Minimum Advertised Price // Nitecore - what do you guys think?

i doubt it, but i like to be surprised…

Nitecore is doing nothing wrong IMO.

If a retailer enters into an agreement with distributor that includes a MAP, then clearly that retailer knows upfront what is required of them. If said retailer decides to break that agreement then I see no reason why a company like Nitecore shouldn’t pull them up on it.

If a retailer does not like a MAP, they don’t have to stock the product, simple as that.

MAP’s in general are there to protect a brand and all retailers of that brand/product from being price r**d, for certain products it would be the end of them if margins kept getting cut to the point where most retailers dropped the product due to not being competitive, bad for us also as this can lead to no competition and prices can go up…

The other advantage is if certain retailers are (very roughly in general here…) able to gaurantee at least a stable profit margin then that leads them to want to champion that brand, meaning better service for us etc etc. Also the manufacturer should be able invest more into R&D which should mean higher quality products.

I realise this varys greatly across industries and can work to the average consumers detriment (eg Canon and big retailers), but for the most part is part of running a business.

I have no affiliation with Nitecore, and the only product of theirs I’ve owned was an Intellicharger which arrived DOA lol, however I appreciate that they are trying to provide a product a step above the usual cheap crap pumped out, accepted, and lapped up by todays consumers. Sure they may not get it right all the time, but compared to some it seems they are trying to be a bit more professional?

I seem to remember Sunwayman posting their “Regional Sales Policy and Retail Price” on CPF - post #42 a year ago, which was basically a price fix policy, that seemed very odd to most Europeans, where such things are frowned upon. Indeed, there are huge fines available to Regulators (up to 10% of turnover).

I just find it funny that Nitecore are so brazen about it - Fasttech even published their threats. I’m pretty sure many light manufacturers have a similar policy, but most are more subtle, or, maybe, have better leverage over their dealers. The fact is that they don’t actually see the problem - certainly Sunwayman didn’t “get it”.

Bottom line for me is that it happens, it isn’t good for consumers, but no action will be taken by regulators because the market isn’t big enough (and enforcement impractical).

Was looking at the TM 26’s. Think I’ll just look at some others. While I understand both sides of the discussion. Just not into Nitecore & even a bit of controversy just puts me off these days. Especially when it enters BLF.

Am i wrong that the retailer pays for the product before selling it, so if they sell at a loss, nitecore would still get the agreed upon price?

maybe FT and IS should say whether or not they had agreed to a limit to how low they sell them before nitecore came bullying them. when the FT incident happened, it seemed like FT was unaware of the price fix. which would lead me to believe that certain retailers are fixing the price

In the UK we have RRP (recommended retail price), so the manufacturer/distributor can say to a retailer: you can buy item X for £50 and we recommend a sale price of £100. Most retailers stick to that or £99.99. But the retailer can sell for what he wants, its just that if other retailers complain then the retailer is unlikely to get any more stock from the manufacturer/distributor.

Price fixing in Europe tends to get the Manufacturers arse kicked.

Talking of which every item has a personal A.R.S.E : Acceptable Retail Sales Envelope - $300 is way out of my envelope

I think you were right to take down your post, Illumination Supply would probably get aggravation from Nitecore. In the future however you could do what kreisler has done in the past, if someone express’s an interest in a discount price PM them details. There is nothing retailer or manufacturer can do about that.

Normally yes

It’s been a long time since I looked at competition law, but RRP is supposed to be just that - recommended. If the competition regulators find evidence that retailers are being discriminated against because they “breach” a supposed agreement to sell at a certain price , then the manufacturer might find life very difficult.

The legal theory in Europe is simple - manufacturers cannot ask retailers to sell at any particular price. And really, what is the problem?

FMS’s argument - that if the retailer doesn’t like the “agreement” to fix prices they can walk away, is completely bogus, and has been used for years to artificially inflate prices. Manufacturers use all sorts of spurious arguments - the sellers don’t understand the complexities of selling their product (from jeans to beans) - that have been rejected by the European courts over the years.

As I said earlier, nothing much will happen, so vote with your feet (and wallet) if you don’t like it.

But I agree with you that the more practical route might be the “Kreisler Method” (hey, I like that as a concept) -

In that case i assume nitecore is looking to maintain their cachet

Alternatives:
Make it a shark infested lake, or a hike in the Sahara followed by a chilled out in a snowstorm in Siberia.

