Change for Change's sake

[EricW]

I'm sick of products getting changed simply to give them a different look than last year.  I know why it gets done: to appeal to kiddies and teeny boppers, but how most of this superficial crap applies to adult consumers is lost on me.  

Let's talk running shoes.  If there are any runners here, they will know what a pain in the ass it is to get a pair of properly fit shoes that don't kill you after 5 miles.  Any shoe that fits your feet isn't good enough for most runners - it's different than buying a street shoe.  One generally has to go to a running store and find a shoe that works given one's weight, footfall pattern, running style, yadda yadda yadda.  It's a big deal for people like me who are on the stockier side of the spectrum.  Fortunately, the shoe manufacturers make shoes designed for specific needs, so one can generally find a decent fit.

So, let's say you find a decent shoe and run in it for six months, after which it's worn down.  It's then time for a new pair and relegate the old ones to trail running.  You go back to the store and try to buy the same thing.  Well….FORGET IT ABOUT IT!!!!  In the meantime, the shoe manufacturer has totally revamped their lines.  It's not that they have a new model year of shoe, it's that the one that you had either doesn't exist or the fit has been altered for a totally different application.  Keep in mind, there was nothing wrong with the old line.  Someone in marketing just got bored and decided to screw with everything.  

Athletic shoe manufacturers have been doing this every 12-18 months since I can remember.  The only way to keep up is to buy 2-3 pair of something you like as soon as you find it.  But, when you've used them up, you're back to ground zero as the shoe manufacturers have f'ed everything up again.  I hate it.  And, since every manufacturer does exactly the same crap, brand loyalty is pointless.  Product line juggling has to be the dumbest, most worthless thing on earth.  It serves no purpose.  Once something works, it works.  I can understand change due to new technology, but shoe technology has been totally static for 15-20 years now.  There is nothing new to be done.  

The stupidest example of this is what Avia did to itself about 12 years ago.  They had a shoe the whole world loved, or so it seemed.  I think it was the Arc 2050.  Everybody had a pair.  They were light, durable, super shock absorbent.  Going from gel-filled shoes to the Avias felt like you were running on air.  It was wonderful.  What did Avia do?  Totally F'ed their lines up to keep up with the Jones'.  Avia dumped the 2050, made something new called the 2070, which wasn’t as good.  Then they killed the 2070 and had nothing even close.  Avia spiralled down the toilet not long thereafter.

The irony of this is that most of the people buying $100 running shoes are adults, not kiddies, which makes the marketing masturbation all that more puzzling, as anybody who's been through the design cycle knows how expensive it is to churn through prototypes and new tooling.  It amounts to nothing but shameless, pointless waste.  I just don't get it.  I am certainly tired of paying for it.  

But, it's not just shoes, it's everything.  Consumer electronics, cars, you name it.  Change for the sake of change.  There's no functional improvement this year over last, but by God, let's make it different anyway.  I'm sick of products getting changed just to give them a different look than last year.  I am especially tired of the “Lexus / Bar of Soap Look.”  Why in the hell does my cable modem need to be “swoopy.”  A simple box would have worked fine and would have cost 25% as much to make.  My “Lexus” modem sits in the goddamn closet anyway.  (As though my hats and jackets will ooh and ahh over its subtle, sexy design.)  

Are there a lot of 13 year-olds in the market for running shoes designed for heavy overpronators these days?  I think not.  When the hell are companies going to wake up and get stop perpetually redesigning stuff just for the sake of some overpaid Marketing major’s job security?

Enough!!!

[benos]

Nice Eric! I hate that crap big-time as well!!!!!!!!

;(

[SiG Lady]

'Wonder what would happen to the auto industry (let alone the American economy...!) if cars were only allowed to re-design, let's say, every 3-5 years....???  It's just all part of the scam/scheme of very-well-planned obsolesence.

Friend of mine just yesterday ranted a little about how one of the local malls had changed to the point where all they were selling were (what he called) "baubles"... that is, somewhat useless non-essentials that simply cost money and take up space... or end up broken.

