A lot of companies do do that! They knock themselves off by producing cheaper versions of the same things. It's why you can buy 400 dollar and 150 dollar bags of slightly different materials but same look, from the same brand.

lol literally outlet stores

@@hoihoi12250 which brand does that? gucci isnt for sure

@@xXSataniacXx dont remember bag brands offhand, not sure why i used that. But luxury watches are a pretty good example. You can frequently find in the top watch houses like Breguet, Patek Phillippe, and Omega, lowet priced models made out of stainless steel straps, or in the case of Omega/ Cartier, watches with quartz movements rather than the traditional automatic/mevhanical movements. These new basic models are introduced to reduce the prices and make it a bit more accessible. But of course, it is still priced far above a standard watch, well within the luxury price range, but at the bottom of it.

@@hoihoi12250 if something is easy to get, it aint luxurious. please tell me a easy accessable patek phillipe model, ill wait

This by far is more of an issue. Many IG designers get robbed due to lack of protection from big companies. Like how Zara stole pin designs for one of their jackets from an IG designer...

Exactly

:((

*THIS.MUST.GET.MORE.ATTENTION.*

while i agree that this is sad, i also want to say that you can't do anything with it, it's like a business idea, just because you're a small company doesn't mean that it is your and only your idea, everybody is free to copy, this world is kinda cruel i can't deny it

FRISHR except plagiarism isn’t pretending to be the original author, it’s just using their text without citing it.

That’s. That’s not what parody means. That’s NOT WHAT PARODY MEANS.

this is completely wrong lmao. did you watch the video? how does this comment have 330 likes

Intensified Failure, you can plagiarize art too, not just text. plagiarism = stealing that’s why its sometimes called art theft. sometimes its still plagiarism even if you ‘cite’ it because some don’t ask permission and make profit off of it

@@boomcrayon It's because it's clean and simple. I even had a moment of "hey, wait a minute...hold my blunt" reading it.

Facts 💯 u 👈A Real 1

alot of them are made in europe...

Rosez most of the production takes places in sweat shops

Balenciaga is made in China yet they claim its made in Italy

Alper source?

B c lmao you summed up the whole video

You can't copyright that

*feel the breeze*

@@Criiiesyes you could if you were the first one who invented it, and also copyright isn't the same as a patent

We would be rocking gucci

you're becoming justin y

that is the goal

This reminds me of Arrested Development

Gucci crocs will be fire

Why do I imagine Paris Hilton saying that?

Cool cool cool, I’m going to act like I get what you said 😂

@@nqobilemsomi3656 😂😂

Doesn’t stop some from trying😂

Holy heck reminded me of the time they DID try to copyright that! Remember the whole Katy Perry Dark Horse situation?

Please don’t remind me. It was a mess. One big mess

K THIS 👏👏👏👏

Wayyyy more than 10 times Hanes. A plain white T-shirts with barely any design cost a couple hundred bucks at the VERY least. I don't doubt their quality, but I certainly don't think it's worth the price. But hey? I am just a poor college student lol.

K this is such a dumb argument. People should buy what they can afford and be satisfied where they are in life. Buying a fake product to put on a fake image of wealth is stupid. All you people do is support black market manufacturers who should be making their own original products than stealing off of others creations.

Preach

@sharinglungs see that's the difference knockoffs and fake products are not the same. Knockoffs don't say that they're Gucci they have a similar design

J Mulيس

Which Cat and so does high end brands so

so do the originals

I'm not so sure about the conditions in which luxury clothing is made, but at least in the case of shoes, bags and accessories, most items from brands like Gucci (Chanel, LV etc etc and all the rest) are made in France, Italy or Spain or wherever the brand originates. They probably do this to ensure quality and consistency, but thankfully it also means that workers are protected by European workers rights.

Sarah Keating The word "made" is the key. How you define it is very slippery. From the NYTimes: "Some bypass the “provenance” laws requiring labels that tell where goods are produced by having 90 percent of the bag, sweater, suit or shoes made in China and then attaching the final bits - the handle, the buttons, the lifts - in Italy, thus earning a “Made in Italy” label." That applies to Gucci specifically but other brands follow the same loopholes. Most of the parts for some American cars are made in Mexico, then assembled in the US, allowing the carmaker to say, Made in America or Made in USA, the former being more accurate as Mexico is in America. So is Canada and Chile.

