- 678
- 221
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
In general I'd agree with you, however Nike's price increase is simply because they can and have for years controlled supply and demand. I'm interested to see if the last 4 releases sitting on shelves is a long term trend or temporary.
Jordan's cost under $40 landed to the U.S. For a pair of retros. USA Today posted on these years back. And while costs in China are escalating sneakers and Garmants have low labor content due to automation in factories. With all this said, Nike doesn't run a cost plus business. So if a sneaker costs $1 but everyone will pay $250 why lower your Price???
Newer sneaker technology may carry higher costs, but for most of these retros were talking +20 year old technology.
Yeah there is no doubt that a good portion of the increase is just cause they can.
I actually work in the Garment industry and see some of the fees that we pay to have good shipped from China. There are FOB / brokerage / duty / ISF / drayage / freight. These things don't get cheaper. Then there is the cost of running a warehouse for picking and packing the goods to ship out.
I recall reading an article and it stated that for a $100 Nike shoe, Nike's profit is only 9% of that. They sell the $100 to wholesalers for $50 and after all the cost their profits are roughly 9% of the $50 shoe (before retail markup). I'm not saying that's the case for Jordans and I'm positive the profit margins for Jordans are much higher but it still gives you a better perspective of the industry.