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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 01:19 pm (UTC)"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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 05:31 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 05:54 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 10:05 pm (UTC)bohemian rhapsody :)
and yay for finding time to watch the marathon with me! :) awesome.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 12:21 pm (UTC)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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-18 08:19 pm (UTC)