So do high-end brands. I used to work at a logistics company that oversaw out-source operations for high-end and mass-market brands. Trust me, all sorts of garments from Zara to Burberry are made at sweatshops in developing nations. Even if a high-end brand claims to have the garments made in say France, the truth is a lot of the preparation work - like cutting of fabric, preliminary welting/stitching, dying, embroidery - all of these steps are outsourced to people who work in deplorable conditions. Simply shipping these cuts and finishing the product in another country allows them to claim better manufacturing.

You’ve basically nailed the Gucci aesthetic, whether you’re aware of fashion or not.

Lord Farquaad???

That was the inspiration.

my thoughts exactly!!

Ru Raynor I think it became more expensive because there are too many copycats, so with every loss of sale, they have to increase the price per item

Ru Raynor what they can do is form an organization that could be powerful enough to lobby politicians and introduce laws that protects them for at least one year, which I think is reasonable. These brands often follow strict guidelines in treating their workers, but not so much with the knockoff companies and that comes at an expense like wages and quality control. They could also encourage recycling where if you were to return a piece of branded clothing for recycle, you get store credit or something.

They copy stuff from religions and small tribes all the time. Yet they say it is original

They're fighting to take a product which costs $10 to make, slap a fancy label on it, and resell it for $1000.

What a great way to put it. love this!

very good point

you could make the same argument about art. What writer has never been inspired by previous literature?

@@mememan9890 being ispired is different from making different variations on the same design

No sorry, but this doesn’t benefit all. The only people who benefit are companies like Zara and Topshop, who use sweatshop labor and don’t pay designers. Small time designers and start-ups are totally screwed over by it because it’s impossible to distinguish your design when someone in China can copy it within days. As a result, clothing prices are driven up across the board as designers can no longer make as much money off their work. More expensive designer pieces then drive up the prices of their copycats. Rinse, repeat.

Nathan Jones that's how I think

who pays 1000$ for shoes that look like that ??

That’s actually how people think

I think the point that Nathan is making is that the people buying the $30 version were never going to buy the $1000 version in the first place. It's highly probable that they don't even know the $1000 version exists. You can hardly call it a lost sale when you're a high end brand and budget-conscious consumers who aren't your target market are not buying your stuff. They weren't ever going to.

It's how I think lol, when $1,000 is literally a 20th of what I make in a year and then it's a lot of money.

Peeps who are so rich they their imagination to buy things

you really didnt

@Citizen 1 Nope republican, republican are the rich people.

More like Natalie Portman

Aren't they the same person???

she's an homage

looking for this comment

U won with that 🤣🤣

Marc Shanahan she does, is she a model?

no she looks like keira knightley XD

I hate sand

yes but it's totally legal

Cleo Abram, that's her name. Yes she is also a model. Here's the video I 1st saw her kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f5iFbJl0yNqWcaM.html It talks about sexual harassment and being decent towards models.

Cahit H their

I like how they point out how ppl can patent songs in the US when there is a ton of pushback about that being possible since each key has a limited amount of possible combinations and most songs are in C thus at some point soon it will become impossible to make music without violating a copyright.

stischer47 the tshirts with logos are cheap quality and are usually just sold to clout chasers. It’s an easy way for designers to make money. They make quite a bit less profit from their ready to wear. From a business perspective, it’s pretty smart.

Md. Rifat 1. How could you tell a knockoff apart? 2. As someone who lives in SF Bay Area, I can confirm that a lot of these (tech) billionaires just wear whatever is comfortable (not necessarily the most expensive stuff).

How often do you hang out with billionaires?

@@flipmaya The trademark, they said it in the video

randomguy5990 I love it when people comment questions that the video answered :D

randomguy5990 we must live in different bubbles. My bubble don’t even know the latest runway looks to identify what the knockoffs are copying. As far as I’m concerned it could be a new startup I haven’t heard about. In terms of fashion, we care about how striking it looks. Bonus points if it’s from a thrift store.

If a rich person gets screwed over, he doesn't deserve compassion? (Not talking about the video, pure your comment)

@@bertschumacher2097 Yes if they screw people over, for example if nestle or Facebook got screwed over thats perfect. But if a company or person is doing things ethicaly and legally then they deserve compassion

Not more than anyone else did most likely. Children work for years in extremely hazardous factories, work at least as hard as the rich do, almost always even more work, and get pennies and a cup of boiled rice, if that.

