3 ms·

> But for now, there are no plans to offer Bonobos’s $98 chinos or $128 dress shirts in Walmart’s 5,000-plus stores. Instead, Walmart is hoping to learn from Bo

> But for now, there are no plans to offer Bonobos’s $98 chinos or $128 dress shirts in Walmart’s 5,000-plus stores. Instead, Walmart is hoping to learn from Bonobos. Its co-founder and chief executive, Andy Dunn, will oversee Walmart’s digital brands, which also include the independent women’s brand ModCloth.

sotojuan 9y ago
I don't think that pricing is very good. $100 for pants is not enough for "better" quality/craftsmanship like designer labels have, but it's not low enough to be an easy purchase. Honestly, the $100 pants (from a few brands) I've worn don't feel any better (or last much longer) than $40-50 Uniqlo pants. I've always been curious about this market niche (better than fast fashion, but not designer quality).
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Well somebody thinks that pricing is good enough because Bonobos just got bought. This comment is more to point out to the OP that while Walmart might have bought Bonobos, it doesn't mean he's gonna go shopping at the actual Walmart building.
- samsolomon 9y ago
  For many clothing brands the sticker price isn't what many people pay. Sales occur every few weeks knocking 20 to 40 percent off of items. I think their shorts and pants are exceptional and worth the $50 to $70 you can get them for during sales.
  - sotojuan 9y ago
    > Sales occur every few weeks knocking 20 to 40 percent off of items. I think their shorts and pants are exceptional and worth the $50 to $70 you can get them for during sales. Is selling most of your stock during sales profitable? If so, interesting business practice and I'm curious if it's more common than I thought (J. Crew could be doing the same).
    - opportune 9y ago
      Yes, because even during sales the margins are still high. They're just less high. In fact, as JC Penney proved to consumers, you often make more money setting prices at $50 and having frequent sales at $30 than you do setting the price at $30 but having no sales.
      - sotojuan 9y ago
        I stand corrected then. Thanks!

sotojuan 9y ago

I don't think that pricing is very good. $100 for pants is not enough for "better" quality/craftsmanship like designer labels have, but it's not low enough to be an easy purchase. Honestly, the $100 pants (from a few brands) I've worn don't feel any better (or last much longer) than $40-50 Uniqlo pants. I've always been curious about this market niche (better than fast fashion, but not designer quality).

joelrunyon 9y ago
Well somebody thinks that pricing is good enough because Bonobos just got bought. This comment is more to point out to the OP that while Walmart might have bought Bonobos, it doesn't mean he's gonna go shopping at the actual Walmart building.
samsolomon 9y ago
For many clothing brands the sticker price isn't what many people pay. Sales occur every few weeks knocking 20 to 40 percent off of items. I think their shorts and pants are exceptional and worth the $50 to $70 you can get them for during sales.
- sotojuan 9y ago
  > Sales occur every few weeks knocking 20 to 40 percent off of items. I think their shorts and pants are exceptional and worth the $50 to $70 you can get them for during sales. Is selling most of your stock during sales profitable? If so, interesting business practice and I'm curious if it's more common than I thought (J. Crew could be doing the same).
  - opportune 9y ago
    Yes, because even during sales the margins are still high. They're just less high. In fact, as JC Penney proved to consumers, you often make more money setting prices at $50 and having frequent sales at $30 than you do setting the price at $30 but having no sales.
    - sotojuan 9y ago
      I stand corrected then. Thanks!