Johnpecan OP t1_jc2pet2 wrote on March 13, 2023 at 4:40 PM

Reply to comment by FionaTheFierce in Sock math (the case for buy it for life socks) by Johnpecan

>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).

quixoticdancer t1_jc37hzj wrote on March 13, 2023 at 6:37 PM

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.

onedegreeup t1_jc3lw3s wrote on March 13, 2023 at 8:09 PM

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.

quixoticdancer t1_jc3rkyg wrote on March 13, 2023 at 8:45 PM

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.