If you wanted to design something it would suck for you because you wouldn’t be able to make money off of your designs since other companies might be more established and will be able to produce it far way cheaper than you

Rich people don't work for their money. They get it from their parents, they get it from exploiting others.

It's legally informative though, could make you think how they argue this so I guess that's something

Same.

Thanks for reminding me to click off the video

You mean patent.

Phantom Warrior nope. wrong. Margins and exclusivity keep them alive. If they moved to mass market they would die

In a way "We are so cool others copy us, but YOU can afford to be with us." is their marketing.

I mean.. luxury brands are expensive because their.. LUXURY brands.. whereas if you want cheap stuff, theres a big variation.. however you shoukd check how their merchandise is made, whether ir be ethically made and etc

@@kishinumaayumi trust me when I say big brands are still getting most of their clothes made in sweatshops. Even though it might say that it is made in Italy, for example, nowadays they move their employees overseas to work just as hard for the same incredibly small amount of money. They do this so they can say that is made in Italy and sell it at a 300 times more expensive price. That's how they fool the custumers. Google it if you're curious. The only thing that might be worth the money is Haute Couture, but even there i'm not sure how ethical the materials are.

@@hipporage18 zara?

Just plain wrong lol

Cyril Fo nice, how is this comment “wrong”? It states a perfectly amicable opinion, it doesn’t state anything that could be perceived as a fact that would have to possibility to be right or wrong.

@@Ephemeral_Style985 he's saying that knock-offs do it exactly like high-end designer shops do it, while some scummy brands do that, not all. So, yeah, he is wrong.

@@splingusbugs that doesn't make the designer's ownership of the design that they themselves CREATED obsolete, you can protest about the factories owners, but the artists deserve every single penny they deserve.

@@splingusbugs and you think Gucci or high end items are handcrafted by a man sitting somewhere in a small warehouse by the streets?

So true!

Cassidy Leonards typically the artistic design itself. For example, balenciaga was sued for copyright infringement after they released a New York City souvenir bag on their own runway. Also, fashion firms can get trade dress protections for certain characteristics unique to their own brand beyond their own logos eg. Chanel No. 5 bottles, Hermes Birkin bags, Louboutin Red. Those furry mules in the thumbnail are associated to Gucci but I Guess they have yet to reach a level of ubiquity where knockoffs would cause confusion to the ordinary consumer.

These very general concepts cannot be protected in European legal systems. Louis Vuitton (notoriously protective of its trademarks) recently lost a suit concerning the “Damier” pattern, being that it is too general to be protected.

Nyc souvenir bag was an issue because I ❤️NY is copyrighted

I am confused because a Design Patent will still cover them. This is how we patent what our products look like and I think clothing is still covered. It is a much faster process but it still does take several months and costs a bit of money.

Cassidy Leonards well when it comes to paintings, they have experts decide whether something is too similar or not

Oh, you mean like this patent for the phillips screw and driver? patents.google.com/patent/US2046837A/en

Unfortunately there is a difference between copyright and patent protection.

pristinemirage true, but no one is saying that designs should be protected for eternity like Disney movies are. I think copyright should be applied to design but with very limited rights such as a very short copyright period and mandatory licensing (meaning that holders can’t deny anybody copyrights and copiers have to pay licensing and royalties). Copyrights to design should also be limited to assemblages of visual characteristics such that if the product looks visually distinct in at least one way, then it’s not copyright liable. So an all-white sock sneaker made of leather instead of neoprene and cotton wouldn’t be violating Balenciaga’s copyright.

Having tons of copycats is great sign of success. Their problem with that is that anyone being able to have something that looks like their luxury item makes the item not so luxurious.

Most people who buy knockoffs can't buy the real brand because price, thus the real brand has to raise the price to make a profit, creating a loop. Also, who buys $1000 shoes?

Knockoffs mean that the original maker can’t sell as many at the lower price they’d usually sell for. Because of supply and demand, the original maker has to price each unit higher to make the same amount of money from each design. Thus knockoffs make prices of the originals higher and the more knockoffs are sold, the higher prices have to be raised.

