What Hell Must You Go Through To Return A Defective Running Shoe?
Neal Templin at the Wall Street Journal had a defective running shoe. Within 4 months of buying the shoes, an eyelet failed, so he took the defective shoes back to the store. This is where his tragic tale of rejection begins.
From the WSJ:
At the store, they told me they exchanged shoes only for the first month or so. Four months for a running shoe was ancient, they said. Some customers bought shoes every month.
That was news to me. I typically keep running shoes -- which I use for a regimen of walking and sprinting -- for a year or two. And I had never, ever had an eyelet fail in any shoe, even ones that were completely worn out.
He was instructed to contact Nike. So he did. They asked him to mail the shoes to them. So he did (for $7.) Nike "determined there was no manufacturing flaw" and mailed them back to him.
When he called for comment on his story, Nike changed their tune.
I was seeing red. Here, I had dropped $85 on shoes that were poorly made. Then I had been forced to spend another $7 only to be told, effectively, tough luck.
I spent nearly half an hour on the phone pretty much yelling at the Nike customer representative. I talked to her boss. That didn't work either.
When I asked Nike to comment for this column, a spokesman replied that the company had in fact been honoring return requests for the same model of shoe I had bought. "It appears that your recent claim should have also been honored," he wrote.
So we suppose the answer is -- it's almost impossible to return a defective running shoe -- but it helps if you write for the Wall Street Journal. Or actually, maybe it doesn't. According to Neal, he gave up and found a way to lace his shoes without using that eyelet.
How It Felt to Be Kicked by a Running Shoe [WSJ] (Thanks, Mike!)
(Photo: smcgee )
Post a comment
Comments:
4 months isn't bad.....not good, but not all that horrible. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any company that would replace shoes after being worn that long.
"I spent nearly half an hour on the phone pretty much yelling at the Nike customer representative. I talked to her boss. That didn't work either."
Well, no, it probably didn't. Being an asshole to the rep won't get you very far in most cases and if it does it's probably just to get you out of their hair.
Sorry his shoes bit the dust, but 4 months is a bit long. I wouldn't think of returning shoes I'd been wearing regularly for longer than a week or two.
Four months is not long for a shoe. Even if you run in them. Honestly, you mean to tell me that you can't have a shoe longer than 4 months any more? What koolaid have we been drinking?
I see the running store's point...running shoes break down after a certain number of miles, and 4 months is a long time.
However Nike should have taken them back due to the design flaw/poor manufacturing.
4 months for running shoes (for most people) is a significant amount of time. In my opinion, that is well beyond a reasonable time for a return.
4 months huh, if he runs regularly then he should have been just about ready for another pair anyways. Running is hard on shoes so 4 months of wear and tear on it then trying to return it just doesn't seem right to me.
What exactly would be a manufacturer flaw, especially just after four months, even with heavy use? The sole falling off? Logically, in four months, an eyelet should not fall apart, just like the soles should not be falling off. I get that Nike can't respond favorably to every claim, but this was pretty legitimate. It wasn't like someone called to complain a thread was loose.
I know where you can get seven freshly washed running shoes for free...
I'll call "bad consumer" on this one. Yeah, shoes shouldn't fail in 4 months, but there's a lot of abuse that they can take in that time.
I agree that 4 months is a long time for running shoes, but considering the shoes are assembled essentially with slave labor, you'd think Nike could buy some goodwill by just replacing the darned things.
I think the warranty of merchantability and fitness for use say that a shoe should last at least four months, if not longer. Since that warranty is made by _all_ retailers in most states for almost all sales, I think the journal writer had a point.
It's also true that a lot of consumers don't hold sellers to the warranty fo merchantability and fitness for use. I don't see anything wrong with someone who does though.
In the store's defense, 500 miles is the usual amount of wear on sneakers
How often did he wear the shoes? 4 months of daily runs is a lot of use, but 4 months of weekend only runs isn't. If he normally keeps them a year or two it sounds like he's not too hard on his shoes.
I agree that four months is long, especially for shoes you wear everyday. I wear walking shoes, but only when I walk, which is almost every weeknight. BIG difference in wear between 80+ hours a week and ~10 hours a week.
BUT, an eyelet failing is poor workmanship. You do not lace your shoes so tight that it would put such strain on something like a single eyelet. If you do that, your cutting off circulation to the top of your foot. More than likely, the material used to make the upper had a weakness, and after normal use, that weak part failed. The key word is FAILED.
As for the reporter, I remember an anecdote from the time Michael Moore was on NPR's Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me. He said that he had received letters telling the success people had when they called to ask for info on their case with a company so they could send a letter to Michael Moore.
