^Correct, though if I'm not mistaken, their math is off by $1 ($56.06 should be the cost based on their numbers.) Their graphic should have been clearer.
Doesn't the parenthetical "excluding overhead" (assuming "overhead" also includes every other conceivable cost the company has) render this arithmetic calculation completely fucking meaningless?
Doesn't the parenthetical "excluding overhead" (assuming "overhead" also includes every other conceivable cost the company has) render this arithmetic calculation completely fucking meaningless?
^Correct, though if I'm not mistaken, their math is off by $1 ($56.06 should be the cost based on their numbers.) Their graphic should have been clearer.
Yeah, that's right. The type in the chart was so small I didn't notice.
The article's a little murky on the numbers. They cite 2.0 - 2.5 x markup from "cost" to "retail". I don't see how you get there from $56.06 to $310, as in this example. Still a good read. Thanks for posting, RKD! edit: Maybe "cost" is the "projected wholesale price" that is being marked up. But "projected wholesale price" is the cost to the retailer, not the true cost of the jeans. I think the takeaway here is that there is an obscene amount of money to be made if you have a successful brand.
The article's a little murky on the numbers. They cite 2.0 - 2.5 x markup from "cost" to "retail". I don't see how you get there from $56.06 to $310, as in this example.
Still a good read. Thanks for posting, RKD!
Those numbers would make sense if they meant to write from "wholesale cost" (from retailer's perspective) to "retail sale price".
What's the typical mark-up in fashion? In the food industry, typical is 500% over raw cost. To the outside observer, that may seem like a "rip-off", but frankly, it's just barely enough to make it worth my time. I gotta eat, too, fuckers.