Quality of JB decreases to save us money?

s0lehunter

Banned
149
10
Joined Apr 9, 2006
could it be JB uses cheaper materials to save money and be able to keep a lower price than it would be for the consumers, lets say they use the same material back then, it probably went up in price right now, so if they did release the same exact shoe back then, they would probably have to sell us pairs like the fire red III's for $200 due to the high quality material that was used back then, which went up in price

just a guess, what do u guys think

flame if you want :x



i hope you guys understood what i just typed
 
204
10
Joined Jun 2, 2003
No, their not "passing" their savings onto the consumers by using "cheaper materials".
4L8O15S16T23!42​
 
37
10
Joined Nov 15, 2005
no... in any type of business your objective is to make money. JB is on top of the world. they know whatever trash they release is gonna sell regardless. JB manipulates the shoes market. consumers are always gonna buy. so hey why not use cheaper material and make a bigger profit. why not use cheaper leather and make this sneaker a LIMITED. but we can only blame ourselves for campin out and makin JB rich every release date
I'm stackin dough up, and cuttin coke up, Ive been rockin Jays since A.I. had a Bowl Cut
 
117
10
Joined Feb 24, 2003
CrazyCisko couldn't have said it any better. He's absolutely right.

JB is doing all these cost cuttings, only for them, for profit. @ 140 dollars a pair, they can give us the best quality leather, died misdoles that won't ever crack or chip and all the goodies we get from the OG's back in the days.
HOY! Pinoy ako!
 
1,819
11
Joined Oct 15, 2006
save us money?


:rofl:

..with so much personality,
what do you want from me?
i could be by myself and enjoy the company..
but i'd ratherher
 

AIR J XIII

Supporter
4,146
3,904
Joined Nov 11, 2002
let's see...

1988 - TOP QUALITY - $100
1994 - Top Quality - $100
2001 - top quality - $100
2003 - top quality - $100

something happens here within Nike and the Jordan Brand

2007 - cheap materials - $125

saving us money? LAUGHING OUT MUTHA-LOVIN LOUD
"2002/2003 - The Last Year Brand Jordan actually used "real leather" on their products."-BabyJordan0312​

Team Disgruntled​
 

ai bundy

Banned
289
10
Joined Jul 27, 2001
:lol:
This guy just said Nike is saving us money charging 150 bucks for some shoes. This place is comedy
 
1,561
11
Joined Mar 18, 2007
Quote:[hr][/hr]let's see...

1988 - TOP QUALITY - $100
1994 - Top Quality - $100
2001 - top quality - $100
2003 - top quality - $100

something happens here within Nike and the Jordan Brand

2007 - cheap materials - $125

saving us money? LAUGHING OUT MUTHA-LOVIN LOUD[hr][/hr]
Indohan
 
276
10
Joined Aug 11, 2007
This post made no sense......LOL...... But there are many of those posts these days...

Jordan Brand has such a STELLAR REPUTATION now, that they don't have to be at the top of the market quality-wise or technology-wise anymore... Except for their new SIGNATURE SHOE every year... Which the XX3 will be the last one...
 
5,990
691
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Honestly man... C'mon :stoneface:
TeaM
GEORGIA SOLE
DEDICATION IS KEY Member #25- DWalk31
DeKalb County​
 
2,943
10
Joined Jul 23, 2007
don't forget inflation, that can mean a lot to the value of kicks back then in today's prices.
but your loss is my gain.

nuff said.

TEAMKINGKOOPA
 
107
10
Joined Jul 1, 2007
Well I was going to post something about this,,it all actually has to do with Nike`s environment friendly projects,,JB just might be doing the same thing and that might be the cause of cheaper materials on shoes,,I even think the new Air Forces releasing are made out of a different material then it was last season if you compare the new all black air forces to the 1`s released in 05,,the materials are way different,,same for the VIII`s that just released and the VIII`s that released a while back,,different materials
 
26,904
382
Joined Nov 1, 2005
Doesn't matter what kind of quality is put on basketball shoes, it doesn't take nowhere NEAR as much to make as they charge retail.
New Jersey Nets
#1 Marcus Williams #2 Josh Boone #5 Jason Kidd - C #7 Bostjan Nachbar #? Malik Allen
#9 Mile Ilic #12 Nenad Krstic #15 Vince Carter #21 Antoine Wright #22 Bernard Robinson
#24 Richard Jefferson #35 Jason Collins #51 Sean Williams #? Jamaal Magloire #? Robert Hite
 
5,038
2,500
Joined Oct 22, 2004
^ dont they make them for less than $5?

even though were paying for the marketting and a lot of other stuff too, $150 is still to much to pay for a GR shoe
TEAMLOSTPOWERCITY​

MIAMI HEAT​
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,091
17,866
Joined Dec 8, 1999
Don't be silly.

