 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Awdbugga wrote: |
I've just a pretty good deal on a pair of Oakley Line Miner Prizm High Pink Iridium goggles from Igero.com.
They have a special 20% discount code at the moment. Brought the price down to £86.40, with free delivery. That's the cheapest I've seen them by quite some way.
|
Not being funny but maybe if you'd bought them from an Oakley store at the price that entails - rather than the cheapest price you could find online - you might have had some room to haggle on a hard case. I bought my Oakley sunglasses from an Oakley store and whilst they were costlier as-is, I talked the shop assistant into providing a free case and a cleaning kit.
Basically you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want the cheapest possible price on the same model of goggles, then in my opinion you can expect them to be light on the ground when it comes to spares, accessories and service. If you don't want tight ar$e behaviour, you can't be one yourself. Buy them at full price, and then see what accessories you might get with them - especially if you ask nicely and get a package together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I take your point. But that hardcase cost £8. I think it fair to assume the seller made 100% profit on it. Are you telling me that someone should have to haggle or request Oakley throw in a £4 case with a pair of Goggles that retail for £135 and are also probably being sold for at least 100% profit.
I can’t subscribe to that logic. We’ll have to agree to disagree and I’ll keep looking for bargains. 
The mark up on skiing gear is pretty high. 4 months ago S&R were selling my boots for £250. Two weeks ago they were on sale for £80; and they are still making a profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Awdbugga, why do you want a hard case? I've had Oakley for years and only ever have them in the cloth bag. I put them in my helmet with gloves for travel. A hard case just adds bulk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| @Awdbugga, why do you want a hard case? I've had Oakley for years and only ever have them in the cloth bag. I put them in my helmet with gloves for travel. A hard case just adds bulk |
Fair point. I guess being a relative noob I’m over cautious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Just get a lid with a visor.... best thing i done for eyewear & i snowboard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, in my experience, no.
I got some A Frames a few years ago (at full price) from an Oakley dealer and despite being a self confessed reasonable negotiator still had to pay for the case.
I generally find own brand stores to be the worst place to get any reasonable deal on an item/items from so now very rarely buy from them. I would rather obtain the best price I can on individual items from reputable retailers and make my own package
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mine go in the cloth bag, and fits nicely inside the helmet too.
But then I only paid £40 for my Oakley goggles from FreezePro, so didn't expect a hard case.
Saying that my Uvex fake Oakley glasses that I use for MTBing came with a hard case. I don't even know where it is tbh. I think there might be some spare different colour lenses in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@holidayloverxx, I smashed a new Prizm lens last year in my rucksack in a fall. Just bought another £70 from Freezepro....my fault 🙄.
@Awdbugga, good spot I’m in, Oakley great goggles but a rip off for accessories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Markymark29, Bah! I don't carry spare googles or a rucksack
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I have a hard case like the OP and I really like it. i put my googles and gopro in there and then chuck in the suitcase. I have previously also put them in the helmet but I like the dedicated case and it gives me the option for where I put the goggles without having to always keep them with the suitcase. But then I do like to over engineer 
Oh and p.s. the other main reason is the off season and wardrobe suitcase packing. I'm always at the snowdome so I'm always using my helmet so my goggles are nice and toastie no matter where they get bunged and moved from and too between holidays. I'll likely buy some more of these for the family too, we've all got smith goggles so I'd hate to damage them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
a pair of Goggles that retail for £135 and are also probably being sold for at least 100% profit.
|
How do you make over 100% profit???????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pam w, when the trade price is less than half the price you pay.
If shelf price is £135 and trade price is £62.50, you make 100% profit because 100% of what you paid for them is profit.
So if your shelf price is £135 and trade price is £60, you've made over 100% profit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Awdbugga wrote: |
| Are you telling me that someone should have to haggle or request Oakley throw in a £4 case with a pair of Goggles that retail for £135 and are also probably being sold for at least 100% profit. |
Besides the fact that you're comparing 2 different values (you're using a trade price relative to a retail price - different things. Oakley might only spend £4 on the case, but they don't get the £135 either - trade price will be way less); in short, yes.
