Sneakers

[marcusmarcusrc]

In honor of the marathon, I have a question about sneakers (but which can be expanded to a more general economic discussion)


How does one appropriately purchase a high-quality object when:
a) It isn't always obvious how well it fits in the store (this is perhaps more true of hiking boots than sneakers, but in either case, it will feel different after the breaking-in period than it does when you first try it)
a2) and it isn't obvious how durable it is from appearances
b) Styles change more frequently than you purchase the object (so by the time you figure out you've bought the perfect sneaker, it is two generations obsolete and you can't buy another of the same type)
c) It is very individualized so word-of-mouth is somewhat limited (eg, your friend with narrow feet may love one brand, but it really won't make sense for you with wide feet. Or high arches. Or long toes. Or...)
d) It is a fairly small purchase, so not worth in-depth Consumer Reports research or whatever.

I was wondering this because I needed some sneakers, and found some on sale that were _very_ inexpensive, and seem to fit just fine. But they were so cheap I can't believe that they can really be good quality. And so I'll probably buy myself another more expensive pair if I decide I want to do any real long distance running, because I don't want to take a chance damaging my knees any more than I did by running in year old sneakers a couple summers ago.

But it seems stupid to want something just because it is more expensive. Yes, I know Veblen goods are part of standard economic theory. I could also go by brand names. Economists theorize that companies that spend a lot of money on advertising are signaling that they believe enough in their brand that they are willing to waste money on it. Some economists claim that expensive liberal arts degrees are a similar signaling mechanism. But I'm not convinced.

Comments

[tirinian.livejournal.com]

Well, *I* buy sneakers by having found a brand I like, which hasn't changed their style in 15+ years, and just always ordering more of those when they wear out. But I doubt that helps you very much. :-)

[chenoameg.livejournal.com]

Comment on your claims.

"Styles change more frequently than you purchase the object (so by the time you figure out you've bought the perfect sneaker, it is two generations obsolete and you can't buy another of the same type)"
I haven't actually found that to be a problem; the differences between models of the sneakers I prefer are mild at best. Certainly it is the case that if one brand fits you well it will probably continue to fit you well even if the specific models change.

"it isn't obvious how durable it is from appearances"
As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a durable sneaker. Sneakers seemed to be designed to survive a certain weight of footfalls and then they're used up. For the sneakers that I wear every day that translates to about a 3 month lifespan; sometimes it lasts until 6 months. If you're trying to use the same pair of running sneakers for more than a year or so and you're actually running then you're doing your legs no favors.

"But it seems stupid to want something just because it is more expensive."
It seems to me that you're making a reasonable cost analysis. The cost of messing up your knees is high. A small premium paid as insurance (buying a known brand) is an efficient use of money.

"found some on sale that were _very_ inexpensive, and seem to fit just fine"
My evaluation of whether they were cheap or just inexpensive would include where I purchased them, and why they were so inexpensive.

Now actually answering the question.
There are different solutions.

- One goes to an expert; that's why the recommendation of word-of-mouth for sneakers is often the good running store I can't remember (maybe on Mass Ave near Harvard but still on the Porter side of the common?)

- One becomes an expert on the characteristics of a good pair of sneakers and a good fit. This allows one to evaluate an inexpensive pair of sneakers and see if they have sufficient qualities to meet one's needs.

- One iterates the process over a series of sneaker purchases; finding a brand that has a good fit, or finding a store that offered good choices, and then making future purchases that same way.

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

I've had small changes in models yield large changes in durability. Of course, I probably do wear my sneakers longer than I should (though I usually have 2 pairs and switch off between them, since I try not to wear the same shoe two days running. And recently I've switched to rockports for daily use. And I kick my shoes off and wander about in socks whenever I can). Though I think the change I noticed most was that one shoe model change was the addition of an "air pocket" in the heel. I thought the shoe was great until winter rolled around, and the pocket was perfect for collecting snow outdoors and then dropping a lump of wet dirty stuff indoors that I would inevitably step on with my socks...

