←back to thread

689 points taubek | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
hx8 ◴[] No.43633780[source]
> But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses.

I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe go up? The costs of handling the shoes, retail space, advertising, and labor are all fixed.

replies(18): >>43633824 #>>43634076 #>>43634140 #>>43634174 #>>43634187 #>>43634256 #>>43634280 #>>43634377 #>>43634446 #>>43634484 #>>43634560 #>>43634764 #>>43635127 #>>43635686 #>>43637131 #>>43640232 #>>43642701 #>>43644645 #
treis ◴[] No.43634187[source]
Because it's mostly wrong. Luxury goods like Nike's, iPhones, et.al. are priced to maximize revenue. If those started growing on trees for free it wouldn't appreciably change the price. They'd just bank the extra as profit.
replies(4): >>43634270 #>>43634328 #>>43634891 #>>43643532 #
1. lupire ◴[] No.43634328[source]
Every product is priced to maximize profit (not revenue).

Apple sells lots of phones at different price points. So there is some price sensitivity via a vis value for money or competitive pressure.