Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FionaTheFierce t1_jc2lcyn wrote

Can we please be real here for a moment - socks are *never* BIFL. Under any "normal" use textiles will wear.

​

That you can send them back and get a replacement is sort of besides the point. It is not realistic to expect that socks will last forever. Even high quality socks will wear out, and this is really a "normal wear and tear" situation. More expensive socks will last longer, but they may not be a financial advantage if you compare them to the replacement costs of the cheap socks over time. There is a lot to be said, of course, of generating less waste and many good reasons to do that.

If you wear out your socks with use over 5-10 years it is, IMO, a bit of an overreach to expect a free replacement. The product has fulfilled its performance expectations at that point.

45

Johnpecan OP t1_jc2pet2 wrote

>If you wear out your socks with use over 5-10 years it is, IMO, a bit of an overreach to expect a free replacement.

But.. that's the appeal. Assuming the company still exists they have a pretty clear replacement policy as long as they're not missing or an animal doesn't destroy them. Sure, a shipping fee but I think local stores will send them in(from what I've read).

8

quixoticdancer t1_jc37hzj wrote

Yeah, I think people are missing the point on these lifetime guarantees.

Nobody is truly expecting socks to last forever. Darn Tough knows fully well that their socks won't last a literal lifetime but the value the guarantee adds to the brand boosts their bottom line more than the small proportion of buyers who will ever ask for replacements.

It's akin to why gift cards are such a boon for retailers; a pretty significant portion of them will never be redeemed, meaning 100% profit for the store.

8

onedegreeup t1_jc3lw3s wrote

I don’t understand, why’re you trying to take a moralistic stance on whether a product has fulfilled its purpose? It’s not at all an overreach when it is advertised as such.

Of course I don’t expect the socks to last forever. But I fully expect the company to honor their promise. I honestly don’t care what the point of the promise is for their bottom line - I bought the product as such and if I find myself needing to replace, I will do so.

−1

quixoticdancer t1_jc3rkyg wrote

I didn't mean to convey any moral judgment at all, not say that you should care about some company's bottom line. I'm just trying to say Darn Tough knows you can't truly expect a pair of socks to last your lifetime - and we shouldn't either.

The company plans to replace a certain proportion and that a larger proportion of buyers will never exercise the guarantee - not because they'd be wrong to do so but because many folks simply won't, for whatever reason. The fact that a larger proportion will not exercise their guarantee may well be what makes it economically viable for the company to offer the option.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not the commenter who called exercising the guarantee "overreach". Please direct your indignation that way.

2

Mobile_Net2155 t1_jc37rzj wrote

Their business model is built on this premise. I generally agree this sub wants more than their money's worth but this company specifically built their business model on lifetime guaranteed socks.

6