But consumers who buy knockoff products are likely not to be in the designer fashion market. Hence, designers are not truly being effected by the production of knockoffs since demand isn't effected. In fact, I would argue the it's not demand that is at the root of the astronomically high prices, but rather a shortage of supply. An fairly recent example of such tactics in the fashion industry involved Burberry and their burning of thousands of dollars in unsold clothing as a means of preventing discount prices.

If you're a new designer it can affect you tremendously. Imagine spending hours to get something made and having someone else steal it. Copyright is made for a reason.

Maybe, although the same economic scenario described above would still apply to small designers who charge designer prices. Frankly, I think the benefits of allowing knockoff fashion far outweigh the drawbacks.

It's just trash with a logo that makes it ridiculously expensive

cassi farcas Na, Gucci quality is still really good and easily distinguishable between counterfeits and originals. Yes Gucci is overrated now, the new generation of kids love Gucci because of the stupid Gucci gang song. So many teenagers walk to the shop and they always mumble 'Gucci gang' while looking at the products. Gucci new designs are odd for people who live outside of Italy and are in fashion in Italy.

There are brands like Prada,Gucci isn’t the only Italian Luxury Fashion House

What about _"supreme"_ ?... they are just like Gucci but more edgy

ma gucci e sopravalutato pure in italia

seem2002 I think brands like Zara and H&M are more harmful than big fashion houses, those brands are the ones employing cheap labor overseas

That's what luxury goods are for you

I don't think you understand, they are actually getting richer even though knockoffs are a thing.

most luxury brands are actually ethically made... I feel like you might think this would harm fast fashion, which actually is I assume you mean, a big portion of fast fashion use sweatshops and pay very little for the labour work and overall, the workers have very bad work environments.. based on the video itself on that little montage of side to side items of the original and the knock offs, the knock offs are mostly from fast fashion brands and they are benifiting from this.. fast fashion btw would be like Zara and H&M

All fashion brands that produce on the wide scale use shoddy labor, but fast fashion brands are even worst.

Blue .Barrymore I think he just meant when you don’t have enough in your checking account, not credit.

Blue .Barrymore Eye roll at the semantics of “bank”.

@Blue .Barrymore unless you have a card that gives you a discount and you pay it off instantly

Blue .Barrymore r/whoosh

This is just modern art in clothes version.

Yea fashion these days are based on brands not looks. We are living in the worst generation ever

@@PabloEscobar-gu8sd worst generation ever? Do you really think wealthy people in middle ages didn't buy themselves clothes from the most famous/expensive craftsmen? Think again.

the beauty of Fashion just like in Art is in the eye of the beholder, what you might think its ugly its the most beautiful thing for someone else

Lie to me and tell me the gucci leather loafers are not beautiful!!!!!!!!

I used to think this way, but it isn't true. I explained this to someone in another comment. A Lot of these brand are meticulous with their work and these high-end designer brands also have their own factories where they produce everything and they usually pay their workers well, because if you pay your workers well they have less incentive to leave and make their own knock-offs. The materials also don't compare to the higher-end pieces, a good product will last you years and will age well. With other pieces from H&M, Zara, Gap, will only last you for so long before it starts to lose it's shape, have loose threads, and will just lose it's whole aesthetic, the conditions where these products are made is terrible, and usually the pieces that "fast fashion" pushes are ripped off from the higher-end brand.

The reason I said this is because this is what my parents did. They owned a factory and worked for high end labels. They would just order double them materials that they needed for the order. Half would get the label, half wouldn't. Half went to the shop, and half to the market to be sold at a 10th of the price. I agree that not all is like this, and some copies are worse quality. But not all of it is. Buying a label also doesn't guarantee that you'll get a good product either.

Kheso oh please... you used to think this way? And then you continue to repeat the same slogan literally every "high end" brand, or your favorite youtuber is trying to sell.. Give me a break. I have a lot of "cheap" clothes incl shoes, talking 10-20 bucks each, and they're all fine 6yrs+. Sure you can make supr cheap fabric, but most clothes are on a technical level that is hardly any different than "high end". It's all marketing, just like in the food industry, or computer chips for that matter. One is binned slightly worse and the other can go 500mhz higher, so its given a different name has a software based function enabled and priced $200 more..

