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).
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
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).