←back to thread

How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?

(twitter.com)
689 points taubek | 2 comments | 09 Apr 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
hnburnsy ◴[09 Apr 25 19:36 UTC] No.43636748[source]▶
The thread was kind of hand wavy over the "$24* discount" for Footlocker? From the linked article...

>Footlocker’s purchase price (read footnote #3) for every sale of $100 shows up as $66 in their financial reports, and not $50. In plain terms, Footlocker sells its merchandise for a 24% discount on the average.

So $100 was never the sale price, just some made up, hoped for number that only appears on the shoe box, and not on anyone's financial statements. Really this should be Footlocker makes $6 on selling a $66 sneaker, for a margin of ~9%.

BTW, both Footlocker and Dick's have gross margins ~30% but Dick's has an operating margin around 12% while FL is 1-2%. Clearly FL is an inferior retailer.

And the linked article does cover Nike selling directly...

>And what happens if brands skip the retailers and operate their own stores? adidas and Nike already have their own shops, but direct-to-customer retail comes with its set of challenges. Brands will incur costs otherwise absent in the wholesale business model; spends like leasing+manpower+operational costs, store set-up and periodic re-modelling cost, the entire risk of inventory, and costs associated with warehousing and distribution. That’s only at the store level, there will be additional off-site resources needed in the back-end to support retail operations. The brands will make some extra margin selling out of their own stores, but the best case scenario will be an additional 10%, which is slightly above what a highly evolved retailer like Footlocker makes annually after taxes.

I would argue that a great deal of selling today is direct, no stores involved at all.

replies(5): >>43636924 #>>43637787 #>>43639764 #>>43642451 #>>43645592 #
1. throwaway2037 ◴[10 Apr 25 10:13 UTC] No.43642451[source]▶

    > BTW, both Footlocker and Dick's have gross margins ~30% but Dick's has an operating margin around 12% while FL is 1-2%. Clearly FL is an inferior retailer.
ELI5: What is the difference between gross margin and operating margin? Is operating margin the same as profit margin?
replies(1): >>43643664 #
2. acrooks ◴[10 Apr 25 13:40 UTC] No.43643664[source]▶
Maybe easiest to explain from a software perspective.

So if you build a SaaS app, your company will incur a number of costs. You need to pay AWS for hosting, your support team, your sales team, your annual team retreat to Mexico, etc.

When you start measuring your profitability you then will separately measure the profitability of your product vs. your business.

The profitability of the product is your gross margin - essentially your revenue minus your cost of goods sold (COGS). Not all of your business expenses fall into here - only the costs that directly relate to supporting the product.

So… - Your annual team retreat won’t hit your gross margin: this cost isn’t essential to supporting the product - Your AWS costs will hit your gross margin (if you turned off AWS tomorrow, your product stops working) - Your Slack bill does not hit gross margin - Your product & engineering team normally doesn’t hit gross margin, but DevOps does (because DevOps is seen as essential to supporting the product while R&D is not)

Now in reality it does get a bit more messy. Businesses might allocate a % of engineering costs to GM to account for essential maintenance and bugfixes.

So the way to look at it is: what costs are essential to the continued delivery of the product and what are nice-to-have?

And then operating margin essentially considers all of the non capital costs. It’s a more comprehensive view of all the businesses revenue and costs.

For a smaller business it’s very normal for operating margin to be razor thin or even negative. Because just one or two engineers could cost more than your entire revenue.

But this entire concept is why software companies have historically been able to be unprofitable for so long. A business that’s losing a ton of money every month might only be losing that money because it’s investing very heavily in R&D. Or maybe it just moved into a new

As you scale the relative impact of a lot of those costs will go down significantly - e.g. your engineering team cost will stop being 300% of your revenue and will start being 20% (you don’t hire engineers linearly with growth).

So the theory is that if you can find a software that has: - a big market - great gross margin

Then with just some upfront cash investment you can provide the business enough runway to grow the revenue to the point where the impact of some of these expenses becomes very small. At a certain scale, a product with 50%+ gross margin will be producing so much cash that it can pay for the rest of your operational expenses without further investment.