- 2,317
- 312
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
I assumed all the shoes were genuine leather also. Guess that's why they are so light now and back in the day they were heavy af. Lol
Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" - White/Fire Red/Cement Grey - August 3rd (08-03-2013)
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by air jsarg,
- Start date
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
Jordans have always been light, even when they were made with real leather. I played high school ball in the OG III's back in 1988 and they were extremely light. The were a genuine tumbled leather and were amazing.
The reason they stopped using genuine leather is because synthetic is cheaper. Think about it...
OG III's made with genuine leather and premium materials, retail price was $100.
Recent retro III's made with synthetic materials and cheap paint, retail is $160, $200 for the '88s. An inferior product for a much higher price... Nike/Brand Jordan is making major profits.
- 18,034
- 8,504
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
What about how the market and economy were different from 88 to the present day? I would think that would play a part in cost wouldn't it?
- 1,343
- 164
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
The price of sneakers go up, because of inflation. Nike uses cheaper products to maximize profit.
Last edited:
- 2,446
- 3,034
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Consolation prize for those who missed out on green glow 4's?
It looks like they just sold out on FNL.com.
It looks like they just sold out on FNL.com.
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
Of course inflation plays a part. But think about this for a minute...
1988 OG III's = $100
1994 retro III's = $100
2001 retro III's = $100
2003 retro III's = $100
2007 retro III's = $125
2011 retro III's = $160
2013 retro III's = $160
It took 19 years for the price to increase $25.
It took 8 years for the price to increase by $60
It took 4 years for the price to increase by $35
So, unless inflation only occurred in the last 4-8 years, how much of a role does inflation really play? How much does the increase in price have to do with popularity/demand?
Last edited:
- 1,343
- 164
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
They more than likely didn't have to raise the prices in the early years, because of using cheaper products and labor. Also, I'm sure Nike looks for the equilibrium price when looking at supply and demand curves of their products.
Last edited:
- 36
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
Ya speaking of the price difference in 2001-03 I remember when the XVI's came out and the $160 price tag was nuts for a shoe at that time
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
I'm not sure what you are saying makes any sense. They used better materials in the early years. Plus, the retail price of the 3's did not increase until 2007, 19 years after the OG's released, so what exactly are you considering to be the "early years"? Are you saying the use better materials now? I hope not.
The point I am making is:
From 1988-2003, 4 versions of the Jordan 3 released and the retail price did not change ($100).
From 2003-2007, the retail price increased $25, from $100-125.
From 2007-2011, in just 4 years, the retail price increased and additional $35, from $125-160.
In just 8 years, from 2003-2011, the retail price increased $60, from $100-160.
Inflation can only account for "part" of that increase. The materials are not better now, they are worse (way worse), the economy is not better now, it is worse (way worse). So what changed?
Last edited:
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,769
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
at anyone defending Nikes price increases....
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
That was crazy, but I'm referring strictly to retros. The price of the "legacy" models (new models that release every year) has historically increased pretty much every year.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,769
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
Not really historically. Maybe since 08 or so.
- 5,941
- 1,296
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
when has a new model not cost more? hasn't it pretty much always
- 27
- 12
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
This.
Of course inflation is a factor in making up the final cost of a product (any product, not just Nike / JB shoes). If you didn't know that, you shouldn't be buying shoes anyway. However like seandon23 said, the market and economy were different back then. It is very plausible that Nike used cheaper labor at the time, offsetting the price increase caused by inflation. Nike was subject to child labor accusations at the time as well (early 90s, maybe even a bit before that) and admitted to their mistakes in 2001 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm). It is thus likely that regulations calling for minimum wages and worker's rights in the problematic areas increased the production costs for Nike as they've been closely watched ever since not to employ children anymore. In addition to this, Nike has grown as a brand almost exponentially, opening factories and entering new markets aggressively, as well as constantly investing money into new technologies that help them build better products, of which Flyknit could be one example (or the 3D printed football cleats they showcased earlier this year). You could also say Nike has most likely put a lot of its money into developing its distribution channels and manufacturing chain, as having primitive factories with poor working conditions is not efficient. (It sounds cruel, we're talking about other people here, but efficiency is more important to a company than working on worker's rights. Just look at the Foxconn and Apple scandal, having people jump off the buildings due to stringent working conditions and stress is horrible. It is however only after the fact that Foxconn and Apple worked on the problem, because having your employees commit suicide will obviously deteriorate efficiency, not to mention your public image.) Finally, add to the fact that Air Jordans are always hailed as the must have sneakers any collector should buy, that's why you have people going crazy over Concords and making it to the news in bad taste. If it hadn't been for the Banned commercial and ad campaign in the early days of Air Jordan, the shoes would have been sitting on the shelves until they were handed off to second hand chains and discount stores. We wouldn't have any Retros then, or anything Air Jordan. The brand is a premium one and demands its own price tag: you're not buying Nike shoes, you're buying Jordans. That's why they have a Jumpman on them, not (only) the Swoosh. That's why NikeStore has a separate section for Jordan clothes, shoes, and gear. All of these reasons are factors in determining the final price of the sneakers. Some weigh more than the others, but overall this is what you have to work with if you want to dissect the cost of the final product.
Now I'm not saying Jordans cost much because MJ wants his share of the margins and I'm also not saying Nike is unethical. I've bought a few of the sneakers myself and mainly wear Nike clothes, I believe they as a company have learned from their mistakes in the past and are building a reputable brand, this is best highlighted with Nike endorsing LGBT athletes. I'm sure such endorsements wouldn't have been as accepted in society back in 1988. Times have changed, things cost more, there is inflation, there is the market, etc. Of course the product is going to cost more. if you haven't noticed, a lot of things cost more nowadays than they used to some years ago, but this is because currency is and was never based on a fixed value. Currency always changes value over time, as its value is reflected by the state of the market. This means, if you think the shoes are pricy, don't buy them. Eventually if enough people won't buy Jordans, the prices will go down one way or another. Maybe through cost cutting, maybe by lowering production runs, I don't know, but somehow they will because that's how the market works. You can always buy New Balance or adidas, or whatever other brand you might like, that's the beauty of the market: choices. If you don't like something, so go support another company. It's your money after all.