The way it works with a lot of manufacturers is that if you buy the full price product, you get everything included. But there is a lot of demand in the UK (see other threads we've done) for achieving the lowest possible price when appearing in search engines etc - so the manufacturers offer a product to online discount stores, outlet shops, etc etc - which allow them to offer the 'same' product at a discount price. The way Oakley, and other manufacturers, achieve that price is to strip literally everything they can from the product, except the core item. Some manufacturers will literally sell the product in a clear plastic wrapper with a sticker on, to cut the cost around a cardboard box.
There's also the principle of things like a hard case - or even proper packaging - add size and weight to the product. Smaller size and weight means you get more in the shipping container. It mightn't mean much to your single pair of goggles, but when several thousand pairs go in a container from China, cutting the niceties might mean they get an extra 25% of products in the same container size and weight, which has a real difference on the profit.
It's not about quantifying how much it actually costs to do these things, it's about finding all the possible savings and applying them, so you can pass on the lowest possible price to the consumer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
One thing I'm sure about is that Luxotica aren't in business to deliver stuff at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. They do have a pretty big marketing overhead to cover though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
True, but the market for discount products in the UK is in many areas bigger than the market for the full price stuff, so manufacturers offer an option because it makes sense to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
There are loads of semi rigid cases on eBay at the moment at buy it now prices of £3 to 5 . Don't suppose they are as good as manufacturers versions but worth a punt at those prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| dp wrote: |
@pam w, when the trade price is less than half the price you pay.
If shelf price is £135 and trade price is £62.50, you make 100% profit because 100% of what you paid for them is profit.
So if your shelf price is £135 and trade price is £60, you've made over 100% profit... |
Doesn't seem right. Gross profit margin is profit divided by revenue IIRC so can never be more than 100%
Of course there is the concept of mark-up which could be > 100%
Eg a product bought at cost of £60 with 200% markup to retail at £180 would produce a gross profit of 66.6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I have bought several Oakley eyewear products and cannot recall one which had a hard case "included" in the price I paid. This is goggles and glasses from online retailers and authorised physical dealers over the last 20 years. Many hard cases are available but not generally within the cost of the goggles even direct.
My current goggles (Airbrake), as far as I am aware do not have an official hard case option hence the interest in this thread! I would probably have purchased it if they did. Despite purchasing them at a significant (>60%) discount from RRP, they included the goggle bag, spare lens and soft case which I believe is the standard inclusions when buying from anywhere looking online. The last pair purchase at or near RRP also did not include a case and I had to buy one as referenced above.
I agree that manufacturers often ship lines with fewer accessories/lower cost variants for discount retailers/online stores however I'm not sure this is relevant to Oakley and hard cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Anyone know to a hard lens case, Just for a spare lens not the whole goggle, Smith used to do one, but have not seen it for a while, so I can keep the spare lens in it while skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I use a soft but padded scuba diving mask case for any goggles I keep in a rucksack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've bought 2 pairs of Oakley goggles from authorised shops and they came in cardboard boxes with a cloth bag. I've never seen an Oakley hard case displayed so I didn't know they did them. Now I'm a sunnies and bobble hat girl so I only use them when it's snowing or in flat light so they (just the one pair - I wrecked the other by cleaning them with washing up liquid  ) spend most of the time in my rucksack being squashed against the back of chairlifts. They survive faceplants, don't they, without breaking, so I never worried about them. Well, until now .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| dp wrote: |
@pam w, when the trade price is less than half the price you pay.
If shelf price is £135 and trade price is £62.50, you make 100% profit because 100% of what you paid for them is profit.