I'm just curious...how does an eyelet in a shoe "fail"? Did the metal part fall out of the hole or did the eyelet itself expand, creating a tear and ultimately a "failed" eyelet?
Four months does seem to be a long time when it comes to a product one wears frequently like a shoe. I had a pair of Converse Chuck Taylors that I bought on sale one time and within 5-6 months, the canvas had actually split/torn in a straight line about 3-4 inches on one of the shoes and was beginning to on the other. I'm not known to be particularly rough on my shoes either.
Had to toss 'em and never once thought of contacting Converse. Maybe I should have. I had never owned a pair of Chucks before and after that pair, I'll likely never own another one again.
Shoulda ordered from Zappos.
I'd side with Nike on this because 4 months is a long time. When I was playing competitive tennis, I'd be lucky to get 6 weeks out of a shoe before I wore through the sole.
It's generally accepted that running shoes should be replaced every 300-500 miles. So, let's say that the guy needs to replace at 400. If he hit 400 miles in four months, that would be 25 miles/wk, right around average for a serious runner. So, he's right about at the edge of where he would need to replace them anyway.
@67alecto: Exactly. I'm not seeing the outrage other than a guy not getting exactly what he wants no matter what.
4 months running, heck, even walking in some areas is a lot of stress on a shoe.
An eyelet shouldn't fail after 4 months. Difficult to tell just how much "use" the shoes had received, but a failure like that shouldn't happen under even the most extreme conditions.
Using the shoes for 1 hr, 3x a week indoors is substantially different than someone who uses them outdoors rain or shine.
Can't say I've ever had a pair of shoes not last a year.
And what is someone who works for the WSJ spending $85 on running shoes? Haven't they ever heard of outlet stores? Who pays full retail?
As someone who does a moderate amount of running, I can expect to replace my running shoes after 3-4 months. Generally that's around 400 miles.
Maybe the user should switch from Nike shoes, especially if they're being used for running. Brooks is the way to go.
I would have just bought the same pair of shoes and returned the bad one. Sold the shoes on craigslist or something.
@bsalamon: Yes, the author makes no mention of the mileage, as opposed to the time period. If he is running 25 miles/week, he should be replacing them about now anyway.
@edicius: It sounds like the fabric ripped, tearing the eyelet out.
I stopped wearing Chucks because I regularly annihilated them within 4-5 months. My boyfriend has a pair that's lasted him 5 years, so I guess I'm just really mean to shoes.
@edicius:
That's unusual for a pair of Chucks, especially if they were the "regular" kind of material. I am a huge Converse fan with probably 20 pairs over my lifetime (own 10 pairs currently) and have never had that happen. Unfortunately it sounds like you had a bum pair.
@h3llc4t: Yeah, but he returned them because they *broke*, not because they didn't fit or something. If the sole came off my new running shoes after a couple months, I'd be pissed too.
@h3llc4t:
I've got some quality sneaks I've been wearing for two years. Lately Nike has been crap. You can see the mfg. differences between the new vs. old models. The glues they use now don't work as well but I'm sure they saved them quite a bit per shoe.
If you value your knees, ankles, and lower back at more than $100 you do NOT change the shoes that you use for sprinting and walking every year or two and you have a different pair for walking and running. You change your sprinting shoes every season at the worst.
Yes and failing after a month is outside the scope of manufacturing flaw. Most serious running stores will replace shoes to two weeks out. Oh and Nikes are overpriced.
@unpolloloco: unless you buy them from a retailer with a satisfaction garantee. Mountain Equipment Co-op in Canada will take back anything, regardless of how old it is if you simply say, "this product did not meet my expectations."
I'm surprised that someone who works at the WSJ would spend all this time and trouble on an "eyelet failure" rather than just buy new shoes.
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Nike didn't simply fix the eyelet when he sent the shoe in.
This sounds like a loser/loser scenario to me...
These kinds of warranty issues and defects always reminds me of the scene in Tommy Boy where Chris Farley explains how he could take a crap in a box and slap a warranty on it and all you buying is a piece of crap with a questionable warranty. Hmmm gonna go see if i can't find a youtube of that clip... it sums this whole thing up so beautifully.
@Possinator: 4 months?! You must be kidding. I run 4 times a week 8-15km, both in the city and trail running. I typically go through a pair of shoes every year, however four months wouldn't even be long enough for the soles to wear, let alone the cushioning, support, or in this case the eyelets.
@lannister80: See, when it's 4 months old I don't consider it "new" any more. As a few people have noted, the author didn't describe his running habits, so he could have mauled the things in that time frame. There's a lot left unsaid in the article.