Inflation? Come on now, you should know better than that. Producing a shoe doesn't even cost 10% of its retail value in many cases. The majority of the manufacturer's cost comes from marketing, R&D, etc. For retros, those costs are all but nil. The shoe's already been designed. The technology already exists. When's the last time you saw an ad campaign for RETROS? They expect US (the fan community) to do all of their marketing work for them.

I'd be STUNNED if it costs them even $10 to manufacture a pair of Jordan Retros.

If someone actually has the gall to try and tell you that there's ANY benefit to you as a consumer when a company decreases the quality of their product, makes the product less faithful to the original (i.e. the removal of Nike Air for "branding" reasons), you'd have to be a fool to believe it. They make decisions based on what will generate the most money possible. Satisfying you, the consumer, is only incidental. They satisfy you only to the extent that your satisfaction increases sales or profits.

If you want the brand to continue along its current arc, if you consider the products a good value and of acceptable quality - keep buying them. If not, STOP. Though there's nothing at all wrong with expressing yourself, at the end of the day the only way to actually influence the brand's decisions is by voting with your wallet.
 
46
10
Joined Jan 30, 2006
Quote:[hr][/hr]could it be JB uses cheaper materials to save money and be able to keep a lower price than it would be for the consumers[hr][/hr]


You got the first part right, its just NOT for the CONSUMERS benefit! Its so they can make more profit. People are paying more than retail for a shoe that retails for $140 or more(grapes, dmps, thunder, lightning), so why not mark up the shoe so JB makes that money instead of resellers? Like posted above, the retros already have the design and technology, so they dont have to pay for that. Even the new numbered Js are overpriced. They retail for $175 on release day, and they sell "X" amount. Then they drop the price/put them on sale, and more people buy them thinking they are getting a deal because they are on "sale." Then they go to clearance/outlets and sell for "X" amount. If it costs $10 to make the shoe, then they are STILL making that much off of the shoes. With retros they sell out almost completely on release day, so they dont have to mark them down/put them on sale and dont have to pay to advertise them. Look at the employee discount. People are getting 20%-30% off retail and they are STILL making a profit. Also, look at the price of the clothing. $30 for a t shirt? Come on. The price of cotton hasnt gone up THAT much, because you can go anywhere and get a plain cotton shirt for $10. Its all about the Jumpman on the tag.
Its basic suppy and demand. If people are camping out for a GR shoe (aquas) then the demand is there. If people are paying $50 or more above retail, then the demand is there. They under produce the product(supply) to create hype, making the product an instant sell out. Why do you think every Christmas their are not enough Playstations, Xboxes, Nintendos, Elmos, or (insert product here) to go around? HYPE! Then resellers buy up all the products, creating an even shorter supply. The PS3 has dropped in price because the consumer isnt demanding the supply, yet the Wii hasnt dropped because the supply is still not there and the demand is still high.
 
81
10
Joined Jul 10, 2006
Quote:[hr][/hr]Don't be silly.

Inflation? Come on now, you should know better than that. Producing a shoe doesn't even cost 10% of its retail value in many cases. The majority of the manufacturer's cost comes from marketing, R&D, etc. For retros, those costs are all but nil. The shoe's already been designed. The technology already exists. When's the last time you saw an ad campaign for RETROS? They expect US (the fan community) to do all of their marketing work for them.

I'd be STUNNED if it costs them even $10 to manufacture a pair of Jordan Retros.

If someone actually has the gall to try and tell you that there's ANY benefit to you as a consumer when a company decreases the quality of their product, makes the product less faithful to the original (i.e. the removal of Nike Air for "branding" reasons), you'd have to be a fool to believe it. They make decisions based on what will generate the most money possible. Satisfying you, the consumer, is only incidental. They satisfy you only to the extent that your satisfaction increases sales or profits.

If you want the brand to continue along its current arc, if you consider the products a good value and of acceptable quality - keep buying them. If not, STOP. Though there's nothing at all wrong with expressing yourself, at the end of the day the only way to actually influence the brand's decisions is by voting with your wallet.[hr][/hr]
:lol:
:wow:
Use code RA9498 when checking out for 20% off everything @ Karmaloop.com.
 

kobekilledit

Banned
209
10
Joined Dec 25, 2004
Nike still makes good quality basketball shoes you can actually play in, and for less than a pair of retros. Case closed.
 
1,626
10
Joined May 10, 2005
I agree....they still do make good quality shoes but they can never make it as similar and precise like the ORIGINALS..
 
Top Bottom