so the shoes shouldnt be more expensive is not valid.

Point number 2:

as I said before, endorsements are roughly 13 percent of Nike's budget, so basically 13 % of the price of the shoe is pay the athlete. 

Point number 3:

Inflation does play a role, when you consider that a dollar 20 years ago is worth more then a dollar today..

for example, in 1990 100 dollars is equivalent to about 181 dollars today.. so If i bought a pair of Air Jordans for a 100 dollars in 1990, today those same shoes scaled to inflation would be 181 dollars.. So personally to me I dont understand how you dont think inflation is a MAJOR factor in pricing..

just pricing in general of EVERYTHING has risen.. shoes, clothes, gas, housing, food, damn mcdonalds happy meal, yet for some reason people expect the price of Jordans to stay the same???  Makes absolutely zero sense.. I

here is an inflation calculator...

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1990&year2=2014

Just to prove you wrong, showing that the increases need not be so dramatic, the Reebok Blast and Kamikaze

1995

[img]http://blog.eastbay.com/wp-con...bok-kamikaze-ii-mid-low-spring-1996.jpg[/img]

2013/14

http://www.eastbay.com/Mens/_-_/N-1pZ1z138l2?cm_REF=Men's

http://www.eastbay.com/product/mode...white/black/?cm=GLOBAL SEARCH: KEYWORD SEARCH

Reebok uses high quality materials, and makes a high quality product. Not a popular company, but not exempt from the effects of inflation.

Nike/Jordan has decreased the quality of their shoe, then increasing the pricing several times over the past several years.

If you decrease quality, should you not keep the pricing the same, if materials cost more?

So now, boom, better quality, and then even higher prices.

Using the rationale that the economy is the mitigating factor, is really hogwash.

 

[rob1ne]

for example, in 1990 100 dollars is equivalent to about 181 dollars today.. so If i bought a pair of Air Jordans for a 100 dollars in 1990, today those same shoes scaled to inflation would be 181 dollars.. So personally to me I dont understand how you dont think inflation is a MAJOR factor in pricing..



http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1990&year2=2014

But will we get the same quality product for 181+ dollars as we got for 100 dollars in 1990 thru these so called remastered retros?.. Doubt it.

 

[digiballs]

Reebok is not in a position to price their shoes on par with inflation.  They need to cut back on their margins to continue pushing thier product.

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
Reebok is not in a position to price their shoes on par with inflation.  They need to cut back on their margins to continue pushing thier product.

This is not true, and then is a capitalist's position.

Can't push product, if you cannot make it, can you?

So what you are saying that it is indeed a CHOICE, not a necessity.

 

[23inchesdeep]

Vietnam and Korea or wherever it was before JB took over was better than China. anything's better than China.
I'm just saying don't ever expect little details done right on a reproduction that's made in China, the materials should be a little more respectable but the cuts will always be way off, look at OG IV's and compare them to the remastered VI's the patterns are off, look at the shape of those leather panels on the toes/side of the forefoot, it's the entire show really, china always does an awful job with cut and sew. Use the lining in these two sneakers to notice how different the cut is, when they say they're getting them as close as humanly possible to OGs that's a bullfaced lie.
View media item 1220456

View media item 1220457

I actually prefer the remastered mold more.

 

[digiballs]

 
This is not true, and then is a capitalist's position.

Can't push product, if you cannot make it, can you?

So what you are saying that it is indeed a CHOICE, not a necessity.

You guys dont get it and its driving me crazy.  Consider this my final inflation post.

POINT 1

In case you are not aware, when a company has shareholders, the operators of the company have a legal responsibility to maximize revenue.  This is not an option, but a responsibility.  Please remember this.

POINT 2

Inflation is only one piece of the costs when comparing past and current price points.  As I have stated many times in my posts, which some have chosen to ignore, DEMAND IS PART OF THE PRICING EQUATION.

POINT 3

INFLATION IS REAL.  As stated above by another posted, $100 in 1990 is equivalent to $181 today.  This means that for every $100 is cost nike in 1990 to produce a shoe, ship a shoe, buy material etc.. it costs them $181 today.  That cost gets passed to us as buyers.

