Why not free shoes??

[gibby2020]

My wife (also an ECP) has asked this question a few times: Why not give away your 1st pair of shoes free?? Why have online shoe retailers not resorted to this, but eyewear sellers have?
Both products are made in Asia. Both require proper fitting. Both products are sold in brick and mortar stores by trained & Knowledgeable individuals, or untrained & clueless people.

I ask especially since CC has a shoe selling site: Shoeme.ca. I recall they had hired some former Zappos executives so that may be way they branched out tho this?

But no internet ads offering your 1st pair of shoes free. I did a quick look at some shoes and noted the price was not significantly cheaper vs B&M. I admit I need to research more. But I can find good shoes at Winners that I can try on and pay about $60 sometimes $45+tax

If I'm wrong please point me to the free 1st pair free shoe sites..

Gibby

[DanLiv]

Any site could easily give away the first pair of shoes free: "free flip-flops! Just pay the difference to upgrade to anything else!" It wouldn't work because shoes are simple familiar commodities (that really do not need to be fit. I have successfully been wearing comfortable shoes all my life without ever being fit by anyone other than myself) and everyone understands the difference in function, quality, and price among $8 flip-flops, $60 trainers, and $500 suede dress shoes. However, eyewear is not such a common commodity and consumers are not aware of the difference between $8 OTC readers, $60 basic Walmart glasses, and a high quality $500 pair of spectacles. Therefore they think they are getting effectively the same thing for $8 online as they would for $60 at Walmart or $500 from the optometrist or optician. Online sellers exploit this to make consumers think they are satisfying their vision needs for $8, (Walmart does the same at $60) when we know they are not. The consumer knows better when someone tries to foist flip-flops on them to use running marathons.


The second reason is of course the cost of commodities. Shoes aren't hugely cheaper online for the same reason any simple commodity isn't much cheaper: they are so easy for anyone without a shred of product knowledge to sell that the competition is huge and the profit margins are ridiculously small. That pair of $60 shoes in the store might be $45 online, but may wholesale for $35. Even the onliners can't go much lower, and the stores can't go much higher because ten other shops within driving distance sell the identical commodity shoe for the same $60.


*We* all know spectacles are not such commodities. A large portion of the expense of eyewear is in the service, expertise and labor to individually craft them to order. Onliners and discounters just eliminate that service and expertise and rely on cheap labor to churn out the glasses equivalent of flip-flops, but convince the consumer they are losing nothing and scoring a huge deal over greedy B&Ms. The only way to reverse the trend is to educate consumers on the differences, but that's hard for us to do without huge marketing campaigns. All we can really do is work with the customers we can attract. Thankfully the crappy quality of online and low-end B&Ms does some of this work for us. We've all had plenty of customers seek us out as an alternative to their poor experiences in the past. Hopefully we have all impressed them as well!

[jpways]

And for many of us, glasses are a medically necessary device. Many marathons are won by people who don't wear shoes. If there weren't people to follow I'm not sure someone with an uncorrected VA of 20/100 or worse (and I think this is a conservative estimate) would be able to navigate a marathon (let alone do many things we take for granted, like legally drive)

[optimensch]

very interesting analogy.

the global footwear market must be a lot bigger, more players at all levels so more competition. Lower barriers to entry for resellers/retailers etc... in that no customization is required. Eyewear is more of a "blind" (NO PUN INTENDED!!) item to most people, it is very difficult for a layman to assess the value of a pair of glasses, compared to say a pair of shoes....

But your point is well-taken. Zenni clearly has set the benchmark on pricing, with $7.00 Rx glasses- so everyone else charging more than that , including Warby and Clearly who are obviously ripping off everyone ;). Clearly was advertising glasses from $38, a very high price in comparison, so they should be able to give away at least 2 or 3 free pairs before they need to start charging.