SHOES: I went thru the same s**t with trying to find the simple, unadulterated Reebok 'classic' style athletic shoes not long ago. Finally found 'em but the materials they're making them out of now are not quite as soft and as high a quality (slightly lower grade leather, I imagine) as earlier models. I'm really, really tempted to go back and buy two or three more pair (a la EricW) just to have some decently-fitting shoes for a couple of years or so before they de-volve completely and reappear as some mutant version of themselves.  Better than NO years or so of good shoes. Hmmph!

[Nik Habicht]

Five years ago when the local sneaker stadium was going out of business, I spent three days a week in there for the last six weeks they were open buying sneakers.  I wound up with 28 pairs of sneakers in my closet that all fit.  I bought multiple pairs of the same style ---- basically all they had left if it fit ----- for between 15 and 40 cents on the dollar.  In about another six months, I'm gonna have to go shopping ---- I'll be into the last five pair then........

[bonedaddy]

Emelda Marcos, eat your heart out!

[Patrick Sweeney]

It's ten times worse if you aren't an off the rack size.  My sizes are right at the edge of standard produciton.  When I find the shoes that are comfortable on sale, I scour the stores getting every one in my size.  Ditto pants.  (It was even worse when I was skinny.  Ever try to find trousers in 28-36?)

And most style changes are stoooppid.  As if I want to look like a slack-trousered, backwards hat unbuttoned shirt, unlaced shoes homeboy.  (Unless it is urban camoflage, of course.)

[JasonK]

HA! I dare you to find a pair of 30"x40" jeans on the shelf.

PS. if you do I want them!

[ErikW]

Holy crap, I could just about invert patrick's W x L sizing.

[IPSC CHIK1]

change for changes sake. not here. i still run 1911s and 1911 wide body variants. not THERE is a truly classic design that has never gone out of "style"

SharonAnne L2387

PS. you guys think YOU have shoe problems, HAH!

[SiG Lady]

Jeez, I swear they don't make clothes for us petite l'il gun-totin', 98-lb, quick-moving miniature ladies either! I end up looking like a baggy homeboy no matter what I wear. I've actually begun to buy teen and children's stuff in some cases.

I also keep begging the folks at the local range to carry their imprinted t-shirts in a size smaller than super-elephant, extra-large-humongous whatever. But no luck. It's as though God (or whatever) just discontinued making petite people and everyone out there in Marketing Land quit carrying the amenities that go with them!

[BrianH]

---

I've actually begun to buy teen and children's stuff in some cases.

---

My wife can't find ANYTHING that fits in the store....5'2" womens aren't supposed to have curves, apparently....

I have ALWAYS been convinced when you see a product called "new" or "improved" (or both) it simply means that sales are down....I think almost NOTHING gets improved.....

[Patrick Sweeney]

When it comes to finding clothes that fit, I must defer to the ladies in the hassle department.  I've dated women from 4'10" to 6'2" and every one of them had problems getting clothes to fit.  Sometimes I think womens clothing sizes are determined by a standards department based on Jupiter.

30-40, holy cow!  I thought that was a caliber!

[xsrdx]

Unfortunately, we have ourselves to blame for this cr*p. The jaded American consumer has so much of everything, companies that want to sell anything are forced to change product lines weekly to appeal to whatever the new "growth" demographic happens to be.

Sticking with a proven design will usually get you left in the lurch, as trend conscious, media saturated consumers rush to snap up the latest new and improved gizmo.

It's all BS of course, just like perpetual "growth". Why do companies have to "grow" to be successful? What the he** is wrong with picking a niche and serving it well and faithfully, without "growing" 20% annually until you merger and acquire your way into bankruptcy.

/Rant mode off.

Capitalism beats the alternatives, but it doesn't always make sense.

[BigDave]

New Balance:  A few years ago, I was fitted for my first pair.  Best damn pair of shoes I've ever worn.  New Balances claim to fame is (1) extended sizes (12+) and (2) extended widths (4E).  Now, you'd think if a shoe store carried these, they'd carry the extended sizes.  Hell no!  I walk into Foot Locker or The Finish Line, ask for a pair of 14 2E's and I get a look like I just asked for his/her first born.  I swear...

Being a big guy certainly has its advantages, but when it comes to footware and clothing, it mostly sux.