@Adisharr: I've never actually owned Nikes before so I can't speak on those, but I've seen drastic differences in Roo sneaks as well as Chuck Taylors. It seems like shoes I've purchased in the last 3-4 years have worn out a lot faster in general. I currently run in New Balances that I bought about two months ago 4-5x a week and I've been pretty happy so far.
Same thing happened to me with Nike. Fabric separated from the sole of the shoe after about 4 months. I sent it back in at my expense only to be told it was due to "external abrasion".
@edicius: I hate Converse. My husband wears nothing but Converse and they fall apart pretty quickly. I don't think he's ever worn a pair for more than 5-6 months.
As far as this story goes, doesn't a shoe store have the capability to do minor repairs, like replacing eyelets (basically just a grommet) or gluing a sole back on?
Oooh, this is a good one. I used to work athletic shoe retail for years. Back in the day, my store and all the other big ones used to take anything back as defective because Nike really did have quality issues. As they improved their processes and caught onto the game saavy customers were planing, Nike eventually taught us to identify shoes whose air chamber had been intentionally popped with a pin (the defect) and cracked down hard on what was return/exchangeable. After that point, it became very hard to return a worn pair of shoes, no mater what the reason. I'd have done the same thing if I were the manager of the store. As someone commented earlier, if you care about your feet, back, etc, you'll replace your shoes more than every couple years. A broken eyelet or not, four months is past the point of no return. It's not like you're gonna take a pair of pants back after four months because a belt loop came unstitched.
I had some problems with a pair of New Balance shoes after a few months, took them back to the New Balance store where I purchased them and they repaired them for free. Took a week or two to get them back, but no hassles at all.
I will never buy Nike running shoes again. The waffle pattern for the rubber sole on my new Air Pegasus sneakers wore out after only one month. The adhesive of the rubber tread came undone and the edges of the rubber would get caught under my shoes between strides. New Balance, Asics, Avia, Adidas, you name it...I've never had quality issues with any other brand of running shoe. With Nike you pay for a name.
Similar story, but with Under Armour cleats. Sports Authority wouldn't take them back after they broke during a football play. I called UA customer service and they were helpful and apologetic. I paid return shipping, replacement cleats arrived. Happy customer = loyal customer
I had to return a pair of bench-made wingtips one time because the leather of the sole was defective and wore through after wearing them just a few times. The cashier was obviously suspicious when I explained the situation and called the manager who was also suspicious. As soon as he saw that the leather was indeed defective, however, he replaced it immediately without even asking to see a receipt. My guess is that a lot of people return shoes after getting a good bit of wear out of them.
As far as running shoes, replacing them every one or two years is only for a very infrequent runner. If this guy is only using them once a week, they should last longer than four months.
His best bet is to switch to New Balance. It is a somewhat more responsible company than Nike, the shoes are of better quality, less expensive, and are made in the U.S.
Personally, I've never had any luck with Nike products. I don't think I've owned a pair of Nike running shoes that hasn't fallen apart within a few months. You shouldn't have to get the glue out for $100 plus running shoes.
Possibly, my most embarrassing episode in my teenage years was when I accompanied my 70 year old grandmother to return a pair of shoes at Stride Rite with no receipt. I remember them being very basic (pure white), beat to hell, and one of the soles had begun to come loose. I'm fairly certain she paid less than $25 for them.
Within minutes of entering the store, she was yelling at the manager that a pair of shoes shouldn't fall apart after only one year. Incredibly, we somehow managed to walk out of there with a new pair of free shoes. And, I wasn't even convinced she bought the original pair at that store location.
@jpdanzig:
i don't know why you think someone working at the WSJ makes any more than any other newpaper reporte, but they don't. i guess it'd be ok for the writer to give a damn if he worked for National Geographic or Highlights for Childred? Think before you write, it's not like he works as an investment banker for crying out loud
@Darkkeyboard: Actually, for a running shoe, 4 months can be long. The cushioning in the shoes wears out after 300-500 miles, depending on the shoe and the runner. If he averages 25 miles per week (a not unreasonable amount), he'd be at 400 miles after 4 months.
Granted, an eyelet failure is a bit different, but the shoes were hardly "new".
@undefined: Be careful what you say. "...and are made in the U.S." isn't entirely accurate. More accurate would be to say, "New Balance makes some shoes in the U.S." Last I checked, most NBs available at most U.S. retails stores are still made overseas. I used to love customer's faces when they'd select a NB to try on and then see the "made in China" print on the box.
Zappos! The best!