![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marcusmarcusrcIn 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 04:55 pm (UTC)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.