Member of the Month

Farmville420
August, 2023

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Would you pay 230 euro's for these?

profile picture
ryan.c
Posts: 6592 - Karma: 14
Click for larger image



"They'll start around 230 Euros but then you get an extra lens so you're basically paying the same as the other brands for the start-up version"



sorry jon, but i sure wouldnt. the goggles start at 230 euros, which is just over 300 us dollars. i dont even want to know how much the "high end" goggles costs. im pretty sure i could buy crowbars, and 6 of their most expensive lenses for around 300...again, im sorry, but you had the hate coming to you.
Apr 15 2009 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
mac.N.steeze
Posts: 652 - Karma: 6
I probably wouldnt but I know alot of people will like them its just not my thing though, along with most of newschoolers considering most of us are people that just live to ski and cant really afford to be spending so much money on goggles
Apr 15 2009 7:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Crack.
Posts: 6020 - Karma: 86
that's a new pair of skis
Apr 15 2009 7:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Billiards.
Posts: 6853 - Karma: 816
Im guessing you weren't selling skis in Europe. If you have skied, visited, or lived over there you would understand that its a different market.
Apr 15 2009 7:58PM
0 0
profile picture
reverendwrong
Posts: 3145 - Karma: 142
honestly id stfu before u emberass yourself any more


HES NOT MARKETING TO US!!!!! though we are a sub-market we are not the primary market. He WANTS to sell them to those who are looking for the luxury part of skiing AKA the deer valley, vail, and aspen tourists. You say that they should offer more to justify the price, compaing it to oakley vs prada sunglasses. the oakleys are far more technically superior and have earned a name that justifies the price, but they dont represent luxury, prada does, and pradas dont offer ANY of the tech features oakleys do.

When he says he wants something for the hardcore skier i assume he means like J.Lindeberg which he used to ride for, technically superior but more fashion based. That outerwear was rediculously good, super warm, and i beilieve it was 20k. but it was also really expensive, not exactly based on the average newschoolers.com user. So id wait till they come out, id know jon would offer a product that is nothing short of spectacular on the tech side of things.
Apr 15 2009 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
dylansiggers
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 5,716
he looks like the terminator
Apr 15 2009 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Peter.
Posts: 23796 - Karma: 13,005
rich tourists will definitely buy these, you know, the ones that have the ski house up on whistler, and ski twice a year
Apr 15 2009 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
babujib
Posts: 5039 - Karma: 104
hahahah that made me laugh, because it might just be true
Apr 15 2009 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Alp1ne
Posts: 717 - Karma: 203
Jon made this company to make money, not to satisfy all the kids trying to find ski gear for as cheap as they can and cut passes.
Apr 15 2009 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
860
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 166
winner!
Apr 15 2009 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
IHOP
Posts: 2155 - Karma: 19
The point of a luxury item is not that it is necessarily any better than the other products. The point of luxury items is the branding. For instance, why do people buy Range Rovers? You could argue that if you really wanted a tough SUV you could get something better, but people buy Range Rovers because of the product branding, their limited, their expensive, and RR has a social status that owners want to be associated with. Same goes for Nike Shoes, why do so many people pay $150+ for Nike shoes? Its because of the branding, no one is going around saying that they want Nike shoes for the incredible SHOXs system.

The point of Yniq is to sell to the demographic of people who want to purchase status products that they want to be associated with. The product may not neccesarily be a better product, but the fact that they are limited and expensive makes people who can afford them want them.
Apr 15 2009 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
garettnorthey
Posts: 3049 - Karma: 173
The 0-100 USD range.
Apr 15 2009 8:35PM
0 0
profile picture
ski_cartel
Posts: 6598 - Karma: 18
im more then sure jon knows exactly what hes doing, its like he said, we are not his target audience
Apr 15 2009 8:43PM
0 0
profile picture
CFD
Posts: 1009 - Karma: 197
I think you're underestimating the importance of fashion in the European market. Fashion in North America is generally ignored, where as in Europe it's far more important - both on and off the slopes.