When you take this all into account you should understand that inflation plays a very large part in creating, manufacturing, and delivering the shoe.  This is not negotiable and not up for discussion its a fact.  It's now Nike's job to take that cost, adjust the price taking demand into consideration, and put out a shoe at a price point which will maximize their profit.  And since they are in demand, the cost of inflation does not need to impact their margins because they will sell.  Reebok is not in the same position.  They are impacted by the same inflation points, but their demand is not at high so they need to adjust their margins to sell through.  Remember point 1 where they have the responsibility to maximize their revenue, will Reebok doesnt have the luxury to stay inline with inflation, so they have to eat into their margins per shoe to ensure they sell through.

Get your heads straight boys, and if you still dont get it, go read up on economics and spend less time searching for kicks.

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
You guys dont get it and its driving me crazy.  Consider this my final inflation post.

POINT 1

In case you are not aware, when a company has shareholders, the operators of the company have a legal responsibility to maximize revenue.  This is not an option, but a responsibility.  Please remember this.

POINT 2

Inflation is only one piece of the costs when comparing past and current price points.  As I have stated many times in my posts, which some have chosen to ignore, DEMAND IS PART OF THE PRICING EQUATION.

POINT 3

INFLATION IS REAL.  As stated above by another posted, $100 in 1990 is equivalent to $181 today.  This means that for every $100 is cost nike in 1990 to produce a shoe, ship a shoe, buy material etc.. it costs them $181 today.  That cost gets passed to us as buyers.

When you take this all into account you should understand that inflation plays a very large part in creating, manufacturing, and delivering the shoe.  This is not negotiable and not up for discussion its a fact.  It's now Nike's job to take that cost, adjust the price taking demand into consideration, and put out a shoe at a price point which will maximize their profit.  And since they are in demand, the cost of inflation does not need to impact their margins because they will sell.  Reebok is not in the same position.  They are impacted by the same inflation points, but their demand is not at high so they need to adjust their margins to sell through.  Remember point 1 where they have the responsibility to maximize their revenue, will Reebok doesnt have the luxury to stay inline with inflation, so they have to eat into their margins per shoe to ensure they sell through.

Get your heads straight boys, and if you still dont get it, go read up on economics and spend less time searching for kicks.

Point 1:  Wrong.

We are talking about the pricing of sneakers here, not maximizing profits. Maximizing profits can also come from generating revenue from other areas, other than retail. Brand marketing is one way of doing this.

Point 2: If DEMAND IS PART OF THE PRICING EQUATION  as you've stated, then it is indeed a choice, NOT a necessity. They are doing this because they can, not because of improved quality, because that improved quality should have come at the 150 dollar price point already.

  Point 3: Inflation is indeed real, however there is also something called confirmation bias, which is what you are using as a form of reasoning right now.

So perhaps you'd better get your own head straight, then truly understand business, economics AND ethics.

 

[digiballs]

 
Point 1:  Wrong.

We are talking about the pricing of sneakers here, not maximizing profits. Maximizing profits can also come from generating revenue from other areas, other than retail. Brand marketing is one way of doing this.

Point 2: If DEMAND IS PART OF THE PRICING EQUATION  as you've stated, then it is indeed a choice, NOT a necessity. They are doing this because they can, not because of improved quality, because that improved quality should have come at the 150 dollar price point already.

  Point 3: Inflation is indeed real, however there is also something called confirmation bias, which is what you are using as a form or reasoning right now.

So perhaps you'd better get your own head straight, then truly understand business, economics AND ethics.

If you think point 1 is wrong then you have not a clue.  Im done peace

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
If you think point 1 is wrong then you have not a clue. 

According to who?

it is pretty clear that there are other ways of maximizing profits, other than raising the prices on shoes 20 more bucks.

 

[seandon23]

why can't we agree that inflation is part of the pricing but the biggest reason why nike prices these retros so highly is because they know they can and they want to maximize profits in these shoe sales. I think reebok and adidas price their shoes closer or at the OG price is because they do not have the same influence in the US market like Nike does.