@@fetB Yes, I mention high-end brands because they do care about the products. There's no way wordings this without sounding pretentious, but I own some of these pieces, Acronym, WACKO Maria, Balenciaga, Burberry, and they can't compare to the items you see on Gap, H&M, Zara, or the clothing you see at Target. It also depends on what you're looking for. If you just want clothing just for the sole purpose of wearing, then you can get clothing that isn't expensive, nothing wrong with that. If you want a certain look, want clothing with functionality, or care about detail, you'll usually find that it more expensive clothing. Acronym for example, they're known for their functionality and utilize a monochromatic pallette. Balenciaga and Wacko Maria aim for a certain aesthetic or look with each of their seasons, they try to push the boundaries and try to set new trends. Burberry is known for their detail and the quality of their products. I also just consider this a hobby of mine, much like someone who spends money on modifying their car, upgrading their computer for gaming, photography, or collecting art. It got to a point where I started to look into more expensive brands, albeit I started slowly but eventually I realized there is a difference between "fast-fashion" and designer clothing. That's the reason why I even say there's a difference because I've worn and felt these type of pieces.

+Kheso tbf, nearly every company who isn't in the scam market, cares about the product, especially today when news, especially bad one, spreads like a wildfire. Anyway, monochromatic palette makes me giggle. In other words, it's universal. So, as a seller, you can't possibly go wrong and will always find a buyer. Very few eccentric people go around in bold colors. Functional clothing is a different matter. There is more work involved and typically stress tested. But even then. I just went to the Acronym site and the first random item i see is a "functional" jacket. Nothing extraordinary and made from (70% PA, 30% ePTFE). That fabric doesn't stop a bullet, protects from rain just as much and is virtually indistinguishable from the lower cost item because its the same synthetic material as affordable equivalent. Then, the whole thing is accompanied by a bunch of trademarked terms for a slightly unusual cut/zipper and some pretentious slogans, sold for 1,294.00 €. That is plain insanity. R&D and production of this item, probably amounts to a retail price of 100, or lets give it even 200 bucks. It's fine if you enjoy it, but it just goes to show by the way you talk about it. And i dont necessarily mean pretentious, but fooled by notion of getting something special regardless of how true it really is. At the end, all that matters you're happy, though. So good luck.

Dennis Prüne and you could get it for free!

Be a homosexual, you’ll get free ones through your window.

poor man

satherandfon thats the whole point of a luxury good though.. poor people arent able to buy em. Thats why they so attractive to rich people. U think if gucci dropped their prices rich people would still buy it? Hell no they would move to another luxury brand still charging alot

@@splingusbugs honey, most of the luxury goods are also made in the same factory the counterfeits are produced. They just slap a label on em and charge you 50x the price of the generic brand.

no they dont

@@rosez6737 yes they do.

Angelo they don’t, usually the knock offs that people find just out of dhgate and canal street are low quality replicas. there is an underground scene of high quality replicas but they are still not exact to retail.

panda danish yup

this shoes has been created before so what makes them own it??? Gucci crying about the same thing they are doing lol

@@black10kevin Ryland Adam bought the gucci shoe is what panda danish is saying.

AH💀😭

@@black10kevin i meant this person bought the shoe

😍

Garment not gourmet

@@mauriceestelle4619 Damn... sorry. English is not my first language

@@cassif19 it's completely fine

Imo the quality of branded leather is much much higher and durable than the typical leather used in other brands. My LV bags and gucci wallet are more than 7 years old and still have not worn out and stitching still intact. You won't see this quality in other brands.

cassi farcas lol you’re learning this now?this is the concept behind most luxury businesses

You do realise cloths are designed by people, and as a result art right?

@@wugabriel3465 The brand is protected. Clothes are clothes. Might as well have the inventor of the tee shirt rise from the dead and sue everyone that makes shirts that use a hole for the neck, two for the arms and one for the torso. You do realise that even Oreos are knockoffs... right?(Look it up)

@@ChachinAKAChino if the inventor of t shirts if there is one, had applied for copy right. So many years have passed the designed would've been in the public domain anyway, what's your point.

@@ChachinAKAChino also whats the most important is the desings of the t shirt, the picture on it, the logos, the patterns, no one is copyrigbting the shape, it's about the stuff printed on the t shirt.

So by your logic anything designed by people is art?