While rich people in North America may not care about how they look on the slopes, I can say that in Europe (Sweden especially - it's where I spent most of my time) they really do. It's like Aspen village. Jon is unbelievably well known and I think his business has a lot of potential in his target market. It won't be popular in America, but it's not supposed to be - just like Cross, J. Lindeberg, Sweet Protection and most other high end European brands.
Apr 15 2009 8:55PM
0 0
profile picture
skituner
Posts: 1162 - Karma: 127
haha i love how anytime a pro skier does anything at all related to the main stream market everyone on ns acts like they are betraying freeskiing just cause they're trying to actually make some money.


Apr 15 2009 9:09PM
0 0
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,550
your an idiot
Apr 15 2009 9:12PM
0 0
profile picture
jerad
Posts: 3236 - Karma: 47
yeah, but i think the point he was trying to make was exaggerated. no shit, crowbars + 6 lenses is going to be pricey, but you aren't getting 6 lenses with YNIQ...

Even so, you don't need a fucking polarized lens to ski (considering thats where you are getting your $150 price tag).

Anybody that pays $300 on a pair of goggles is out of their god damn mind. Granted, my opinion is a bit biased because I am a broke ass college student with $40 in my checking account, but even when I'm making bank when I'm older I won't spend that much money on goggles...
Apr 15 2009 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
bpalmer
Posts: 2408 - Karma: 93
truly, but lets think about it. where do people get fashion ideas? usually from people they consider to be more successful than them. this may account for all the fratboy retards wandering around the CU campus dressed like kanye west. anyways, its the point of sponsorship and using public figures for marketing. what i'm wondering, is how do they get marketed? how do you reach this target crowd? obviously, you reach NS by giving your product to tom wallisch.. but who are the rich, timeshare owning yuppies looking at for ski fashion inspiration? how do you convince them that a goggle at TWICE the price is worth it, esp. in an economic downturn?

and to the guy that made the range rover point, i would like you to find an SUV that is equivalent to a RR for substantially less. the technical features of that vehicle(and bmw, lexus, etc etc) are definitely a factor. thus i'm wondering how this goggle is technically worth that much money? J-lindeburg stuff is both fashionable and technically superior to account for the price tag(but it is noteworthy that ive seen 2 JL suits on the slopes. ever. although i do live in the US so i'm sure thats a factor).

i'm not doubting that JO knows what he's doing. it seems that he usually does. but you dont have to pass microecon101 to ponder some of these questions.
Apr 15 2009 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
jerad
Posts: 3236 - Karma: 47
how many brands are fighting for the $1,000,000 USD - $1,000,000,000 USD market? 0. I'm thinking about getting into it!
Apr 15 2009 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
OneLove_skier
Posts: 1175 - Karma: 135
word
Apr 15 2009 10:07PM
0 0
profile picture
PaleCelery
Posts: 7228 - Karma: 606
I dont see the big deal...

I tapped into my trust fund and bought two of each. They're okay, but not expensive enough, my friends think they're cheap looking
Apr 15 2009 10:18PM
0 0
profile picture
m.brus
Posts: 1597 - Karma: 103

I dont think that is very correct. First off, crowbars come with lenses so you wouldn't need to buy 6 more. Just because their MOST expensive lense is 150$, doesn't mean that their top 6 is all 150$ each. I do agree that it would be significantly more than 300$ but not to $1000. My guess is like 600$ max. And I dont think the thread creator was actually trying to go into detail about the prices, he was just trying to make a point about how ridiculously expensive they are but with the older technology.

I dont think he will get as much out of this as he thought. There is nothing unique about this goggle besides the price. It does not have spherical lenses (as far as I can tell) and is probably does not have as much of a reputation as say oakley. Oakley has been in the business for a super long time and is bought by so many people because of its quality. I think Jon should reinvent or come up with something completely different before charging the public $300 for these.

Apr 15 2009 10:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Bugler
Posts: 903 - Karma: 14
Yeah, Exactly. Sure, a pair of 300 hundred dollar goggles (I'm assuming, 200 dollar pair of goggles and lens, and a 100 dollar spare lens) is rediculous in my mind. Yes, someone will buy them. A bunch of yuppies in Park City might be rocking them, and then all of them with start talking about Jon Olson, and then start wearing Whatever outwear he wears. Then, we will see a 45 year old multi-millionaire wearing a pair of JO Pro's, Unique eyewear, a Redbull fitted hat, and whatever outwear he is wearing now.