 

[hulk7280]

 
Just to prove you wrong, showing that the increases need not be so dramatic, the Reebok Blast and Kamikaze

1995

[img]http://blog.eastbay.com/wp-con...bok-kamikaze-ii-mid-low-spring-1996.jpg[/img]

2013/14

http://www.eastbay.com/Mens/_-_/N-1pZ1z138l2?cm_REF=Men's

http://www.eastbay.com/product/mode...white/black/?cm=GLOBAL SEARCH: KEYWORD SEARCH

Reebok uses high quality materials, and makes a high quality product. Not a popular company, but not exempt from the effects of inflation.

Nike/Jordan has decreased the quality of their shoe, then increasing the pricing several times over the past several years.

If you decrease quality, should you not keep the pricing the same, if materials cost more?

So now, boom, better quality, and then even higher prices.

Using the rationale that the economy is the mitigating factor, is really hogwash.

You got one pair of shoe's and saying im wrong based on that?

That is the EXCEPTION to the rule, not THE rule

Look at the data of ALL shoes.. and you will find they have for the MOST part gone up in price..

of course you can pick one or two pairs that havent over time, but for the MOST part shoes are more expensive now then they were back 20 years ago..

Nike air max's are 179.99, flyknit air max's are 225, air max 90's are 120 dollars.. air max 98 are 159.. air max 95 are 159.. etc.. I can name 10x as many shoes that have gone UP in value then you can that have stayed the same..

so BOOM your wrong..

 

[hulk7280]

 
Point 1:  Wrong.

We are talking about the pricing of sneakers here, not maximizing profits. Maximizing profits can also come from generating revenue from other areas, other than retail. Brand marketing is one way of doing this.

Point 2: If DEMAND IS PART OF THE PRICING EQUATION  as you've stated, then it is indeed a choice, NOT a necessity. They are doing this because they can, not because of improved quality, because that improved quality should have come at the 150 dollar price point already.

  Point 3: Inflation is indeed real, however there is also something called confirmation bias, which is what you are using as a form of reasoning right now.

So perhaps you'd better get your own head straight, then truly understand business, economics AND ethics.

Nike is a SHOE company.. Maximizing profits from selling shoes is their bread and butter.. thats what they are in business for.. SMH

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
You got one pair of shoe's and saying im wrong based on that?

That is the EXCEPTION to the rule, not THE rule

Look at the data of ALL shoes.. and you will find they have for the MOST part gone up in price..

of course you can pick one or two pairs that havent over time, but for the MOST part shoes are more expensive now then they were back 20 years ago..

Nike air max's are 179.99, flyknit air max's are 225, air max 90's are 120 dollars.. air max 98 are 159.. air max 95 are 159.. etc.. I can name 10x as many shoes that have gone UP in value then you can that have stayed the same..

so BOOM your wrong..

Note, you've spoken of only Nike shoes that have increased in price. However, there are many shoes in Nike's lineup that have not had a drastic increase in price, and are still pretty popular. The Janoski line immediatly comes to mind, and there are many others.

 
Nike is a SHOE company.. Maximizing profits from selling shoes is their bread and butter.. thats what they are in business for.. SMH

Yes, this is true, they are a shoe company, but please correct me if I am wrong, but the bulk of Nike's money over the past ten years or so, comes from apparel.

That said, when Air Jordan's went from 139.99 to 150, and then 170, should there have not been an equally as high quality standard expected by consumers? 

It clearly was not the case.

This is what I am debating, I just want to be clear. Because from where I stand, and then where Reebok AND Adidas, New Balance and Asics are concerned, they feel differently from Nike/Jordan, with even greater quality being offered.

 

[teejaye1100]

I personally don't care for this premium increase and don't believe a word of higher quality materials. JB is milking the cow on this because they know if they say this people will go nuts and be willing to pay more. Think about it, the JB makes millions and they will say what needs to be said to keep profits coming in. Next, Jordans will be about $250 the same as Lebrons.