Well to be fair, whether or not you buy a print or the real painting they both goes back to the Artist.

And the artists have to allow others to profit off his creative work? What kinda bullshit is this.

@@wugabriel3465 they don't. That's why there are copyright laws.

That says more about you than school.

velvetwicexo then i’d search a new school you do know vox is a republican liberal media outlet i wouldn’t rely on that for good information

nah ,Alicia vakander

Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

You're supposed to learn "how to think" in school.

mhm and that's pretty much the aesthetic of it.. I personally like it tho.. at least their pricey pieces.. and I absolutely cannot afford it however creative expression is lovely to me and I do genuinely find a lot of their tracksuits and coats enticing

You know nothing if you comment "Gucci has ugly fashion" lol.

Cyril Fo It’s true. Gucci designs are like certain artists who throw random paint on a canvas and call that exquisite art. Majority of their designs are simply overly colourful and messy. LV, Burberry, Goyard on the other keep their designs organised, clean yet detailed and sophisticated.

Absolutely true at least in my mind Gucci is incredibly hideous and gaudy. The only reason people buy it is to prove they can afford what some celebrity with no taste has.

@@noelblash4669 they're more known for their cut & sews. The Gucci that you see in the mainstream is just marketing, and it works. They have their couture Gucci which is more about the quality of their products and they have their mainstream where it attracts the younger audience.

Why?

@@MalaysianTropikfusion same question

Ezehelm because she's a 🌿

Atlantic Records paid good money to get her in these videos

It's nice for house shoes, but not much else.

when you can buy slippers that cost $1000, you can afford someone to clean them for you.

Austin Mayan death toad

BIG MAN TYRONE no havin a shrek profile does

Rob Spagrenetti wrong, shrek display pictures signs the user's massive self respect like how massive their dong are.

Wow so deep 🤦🏽‍♀️

Just like using an iPhone

Praba Garan Debatable

Just shop in H&M and Zara or any fast-fashion store. Usually they take inspiration from luxury brands.

It surely is losing grounds. IP is hampering innovation of "others", but without it, it wouldn't make sense to invest at all in a new technology. It may sound like some corporation losing "commercial secrets" is a "good thing", but behind the IP is a long, long, time and money consumed, so that, what? one day someone wakes up and takes the results of your years of work, for free, and improve upon it? Imagine, Mendel, spending years (seasons) of cross-breeding, to prove a pattern, and someone else snatching all the results and flash-printing it to take all the credit (and funds)? In WWII, and prior, there were just a few good aircraft engine designs which lots of companies "licensed" and improved upon. Why would giving that sturdy designs away for free seem like a good idea at all? Who could build engines/airplanes, afforded licensing the designs, and (if they had the R&D), they could develop it. All fair and regulated. Investments should yield returns. Instead, we thrive upon the lowest of the lowest prices consuming ever more and that is truly the only reason IP has a hard time.

That is assuming that most innovations have been made by private entities, which they haven't. And even those that have often receive massive amounts of money from the government into research.

You don't got to wait until the future. "If you can do it, and it works, do it", is exactly the attitude in modern day China

Justine McCloud- I'm gonna need a citation for that. For stuff like medicine, I can imagine the government putting money into research for the greater good. But without IP protection, who in their right minds would spend money on creating exciting new products like the iPhone or the automobile (back in the day) or any of the technology we've come to expect in our everyday lives? Would you let the government waste your taxes on developing never-seen-before technology that sounds crazy and will never work?

It is quite new. "The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively,[8] firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property. " From Wikipedia.

Máté Gautier nah you’re 100% right

Not modern fashion, high fashion. High fashion is all the garbage in the shows, modern fashion is just our everyday clothes

What if i made a dress out of cash?

@@JacobChrabaszcz I mean High fashion in shows is not something they will even sell. They are essentially just conveying ideas for their lineups that are actually coming up for the next season. They are for the industry people, not consumers.

Running nicolas boscovic

@@ve_wake thanks :)

("that's better than saying , "First" " )

At lest you're honest

clothes are difficult to make, they are allowed to charge whatever they want for there designs just as painters are

​​@@rosez6737 They are allowed, that's not the problem. Your explanation for those prices is however nonsensical, the needed technique to realize those clothes represents an almost negligible portion of the price.