Cheers,
Yousif.
- 4,206
- 2,409
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
No joke.. I'm certainly not happy with the consistant increases while releasing lesser quality/cheaper materials.
- 1,343
- 164
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
^^that just backed up what I said about pricing not raising due to cheaper product and labor being used.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,769
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
A whole essay and it ignores the bottom line. Retros require no r&d while shoes like Kobe's, kds, and more have lower price points than retroes.
Nike can pay tiger woods and bron $100 mill each doe.
Nike can pay tiger woods and bron $100 mill each doe.
- 27
- 12
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
I want to add that I'm not defending Nike in any way. I feel the discussion is important, so I got carried a bit there with the length of the post. No harm done.
Yes, Nike has money. A lot of it. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could find a way to make shoes for a dollar and sell them with a 500% margin. It may, for all we know, be the current way of things. However saying that there is no R&D involved with the making of Retros is ignorant. There's always R&D involved even if you used the same mould every year to produce the same shoes.
As far as materials go, consider the fact that it's generally discouraged nowadays to use real leather for obvious reasons (animal's rights for example). Artificial leather has improved a lot in the past years, as has polyester for example. In the 70s you didn't want a polyester shirt. Now you most likely own a polyester shirt and haven't noticed it's much different to a cotton shirt. Same with leather. The synthetic materials used nowadays are good, but obviously inferior to genuine materials such as cowhide for leather. It's just the way things have progressed. As with any other product, e.g. they don't make cameras like they used to before. (An SLR from the 80s was built like a tank and still works. Drop a Nikon today once on concrete and it's broken. I have an OG PlayStation 2 from launch that still plays games, but my PS3 bit the dust in just 6 months of service. It's sad but true.)
- 2,317
- 312
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
Animal rights? I have eaten like 13 hamburgers this week. Let me get their skins!! Haha!!
There is plenty of leather to go around. i mean its almost the new standard in luxury vehicles for leather seats, wrapped steering wheels, shift knobs, etc. It's just cheaper to go synthetic. We pay Nike for the inflated price of leather without getting any leather.
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
LOL capo, you edited your original post. You originally said nothing about labor costs, but simply said they made a cheaper product in the "early years", which is not true. You can see what you originally wrote because I quoted it in an earlier post. I hope you didn't edit your post to kind of make it match something frosandaviators/Yousif wrote.
frosandaviators/Yousif: I agree 100% with what you wrote about Nike's labor costs increasing due to serious accusations about labor conditions in their factories. I remember seeing pictures of Michael Jordan touring the "new" factories around 2004. Another nice PR move.
This would definitely be a link to why the retail price of the retros increased so significantly in such a short amount of time. It would also explain why Nike was able to maintain the $100 price point for the Jordan 3, for example, for the better part of 19 years.
It makes so much sense. Extremely cheap labor, allowed Nike to use good materials and maintain the $100 retail price point. They get busted for having "sweat shops" in 2001, but make amends, begin to rectify their mistakes and suddenly, just a few short years later, they begin using cheaper, more inferior materials and the retail price increases to $125. But, the demand for retros is increasing, and Nike realizes they begin to raise the price even more. However, the buzz starts to go down a little, mainly because of the inferior materials. Suddenly (over the last couple of years), quantities released by retailers become very limited, pre-ordering at retailers is removed... supply because limited, demand goes through the roof! People begin paying double, triple, quadruple the retail price to get their J's from resellers. Nike sees this and recently begins releasing more pairs to the retail outlets... coincidentally, a few months before they are set to raise the retail price of retros by $10. They are geniuses, really.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, inflation is always going to play a part in the price of products, but I truly believe that, in this case, the labor costs are the main factor in why retros increased so dramatically in such a short period of time.
- 1,343
- 164
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
I did edit my post to put in labor cost, before Yousif wrote his post. Usually cheaper labor goes with cheaper materials. Lol. You also just backed up what I said about supply and demand, I didn't edit that sir.
Damn iPhone with typos!
Damn iPhone with typos!
Last edited:
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,769
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
in all reality.... we all know the price increases are because Jordan purchased the Bobcats/Hornets and needs up to help his struggling, non profiting franchise
- 282
- 342
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
in all reality.... we all know the price increases are because Jordan purchased the Bobcats/Hornets and needs up to help his struggling, non profiting franchise
LOL
- 1,343
- 164
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
in all reality.... we all know the price increases are because Jordan purchased the Bobcats/Hornets and needs up to help his struggling, non profiting franchise
Can't argue that statement. Lol
- 27
- 12
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
Let's put that to the test. I quickly put together a table with the retro shoe prices as laid out by scollard23 and the respective buying power for each year.
Some interesting things to note here: if we only go by inflation, you'd have to pay almost twice the money for the same 100 dollar shoes from 1988 in today's money. Is it just a coincidence that the WC Retro '88 retailed for 200?
Also, in regard to price increases, again if going only by inflation, the cost of a 2013 retro compared to a 2011 retro in today's money has actually decreased. The numbers really speak for themselves, it's very evident from the inflation corrected prices how the economy has changed throughout the years (most notable the recent depression).https://www.dropbox.com/s/eiacqqapzkzujbn/Photo 18.8.2013 1.35.43.png