So if your shelf price is £135 and trade price is £60, you've made over 100% profit... |
That's 100% mark up, not 100% profit. In your example above the profit margin would be 50% (although it ignores VAT/TVA, which would have a significant impact in Europe as the retailer would only get to retain about £112 of the sales price, reducing the mark up or profit considerably).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Awdbugga wrote: |
| The mark up on skiing gear is pretty high. 4 months ago S&R were selling my boots for £250. Two weeks ago they were on sale for £80; and they are still making a profit. |
How do you know they are making a profit (on that transaction)?
Very very roughly in elective spend retailing across the board it's said, 1/3 is sold at full retail, 1/3 at discount with some profit, 1/3 at cost (or below) to liquidate the stock.
Quite frequently a retailer will sell end of line/season items at a (net of VAT/TVA) price below that they paid for it, less frequently but not that rarely the price is below what the item cost to manufacture (with on costs).
That's across all areas of retailing and doesn't exclude snowsports for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@Awdbugga, Thank you, looks like they will do the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Awdbugga wrote: |
| The mark up on skiing gear is pretty high. 4 months ago S&R were selling my boots for £250. Two weeks ago they were on sale for £80; and they are still making a profit. |
How do you know they are making a profit (on that transaction)?
Very very roughly in elective spend retailing across the board it's said, 1/3 is sold at full retail, 1/3 at discount with some profit, 1/3 at cost (or below) to liquidate the stock.
Quite frequently a retailer will sell end of line/season items at a (net of VAT/TVA) price below that they paid for it, less frequently but not that rarely the price is below what the item cost to manufacture (with on costs).
That's across all areas of retailing and doesn't exclude snowsports for sure. |
BTW, the saying above is to some extent from the good/bad old days before the growth of web sales. The whole thing is now skewed by retailers who never sell at RRP, manufacturers who (as @dp stated) sell stripped down products to such discounters, or manufacture special versions of products to move through 'big box' retailers, or retailers who move unsold inventory on within their trade in order to avoid visible discounting on their own channel.
Whilst 85% of retail in the UK (90% in US) is still in physical stores the internet retailers have had a disproportionate effect on the discount segment.
My point from the post holds true though, in the case of a retailer like S&R, if an item is heavily discounted then they may well be losing money on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yea snowandrock look like they are really losing under such hardship having sold a goggle at 40% off .
My heart bleds for them .
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Mon 11-06-18 10:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think the boots being sold for £80 were at Sports Direct in which case they were probably acquired as distressed inventory (as part of a big lot) from a shop who had gone bust or from a distributor's warehouse who just wanted to clear the shelves.
So someone is making a loss in the supply chain but it's not necessarily the retailer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, agreed.
My point though is that @Awdbugga's original post:
| Quote: |
The mark up on skiing gear is pretty high. 4 months ago S&R were selling my boots for £250. Two weeks ago they were on sale for £80; and they are still making a profit.
|
Implied that as the boots were on sale for £80, then the trade price was somewhere below that (for example £50 or £60 net of VAT) and ergo S&R were making a huge margin when selling at £250.
That's just not the case, and the original trade price will have been north of £100 net of VAT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think people frequently assume that all stock is sold at a profit and shops would not sell things at a loss... failing to recognise that to a retailer, stock which is not making you money is costing you money, so you need to keep things moving along. Particularly in 'physical' stores, where stock occupies costly stock-room and shop-shelf space, anything which you can't sell at it's RRP or even at trade, eventually has to go out at a loss because otherwise you'd end up with shelves full of gear you can't shift and nowhere to put the stuff which you can.
The statistic about online sales only making up 15% of sales in the UK is interesting but is it relevant? How is this statistic reached? For example, if it's based on per unit that we buy, it may be based on the fact that most people still do their groceries in the supermarket even if they shop online, and that when buying groceries you buy a lot of 'things' even if not spending so much money. £100 in the supermarket might easily represent 40+ items, which in Ellis Brigham or S&R, it'll likely only represent one or two. And if it's to do with gross spend, that might be to do with the fact that people still generally buy cars from dealerships, and high value items such as jewellery / watches come from stores where people can try them on and have them adjusted etc.
