
How Crocs Rakes in Revenues From Ugly Shoes - fiaz
http://www.businesspundit.com/how-crocs-rakes-in-revenues-with-a-single-ugly-shoe/
======
iamelgringo
They rake in revenues because it's a great product at a great price.

My day/night job is as an ER nurse, and pretty much the only shoes I've worn
for the past 3 years are Crocs. I walk an average of 5 miles a shift at work,
and I'm standing when I'm not walking. I've been used to spending $80-150 a
pair of shoes for years. Now, with Crocs being $35 a pair, I buy them 3 pair
at a time. And, the anti-bacterial bit is very nice for the nasty splashes at
work.

~~~
dime
I like the fact that Crocs are anti-bacterial, but it also worries me. The use
of anti-bacterial soap and other cleaning products in hospitals has spawned
super bugs resistant to known means of combating pathogens. Could Crocs share
the same fate?

~~~
nirmal
Is it antibacterial in the same sense as soap? I thought it was a material
that just made it harder for bacteria to get a physical foot hold (no pun
intended).

------
TrevorJ
"They nailed down their supply chain. Crocs purchased the supplier of the
resin for the shoes and the factories that make Crocs. They also signed
contracts with key retailers."

How does this ensure success? Sure, it ensures that they have complete control
over their ability to deliver a product, but that has nothing to do with being
able to SELL it.

Not criticizing, just curious.

~~~
pchristensen
It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. It meant that when Crocs became
a market hit, their suppliers couldn't raise prices on them. It meant they
could capture all the value that their popularity created.

~~~
hugh
Well it's not a _necessary_ condition either. Plenty of companies, and indeed
plenty of shoe companies, are successful without purchasing their entire
supply chain down to the plastic-factory level.

~~~
pchristensen
True. But it might be necessary for them to get enough capital and resources
to survive after the fad wears off.

------
r7000
I hate the shoes. But my next hockey equipment purchase is going to be made of
this croslite stuff for sure.

Non-smelly hockey gear: something people _really_ want!

~~~
jward
Non smelly? Have you ever been in a croc store? I went in with a few girls and
I had to leave. The overwhelming stench of plastic fumes was making me gag. I
felt physically ill just being in their store. I've worked on drilling rigs
that smelled less chemically.

Hopefully it's less horrid than your hockey stuff is right now and is a
positive trade ;)

~~~
r7000
Few things smell worse and when you are in a small dressing room with a team
of guys and their equipment. Yikes!

Actually some googling after that comment led me to this:
<http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/429427>. These guys claim that the
croc-style equipment only masks the problem while their stuff kills the odour-
causing bacteria. If the next front in the war between equipment makers is on
anti-stink technology I am all for it!

~~~
Tichy
There is a reason that athlete's foot is called athlete's foot...

------
ca98am79
that's interesting, because their stock is currently at an all-time low:

[http://www.uglychart.com/2008/06/10/crocs-inc-crox-at-a-
new-...](http://www.uglychart.com/2008/06/10/crocs-inc-crox-at-a-new-all-time-
low/)

~~~
steveplace
Thank you for pointing that out... if you hadn't, I would have.

Now compare that chart with Heely's HLYS. Or Jones Soda JSDA.

These are fad stocks based off trendy items...however:

The only difference with CROX is that they have a patent on a very good
material. They can license it out, but it won't have near the revenue as their
ugly plastic shoes.

For more analysis, read the beginning of this article:

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=fashion

------
mhb
The jibbitz piggyback was also quite clever:
[http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/02/magazines/business2/crocs_si...](http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/02/magazines/business2/crocs_side.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2006110218)

~~~
whacked_new
I still can't find any aesthetic appeal at all in those shoes, and I simply
attribute it to a generation gap. But this story is well worth thinking about.

~~~
cdr
For some people, function is more important than function. They're great
shoes, and considering where they're typically worn, does aesthetic appeal
matter?

The ugliness actually appeals to some people, too.

~~~
whacked_new
This is an interesting point. It brings out the question: just how far can you
make something ugly (assuming I'm not dead wrong about lack of aesthetic
appeal in those slippers), provided that they do their non-aesthetic job
right?

Certain famous websites come to mind. On a tangential point, it seems like
these things must be relatively cheap and easily accessible, and cannot become
status symbols. Sushi is an example where aesthetic appeal is as important as
its palatability. (I'm typing a bit aimlessly)

So, what about those NIKE Naked shoes (or whatever?)? They are less of a
fashion statement because they stand out less, I presume?

------
edw519
A vulnerable business if there ever was one. Between their patent woes and
cheap knock-offs from China, I wonder where they'll be in 2 years.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with IT.

~~~
pchristensen
About 1/4 of the article was about how they've been madly diversifying because
they _know_ that ugly shoes are a fad. They used the cash and scale that the
shoes provided to become a diversified manufacturing company.

------
brandonkm
crocs rake in revenue because they are universally accessible and come in any
colorway you can think of.