 

[mart da god]

reading through this thread, it is truly awful lol

 

[digiballs]

reading through this thread, it is truly awful lol

most accurate post in here lol

 

[hulk7280]

 
Note, you've spoken of only Nike shoes that have increased in price. However, there are many shoes in Nike's lineup that have not had a drastic increase in price, and are still pretty popular. The Janoski line immediatly comes to mind, and there are many others.

Yes, this is true, they are a shoe company, but please correct me if I am wrong, but the bulk of Nike's money over the past ten years or so, comes from apparel.

That said, when Air Jordan's went from 139.99 to 150, and then 170, should there have not been an equally as high quality standard expected by consumers? 

It clearly was not the case.

This is what I am debating, I just want to be clear. Because from where I stand, and then where Reebok AND Adidas, New Balance and Asics are concerned, they feel differently from Nike/Jordan, with even greater quality being offered.

For the most part, prices of shoes have INCREASED compared to what they were 20 years ago.. in general prices of shoes increase 3-6 percent every year of ALL shoes.. that isn't an opinion, its a FACT..

and Footwear is still and will always be Nike's bread and butter, apparrel accounted for 7.5 Billion out of the 25 Billion they did in 2013..

shaq attaqs retail for 160 dollars, there are numerous Asics that sell for 160, go on eastbay and do a search of Asics and most of there shoes are prices around the 150 dollar range..

which in the 20 years ago, no one would ever buy a pair of Asics for 160 bucks, you could get them for 39.99-59.99..

 

[hulk7280]

 
I personally don't care for this premium increase and don't believe a word of higher quality materials. JB is milking the cow on this because they know if they say this people will go nuts and be willing to pay more. Think about it, the JB makes millions and they will say what needs to be said to keep profits coming in. Next, Jordans will be about $250 the same as Lebrons.

JB makes Billions..lol

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
For the most part, prices of shoes have INCREASED compared to what they were 20 years ago.. in general prices of shoes increase 3-6 percent every year of ALL shoes.. that isn't an opinion, its a FACT..

and Footwear is still and will always be Nike's bread and butter, apparrel accounted for 7.5 Billion out of the 25 Billion they did in 2013..

shaq attaqs retail for 160 dollars, there are numerous Asics that sell for 160, go on eastbay and do a search of Asics and most of there shoes are prices around the 150 dollar range..

which in the 20 years ago, no one would ever buy a pair of Asics for 160 bucks, you could get them for 39.99-59.99..

You are simply avoiding the question, so I will ask you straight out.

Should a high quality shoe have been expected from Nike, at the 150 dollar price point?

How about the 170?

Are you giving Nike an excuse, as to why they were producing shoes of lesser quality?

 

[digiballs]

 
You are simply avoiding the question, so I will ask you straight out.

Should a high quality shoe have been expected from Nike, at the 150 dollar price point?

How about the 170?

Are you giving Nike an excuse, as to why they were producing shoes of lesser quality?

You are also avoiding the quesiton so let me ask this.

Is $100 is 1990 money = $181 in 2014 money?

 

[digiballs]

Ill also just leave this here. I already know who in this thread will know exactly what it is saying, and who wont.

 

[phuzzy badpheet]

 
You are also avoiding the quesiton so let me ask this.

Is $100 is 1990 money = $181 in 2014 money?

Red Herring.

First of all, that question was never posed to me, and the question has absolutely NOTHING to do with why admittedly subpar quality Nike product was being sold, at premium pricing. 

They are calling it remastering, which means that Nike admits that they've cheapened their own product, regardless of economic conditions.

 

[hulk7280]

 
You are simply avoiding the question, so I will ask you straight out.

Should a high quality shoe have been expected from Nike, at the 150 dollar price point?

How about the 170?

Are you giving Nike an excuse, as to why they were producing shoes of lesser quality?

these are Jordans. not some Luxury brand of sneakers... and not all jordans quality is bad, 88 WC, Lance mountain sb 1, friends and family 1's, cigar 6s all were great quality shoes.

Jordans are actually BASKETBALL SHOES.. they are meant to crease