You obvisly haven't compared how high street shoes / boots compare to mid market brands like loake are in terms of comfort and longevity.

Its worth paying £170 for the comfort alone

I don't believe it, I know the marketers of these companies want you to believe it but I don't (and I own an expensive pair of walking boots).

Generally I've found avoiding the bottom 10% gives you the most bang for your buck.

That's the problem: you're optimizing for bang-for-buck. Regular shoes/trainers only go up to a few hundred $, they're cheap enough that, as long as they have a median wage in a developed country, the buyer can optimize for something else like comfort without a significant financial impact.

Bang for buck optimizing is only worth it for certain cost/income combos. In other words: the value of money varies for each individual.

I think I'd argue there is no difference other than possibly as some kind of economic signal which I try and avoid.

I was away for a month and took a new pair of Chelsea boots from a bog standard high street shop with me - didn't want to look to scrufy on a v high profile project.

Walking the 1/2 mile up princess street from hotel to the office in them caused so much pain after 2 days I had to go out and buy some trainers.

Never had that with Loakes - I d agree that paying 2k plus for hand fitted shoes like the city boys wear is probably over kill.

No I haven't. The prospect of spending 200+€ in shoes, which are going to last forever, but which I am not going to use for long because they will optically deteriorate and I will anyway get tired of, is not alluring.

My criteria for shoes (except for sports) is:

1. I must be able to put them on/off in 3s, without bending. Which implies no laces (or pre-tied knots)

2. reasonably comfortable

3. light

4. cheap

Do you not use shoe Polish?

I still get tired of the shoes, they still smell, fashion keeps on changing and 10 year old shoes are not the same as new shoes, no matter how good they are.

Most shoes last for years, even cheap ones. I still put them in thr cellar after 2-3 years.

Those shoes would be good as my only shoes in a Mad Max world. Mmmm ... not even, I would prefer trekking shoes.

Well just by classic designs that have been around for decades and shoe design doesn't change much for males or females for that matter.

the "buy it for life" subreddit helps a lot here, for at least narrowing down the search space.

I"ll try that, but I am in the EU, no idea if it applies.

Marketing ROI is typically positive, so you're not really paying for marketing.

> Marketing ROI is typically positive

For the seller - yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth doing.

Price is often adjusted TO make marketing ROI positive..

That's not how pricing works.

Marketing is a volume play, not price.

It's neither, it's usually a consistency play. By heavily marketing, volume increases, and price gets hiked as needed. Profit may remain the same, but now it is more consistent over the quarters.

You meant "negative"?