Hey, you could make a profit, but come on. This is stupid in my mind. Price em at 1,00,00,000, there isn't much competetion in that market either.
Apr 15 2009 10:20PM
0 0
profile picture
QuazBotch
Posts: 3908 - Karma: 216
I wonder if Jon has Europe in mind more than North America. The most expensive cars and the most expensive clothes seem to come from there. Maybe more people buy expensive things there in general?

Jon may also have a more mainstream following there than 14-24 year old park riders too. I get the idea  racing and carving have a larger following in Europe than here. Jon will be getting the attention of people into that if he's training for the Olympics.

Apr 15 2009 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
B-runge
Posts: 16558 - Karma: 360
sorry but these look so goofy when he was wearing them in his joss edit
Apr 15 2009 10:34PM
0 0
profile picture
East.
Posts: 2314 - Karma: 128
I hope thats a joke, because that range at least doubles from the 10 spots in the 100-200 USD range.


The public opinion of NS is clearly not Jon's demographic. He is an icon, a name, an entity that has the ability to sell.. And he has clearly picked a suitable demographic that has not exactly been targetted. Sure, crowbars are considered the "high-end" goggles currently. Mainly because of their influence spurring from their glasses collections, but have you seen what golfers have been wearing? Maui Jim sunglasses are beyond the demographic of oakley, and if you haven't noticed skiers and golfers (not necessarily NS/young adult type) have a similiar economic pattern. They generally buy what they hear is the "best" mainly so they can invest, and not spend repetitively. Golfers buy the best clubs, clothing, and shoes.. Why? Because they can afford it, and they feel that it will be a sound investment. Now, compare this to skiing. Sure, theres a visible scale begining at jean-wearing once-a-weekend-warrior-a-year to powder-horn-wearing-white-suit-trophy-wife. What Jon has targetted is the economically stable crowd. Those who are similiar to the golfers, those who spend money as a 'sound' investment, and those who feel that product is better than the rest, marked by their price.

It's naive to say he doesn't know what he's doing... I'm sure we won't see many of his goggles around NS, but wait till you see that 45 year old mommy wearing a fur hat and a white cord suit..
Apr 15 2009 10:36PM
0 0
profile picture
squibble
Posts: 4569 - Karma: 104
pretty much everthing (besides beer and wine) is more expensive in europe, mostly rich people ski there
Apr 15 2009 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Willard
Posts: 5117 - Karma: 430
Think i would ratehr buy a saga suit right now and stick with my crowbars
Apr 15 2009 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
ChadThundercock
Posts: 3070 - Karma: 780
yes i will by these
Apr 15 2009 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
RiSKIe
Posts: 176 - Karma: 11
i just wouldnt buy them because i dont like the looks
Apr 15 2009 10:44PM
0 0
profile picture
artfullydodged
Posts: 8358 - Karma: 1,674
I think its actually a really good idea that will get him some cash a richer demographic. I wouldnt be suprised if we eventually saw goggles we can afford from Jon, but for now hes just creating a new market.
Apr 15 2009 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
CFD
Posts: 1009 - Karma: 197
The thing is, Jon is the 'Tom Wallisch of Europe'. But 10x bigger. It's insane. His name is recognized by people who have nothing to do with skiing. They will jump onto his fashion sense like NS would to something new T-Wall does.

Also, street fashion in America is based on being 'cool', thug, youthful and informal. Swedish fashion is very 'classy' and more formal. If you're trying to present yourself with a classy image, why would you buy a cheap (but 'cool') looking Oakley goggle when you can give yourself a classier image with YNIQ? It's a small cost when compared to the overall price of ski gear.

Also, they're not as overpriced as people here seem to think. ALL goggles are more expensive in Europe. They're not as ridiculously overpriced as you think.