IMO the problem with online retail, even if it doesn't account for the sale, is that it sets the value people expect to pay. The UK consumer is not good at realising that a significant part of the price you pay on the shelf represents partly the value of the product, but also has to represent each of the shop, distributor and manufacturer's rent / bills / staff wages / marketing / insurance / equipment & maintenance / etc etc. Sometimes when you think of the amount of expenses incurred by selling something, it's a wonder anything can be sold for the prices we pay. Your Oakley Line Marker goggles are probably actually worth about a tenner at source.
I just slightly resent the concept that manufacturers - even those as big as Oakley etc - are somehow obliged to include free stuff such as cases with their goggles when you're already buying them at hugely discounted prices. It's a very consumerist mindset... "I want everything and I don't want to pay for it, as the seller you should be lucky for my custom and see that I'm treated as such". As somebody else pointed out, Airbrakes come with a soft case (mine did too) so maybe there is also a case (excuse pun) for the fact that people buying the costlier models get accessories with them, and if you want to buy the cheaper goggles you accept that you get a cheaper deal. It's just shallow minded when you want to buy a manufacturer's budget-friendly model, from a budget-friendly reseller offering substantial discounts, and then complain that along the way you didn't get a case thrown in for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Blimey, came on here initially thinking i'd buy a lens case now I've had a finance lesson in the P&L's and margins of retail business model and value propositions 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Markymark29, welcome to snowHeads
only took you 6631 posts to suss it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@dp, Ha, yes...it is summer after all and no proper ski talk going on.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Markymark29, No, but there are bikes to ride. Been doing a few laps of my reservoir recently, maybe I should venture up to yours again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I had spare lenses in my rucksack for opposing conditions (flat/sunny) and woul regularly break them. A pair for me and a pair for my GF.
I then replaced the broken lenses with full goggles rather than just lenses and put them in similar hard cases to those above.
I haven’t cracked a lens since then. That’s almost 100 days and several wipe outs. Best (2x) £8 I ever spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The statistic about online sales only making up 15% of sales in the UK is interesting but is it relevant? How is this statistic reached? For example, if it's based on per unit that we buy, it may be based on the fact that most people still do their groceries in the supermarket even if they shop online, and that when buying groceries you buy a lot of 'things' even if not spending so much money. £100 in the supermarket might easily represent 40+ items, which in Ellis Brigham or S&R, it'll likely only represent one or two. And if it's to do with gross spend, that might be to do with the fact that people still generally buy cars from dealerships, and high value items such as jewellery / watches come from stores where people can try them on and have them adjusted etc.
|
Good points, and tbh I don't know if it's volume or value. Unfortunately it came from a talking head on the BBC Breakfast this morning, and for once they didn't use the Beeb's go to 'retail expert', if they had I could have pinged her a text for clarification, but I've no idea who this lady was.
Her other point though chimes in with yours: High end and low end aren't doing badly, it's the middle ground that's suffering, hence HofF's woes (which is what the package was about).
The part of the stat that struck me though was how the US lags behind on web based spending, I would have thought the home of Amazon et al would be a bit ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dp wrote: |
I think people frequently assume that all stock is sold at a profit and shops would not sell things at a loss... failing to recognise that to a retailer, stock which is not making you money is costing you money, so you need to keep things moving along. Particularly in 'physical' stores, where stock occupies costly stock-room and shop-shelf space, anything which you can't sell at it's RRP or even at trade, eventually has to go out at a loss because otherwise you'd end up with shelves full of gear you can't shift and nowhere to put the stuff which you can.
The statistic about online sales only making up 15% of sales in the UK is interesting but is it relevant? How is this statistic reached? For example, if it's based on per unit that we buy, it may be based on the fact that most people still do their groceries in the supermarket even if they shop online, and that when buying groceries you buy a lot of 'things' even if not spending so much money. £100 in the supermarket might easily represent 40+ items, which in Ellis Brigham or S&R, it'll likely only represent one or two. And if it's to do with gross spend, that might be to do with the fact that people still generally buy cars from dealerships, and high value items such as jewellery / watches come from stores where people can try them on and have them adjusted etc.
