Do running stores tend to sell the most expensive shoes to non-serious runners/joggers??

I think the reverse is true. I worked a a specialty retail store and you would often get someone who said "what is your best shoe" and refused to listen to an explanation of why they should try on a bunch of models. "I'm in a hurry" or whatever

Thus "best shoe" by default became "most expensive shoe"

I am not sure the profit margin for the store is any higher for a $150 pair of shoes than a $80 pair.

I worked in a specialty store and a lot of times non-runners wanted something comfortable and then went for looks. In that case I usually let them look, try on and decide. Since they were not going to run in them, I did not care what they bought.

Profit margin for a $150 pair of shoes: around $75

Profit margin for an $80 pair: around $40

reality sucks wrote:

Profit margin for a $150 pair of shoes: around $75

Profit margin for an $80 pair: around $40

Correct... Stoes tend to at least "keystone" the products.... Doubling up the COGS.

Newtons are way over priced. The Newton company claims that they are much better shoes because they are a roughly neutral shoe, meaning that they are about the same height in the forefoot and heel as a opposed to normal shoes that have a rise. The reason most fast runners don't wear them is most fast runners go through shoes so fast that its not worth it to pay 200 bucks for a pair of trainers. Also very fast runners are sponsored and get their shoes for free from their sponsors. Newton does sponsor runners and triathletes but they are still a small company so you will probably only see those guys in boulder once and a while. I am sure that the shoe companys would love to sell their most expensive shoes to all runners. Unfortunately for most of them the best shoes they make are actually cheaper. The nike pegasus have been $80 for 15 years or more and are still the best running shoes on the market for my money.

Similar experiences as above. Customers would often come in and just want the 'best' shoe and assume most expensive equals best, which it often does not.

I'd fit based around their needs and pitch them a couple of shoes I honestly thought would be the best. I wasn't thinking about price when choosing unless they were price conscious.

Accessories is where you make up for selling a lower cost shoe anyhow.

running shoes are nowhere near keytone in specialty. this isnt zappos or dicks.

reality sucks wrote:

I think the reverse is true. I worked a a specialty retail store and you would often get someone who said "what is your best shoe" and refused to listen to an explanation of why they should try on a bunch of models. "I'm in a hurry" or whatever

Thus "best shoe" by default became "most expensive shoe"

I thought that this was an old thread where I had written the post above.

for reals wrote:

running shoes are nowhere near keytone in specialty. this isnt zappos or dicks.

Guess you don't know the right people

[quote]Hobo w/shotguno wrote:

Newtons are way over priced. The Newton company claims that they are much better shoes because they are a roughly neutral shoe, meaning that they are about the same height in the forefoot and heel as a opposed to normal shoes that have a rise.

I don't think you actually know what a "neutral" shoe is.

Neutral shoes vary from stability shoes by how much posting is under the arch, with stability being firmer and stiffer under the arch to control pronation, where as neutral generally has little to no posting, for people who dont pronate or even supenate.

Newtons are simply a flatter style shoe designed to use a combination of mechanical and natural forces to promote a healthy midfoot landing, rather than an inefficient heel strike motion.