Yeah. Good stores with good customer service can make a big difference. For many purchases. I'll have to see if I can find this Mass Ave running store.

[coraline]

that's marathon sports, and they are always the top recommendation for buying sports shoes in the boston area. they'll let you take shoes out of the store and run around the block a few times in them -- it's not as good as breaking them in, but it's better than jogging in place in the store...

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

Ooh. Thank you. I'll go there, when I have a break from writing.

[tanatoes.livejournal.com]

Me, I thought that Sneakers was a great movie, Ben Kingsley's accent notwithstanding. Oh.. wait...

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

"My voice is my password..."

[shumashi.livejournal.com]

"verify me."

[shumashi.livejournal.com]

And it's "passport," not "password." :)

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

Er. Yes. I knew that. Or should have known that. How embarrassing. Can I claim thesis daze?

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

One possible strategy is that when you buy a pair that you do like, buy a bunch more pairs immediately and put them in a box until you need them. I do this sometimes with pants, and I would do it with shoes except I wear Campers and they seem to always keep making the shoe I like best.

[puffy-wuffy.livejournal.com]

I agree with rifmeister...I often buy shoes as a set of four, not two, because I want to know that in six months, if I've forgotten to buy new shoes, I'll be able to get them.

In general, buy the expensive sneaks, but only if they make your feet feel good! Feet are precious commodities. Treat them with much appreciation, and like a well-appreciated wife, they will make you feel kingly!

[hannka.livejournal.com]

you find something that feels comfy and looks cool. because you don't want to have sore feet, and you don't want to have an eyesore looking down at your feet, either. and let's face it, we all look at our feet often enough. you look around and find a pair you like. when they wear down, the first thing you'll go for is the same brand, because people like status quo. typically you'll stay with the same brand as long as you like the sneakers you've worn out (and don't want to part with). if you got annoyed with them, you'll switch to a different brand more easily, even if the brand you're now unhappy with actually has better sneakers now. "trial and error" is my best answer.

bohemian rhapsody :)

and yay for finding time to watch the marathon with me! :) awesome.

[remcat.livejournal.com]

I'll chime in re: Marathon Sports. (They are great, and not hideously expensive.) I also second the wisdom of buying 2+ pairs of shoes. If you are running more often than every-other day, or if you are using your running shoes for general use, you should be switching off between two pairs of shoes to extend the lifetime of both pairs (which is about 400 miles, give or take). I love this website on long-distance running training -- here is their page on shoes. Also, this page has some useful articles on running-related injuries and the avoidance thereof.

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

I'm a firm believer in signaling theory. But you don't even need to accept the strong version to explain advertising. If I believe that my advertising will convince you to try my product once, how much I spend depends on whether I believe that you will try it once and then go back to what you were doing before, or try it once and discover that it's actually better that what you were doing. If I expect you to actually switch permanently, I'll invest a lot more into my brand. So as a consumer you can deduce that the heavily-advertised brands are likely to be superior quality.

You knew all that already, but I don't really care about where to actually buy real-world shoes, so I thought I'd try to switch the topic to theory.

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly believe signaling exists, and is a component of what drives advertising. But I personally (not that I have anything but anecdotal data) believe that for many products there is a larger component of brainwashing than signaling. Advertising often attempts to convince people that they need product X when in the absence of advertising they may have derived no pleasure from it. Note that this is different from advertising product X where in the absence of advertised they had no desire for it, but only because they didn't know it existed. This is where the advertising effectively changes the nature of the product.

One can argue, of course, that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, fashion and "coolness" and fads are part of human society. I love the book Bellwhether (Connie Willis) which makes fun of the whole fad phenomenon in a really sweet, funny way. And of course, advertising dollars fund a lot of things I do like, like good TV programs and newspapers and websites and so forth. But, I don't know, it still feels icky to me somehow.