Are there any differences in running shoes when it comes to cost?? Not according to this survey!!
Taken from: http://runrepeat.com/expensive-running-shoes-are-not-better-than-more-affordable-running-shoes-study
- Runners are less satisfied with expensive running shoes compared to affordable ones or even cheap ones. The higher the price of a running shoe, the worse the reviews. Higher prices will increase expectations, which is natural. When you spend 50% more on something, you expect more. Are prices too high? We looked into the restaurant and hotel market, where michelin restaurants obviously do get better reviews than fast food chains. Brands promote products with large margins (premium shoes), which makes the runner buy those. In the end all this comes at the cost of the runner, who will end up being less satisfied.
- The 10 most expensive running shoes (avg. price $181) have an average rating of 79/100. The 10 cheapest (avg. price $61) has an average rating of 86/100. This is quite a big difference considering the fact that we looked at 134,867 reviews on 391 running shoes from 24 brands.
- We compared the average prices and satisfaction rates (avg. reviews) for each brand. Some big surprices appear here: a) Adidas Group (who owns both Adidas and Reebok) is the #1 and #2 worst brands, b) generally one is talking about the big four: Adidas, Nike, Asics and Brooks. Only Brooks are among the better brands, c) minimalistic running brands perform surprisingly well: Vivobarefoot, Merrell, Vibram FiveFingers (Altra) and d) Skechers is the brands with the most satisfied runners and at the same time the most affordable one.
No brand or other institution influenced us in any way to do this study. We did it to create transparency in the running shoe market. Personally I’m a former competitive runner and teacher in statistics at Copenhagen Business School under Center Chief of the Department of Finance Dorte Kronborg. Several experts have reviewed the study.