Totes is synonymous with umbrellas and other foul weather gear.
Recently, Mr. Consumer was shopping for boots and found a pair of Totes boots. These were not the flexible rubber kind, but rather more like a real boot with more rigid sides and sole, and with fleecy lining. Of concern was the zipper. If the zipper fails, then the boot will be virtually useless.
What Mr. Consumer was not concerned about was that the boot was waterproof. It said so on the box, and also on the hangtag (right).
On the back of the hangtag, was a guarantee that Mr. Consumer had not noticed in the store:
*MOUSE PRINT:
 
For boots with a list price of $59.99, one would certainly expect them to remain waterproof for more than one season, and for the company to stand behind them if they did not.
$60 is not that much for a pair of boots, especcially waterproof boots of the kind described. If you want quality boots that will last you need to buy something like a Redwing boot. Even then you should expect to re-sole and re-treat the boot for water proofedness (if proofedness is a word) at least once a year; many times even more often. Quite franly, Totes probably doesn’t expect their boots to last longer than six months. I’ll refer to my post on an earlier topic. “You get what you pay for.” I would agree though, that the manufacturer in this case needs to better educate the customer about what to really expect out of the product.
Redwing is what I would recommend the most for a waterproof boot. But you pay for it and even they suggest doing waterproof treatment on the leather from time to time (simply because of the way leather is).
i agree with shawn. $60 for a boot, without any special “end of season” or “end of line” reduction is quite cheap. also, depending on the application “water proof” is relative. if you stand in 20 cm of water is it still water proof? if you are out in light rain in the city is it water proof? if you are hiking in the mountains during a storm, is it water proof?
i don’t think that a company need spell out exactly the conditions whereby their boot remains waterproof. the customer needs to evaluate the design and also the conditions under which the boot will be worn. of course, every customer has his or her own expectations for a product. no amount of disclaimers will cover everybody’s different requirements.
I have to agree with the others here. They list for $60.? That means they probably retail for closer to $50. I would imagine. Plus, what is the normal warranty on a pair of shoes or boots? I’m sorry. This doesn’t really seem that unreasonable to me.
Are you paying for boots, or are you paying for waterproof feet?
$60 for boots seems reasonable if they last for several years AS BOOTS
But $60 for waterproof footwear that only lasts 6 months seems excessive. It the waterproofing only lasts that long (which is *not* what the tag says, but does imply that) then I hope they at least offer ways to re-water-proof the boots when that major feature wears off. (And no I don’t think this should be the consumers responsibility to research how to do that and more than I would expect the consumer to have to research how to repair a car airbag that is only guaranteed for six months.)