IMO the problem with online retail, even if it doesn't account for the sale, is that it sets the value people expect to pay. The UK consumer is not good at realising that a significant part of the price you pay on the shelf represents partly the value of the product, but also has to represent each of the shop, distributor and manufacturer's rent / bills / staff wages / marketing / insurance / equipment & maintenance / etc etc. Sometimes when you think of the amount of expenses incurred by selling something, it's a wonder anything can be sold for the prices we pay. Your Oakley Line Marker goggles are probably actually worth about a tenner at source.
I just slightly resent the concept that manufacturers - even those as big as Oakley etc - are somehow obliged to include free stuff such as cases with their goggles when you're already buying them at hugely discounted prices. It's a very consumerist mindset... "I want everything and I don't want to pay for it, as the seller you should be lucky for my custom and see that I'm treated as such". As somebody else pointed out, Airbrakes come with a soft case (mine did too) so maybe there is also a case (excuse pun) for the fact that people buying the costlier models get accessories with them, and if you want to buy the cheaper goggles you accept that you get a cheaper deal. It's just shallow minded when you want to buy a manufacturer's budget-friendly model, from a budget-friendly reseller offering substantial discounts, and then complain that along the way you didn't get a case thrown in for free. |
Retail is certainly a challenging environment and getting more so for both the consumer products companies and the retailers themselves. I've been involved in some discussions where it is speculated that maybe the way for brand owners to continue successfully is to cut out retail entirely and sell everything B2C. But that needs vastly different supply chains (particularly re handling returns) and there may be a limit to how far it reaches - maybe its well suited for your custom spec Nike kicks but less so for a specific screwdriver which when the punter needs it they want it then. There is a constant tension between whether businesses are chasing top line sales/ market share or solid margins. High street (+related) retailers as we have seen often recently are sometimes just chasing keeping the lights on. I could have bought Homebase (+ its debt obligations) for less than a tape measure.
I think most people are however getting wise to the value of a B&M store. If it's a flashy "flagship" store you are definitely paying for it in the product price so you had better be valuing the advice and/or service you get. Same for smaller niche businesses - without wishing to swell the toxic sprout's head any, you definitely get the value of an almost OCD level of product knowledge and technical expertise when you engage with the Piste Office. This is why true local shops survive - convenience and knowing the solution to your problem. But not all B&M staff are at that same level and to be honest I have no shame in buying cheap and online when I don't need that or want to avoid upselling.
But in a world of plentiful choices (no one "needs" an Oakley goggle) it seems the right behaviour is to be consumerist and challenging to the brands and retailers that want your £. It's the way we get what we want and need. Problem is we might not realise we want or need more until the only shops left are coffee and charity.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
Good points, and tbh I don't know if it's volume or value. Unfortunately it came from a talking head on the BBC Breakfast this morning, and for once they didn't use the Beeb's go to 'retail expert', if they had I could have pinged her a text for clarification, but I've no idea who this lady was.
Her other point though chimes in with yours: High end and low end aren't doing badly, it's the middle ground that's suffering, hence HofF's woes (which is what the package was about).
The part of the stat that struck me though was how the US lags behind on web based spending, I would have thought the home of Amazon et al would be a bit ahead. |
Poundworld isn't doing great though at the low end ( though that's possibly a result of the low £ challenging what the consumer really gets for a £1 priced product ).
In the US I think you have to remember that online grocery has been somewhat harder to get going (distances, different product mix etc), the ubiquity of Walmart/Target/Costco and that everyone with any money to spend outside NY partially or completely commutes or recreates by car so is able to fit in stopping and shopping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@midgetbiker, yep, anytime.....tracks are in awesome shape. Just got back from a techy ride and now Mrsmm29 sat with an ice pack on her ankle.....didn’t quite make the collapsed drystone wall jump! 😱
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