I'm trying to be unbiased here - I personally wouldn't buy the goggles, but I think they will sell well. Jon is a fucking smart dude, and a business move like this doesn't happen without significant market research. Honestly, Jon just ran the best comp of the year andannounced that he's providing an NS spot for JOSS next year, and people are still pissed at him for not giving them a goggle as well?
Apr 15 2009 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
bigpleezer
Posts: 45 - Karma: 74
i thought 100 for goggles was ubsurd, fuck 300
Apr 15 2009 11:12PM
0 0
profile picture
EvanMeyer
Posts: 3783 - Karma: 2,984
I think that just lowered the thread creators self esteem
Apr 15 2009 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
frasian
Posts: 63 - Karma: 14
That makes sense but lots of people are going to think it is a rip off. Through this they will seek cheaper deals so as a marketing ploy this works perfectly. This way you can sell them for sales in one obscure place and for more expensive online or something.
Apr 15 2009 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Thenowhereman42
Posts: 5682 - Karma: 64
the white ones are pretty hideous and the black ones are cool but not as cool as crowbars
Apr 16 2009 12:29AM
0 0
profile picture
Thenowhereman42
Posts: 5682 - Karma: 64
and they look like if you took a tumble in them they might fuck your face up
Apr 16 2009 12:31AM
0 0
profile picture
mwagner
Posts: 274 - Karma: 4
I would pay 300 for those goggles especially if they came with a free lens
Apr 16 2009 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,425
how many 14-24 year old white males go to target on a day to day basis? same question....
Apr 16 2009 12:48AM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,425
that would be 230 pounds.
Apr 16 2009 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Download-My-Apps
Posts: 5069 - Karma: 1,017
Jon will probably make some big coin off em, but god those are the most hideous things I've ever seen I don't care who they are marketed for.
Apr 16 2009 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
matthasaurusrex
Posts: 5160 - Karma: 185
...

the reason why there are so many companies fighting the 100-200 USD market is because they know that their customers dont really wanna shell out much for a pair of shades. 

Ill just throw it out there and say most shredders dont wanna pay $300 pair of gogs when you can get a $99 pair that do the same job...

but there will always be a market for rich old dudes i guess
Apr 16 2009 1:16AM
0 0
profile picture
tBenz
Posts: 900 - Karma: 11
do i like them? yes, i think they are stylish and different

would i pay that much? no, i just don't have that kind of money to spend on something like goggles

however, i'm aware that jon isn't targeting 18 year olds like myself, so more power to him, and good luck with the company.
Apr 16 2009 1:45AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
you don't know much about marketing.
Apr 16 2009 2:04AM
0 0
profile picture
chewy15
Posts: 674 - Karma: 60
boooooooooo

Apr 16 2009 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
jonaolsson
Posts: 89 - Karma: 1,513
The most expensive Oakleys at the Hanson shop in Åre sweden is 190 euros, their top end lens is 90 euros.
Oakley+ 1 lens= (190+90) 280 Euros
Yniq + 1 lens= 230 Euros

Does Yniq still seem out of hand expensive??

(I am sure that the prices in different countries are different depending on the currency, the price I mentioned was based on what they will cost in Europe)

Br JON



Apr 16 2009 2:42AM
0 0
profile picture
levistewart
Posts: 3360 - Karma: 111
heres the problem in my eyes, sure there might be a market for the >$250+ market but with you being a professional FREESKIER and having a professional snowboarder on that says to me that your target market is in general 10-25 year old skiers who aren't willing to dish out that kind of dough in general for some goggles... with that being said I haven't seen any of your other marketing campaigns or ideas but there are defiantly better ways to go about reaching your target market. for example your mention of ski goggles and watches is I think the best idea the type of person that is going to pay $10,000 for a watch in europe is the same type that will pay 300 for goggles, so why not put up adds in watch stores around all the affluent ski towns in europe and maybe even sell goggles there. further more in my opinion now is not the best time to drop these in the US market, besides those towns like vail, sun valley, and aspen, because as we all know the state of the economy here is more than deteriorating, and in such an economy luxury goods, being inelastic, will be the last things that people buy. all in all the goggles are interesting and fit the part for the group that would by them... maybe you could sponsor stien ericson cause they do got that type of class
Apr 16 2009 2:47AM
0 0
profile picture
sick-as-aids
Posts: 3453 - Karma: 1,007
dont worry about defending yourself on ns, opinions on here rarely matter, your design is fresh, i think it will sell...
the black goggles are pimp
Apr 16 2009 2:49AM
0 0
profile picture
brennanmidwest
Posts: 925 - Karma: 13
why does everything have to be so "core"? i understand giving back to the sport, but jon has obviously done his fair share of that. He has a good business idea, so who are we to hate on him for tryin to make a little money?
Apr 16 2009 2:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Thenowhereman42
Posts: 5682 - Karma: 64
because we're soul skiers, brah.
Apr 16 2009 3:05AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)