Anyway, priced it too high and nitecore should self destruct. No ill will here. It’s market forces at work.

I say vote with your dollars. It will be extremely telling when they are on the receiving end.

I’m a little torn here. And maybe confused. Is the problem that the MAP exists, or that they came after the vendor when a third party advertised a lower price?

Or both?

MAP is a weird concept.

Evidently it’s okay for a retailer to advertise that they have a promo code for a particular item that will provide a certain percentage discount as long as they don’t state what the final price will be.

I’ve noticed that several well-known flashlight merchants (especially during Black Friday, etc.) have been doing this for years without having any supply problems. I mean, really, who’s being fooled by this scheme?

apparently it increases profits

They are really two separate issues…

MAP which i wanted to throw out there to get other members viewpoints on…

And second, nitecores actions

Gotcha. Well, I guess I’m not a fan of any kind of price fixing. I mean, shouldn’t each vendor be allowed to choose how much profit he/she wants to make? Maybe it’s not that cut-and-dry; I haven’t really researched it myself. But I think that’s what it boils down to. Maybe the other vendors will complain until the manufacturer no longer supplies to that one, for fear of losing their other business. That sounds an awful lot like a mob mentality and it never works out well for anyone. My two bits there.

As far as what they did, that’s clearly wrong. The vendor (who presumably has some kind of MAP agreement) was not advertising any price. They were not contradicting any part of their contract because they did nothing. It was all a third party. Of course, as a consumer of that vendor, you don’t want them to suffer because of your actions, so you did what you had to in order to stop the bullying.

I don’t know how common price fixing is, but I infer that it’s a very common practice here, in a lot of areas. I’m wondering how Nitecore would fare when faced with those “extreme couponers” blogging ways to get their product for free, or even for a profit. I wonder how they would deal with any actual legal action if they did pull their line when a third party advertised a price lower than MAP. And I’m wishing that we, as consumers, could pull together enough to give them the “Wal Mart treatment” and force on them a maximum price for their products.

Again, just my two cents on it.

like i said before. the manufacturer sells them for x amount for y quantity. like the ea4. they sell them lots of 100-200 for $40 a piece. one company wants $69.99 for it to maximize profit per unit. the next company wants $47 a unit for faster return. nitecore still gets their $40. the company who is trying to almost double their profit gets their panties in a wad and complains to nitecore.
thats how i see it

nitecore, let them whine. if people want to sell them at little profit for themselves, so be it. quality light at a cheaper price will move more units faster. i know at $69.99, i probably would not have ended up owning an ea4.

^That was kind of my thoughts on this matter.
That it may not be just nitecore. After all nitecore still made the same profit.
Some other dealer with there panties in a wad saw the price and complained to nitecore which in return had to complain to craig.
As for my thoughts on MAP. Sure seems like price fixing to me.
If every manufacture had MAP’s then walmart probably wouldn’t be in business. You could just stop any where the particular item was sold and it would be the same price.
If you ever look at buying a STIHL product you will find that no matter what store or online seller (when you include shipping) you find the item you wish to purchase will be exactly the same price. If its on sale in one store its on sale in ever store. Its their policy with the seller. Stihl set’s the price.

Nitecore is quickly losing my recommendation. I had been pondering a few of their lights, but with all this price fixing baloney… no more Nitecore for me.

I’m a bit sad I already purchased a charger, and to think I actually suggested a friend get it too. (he did) Won’t do that again.

Nitecore: You have price fixed your way out of my future purchases.

Yup that would be one reason, they seem to be trying to build a quality image.

Another is this VERY simplistic example- you have three different retailers called A,B and C.
Each buys $5,000 worth of the same suppliers stock, none of them have any reseller pricing restrictions.

Seller A decides to sell all stock at cost or just above to generate interest in their business etc, and attract customers that might also purchase other brand items that do have profit for them, but they do lose money on the $5,000 purchase (taking into account losses in pay, warehousing, shipping etc overheads in running a business)

Sellers B and C now have little choice but to match or at least come close to seller A’s prices which means they also lose out, if they cannot make up these losses through other sales then it becomes less likely they will want to restock or deal with the suppliers products, knowing they take a gamble that they may not make enough profit to break even.

So us the buyers end up seeing less choice of places to buy, seller B and C might have a great reputation for service, shipping etc, but if they decide not to stock said items then we might only be left with seller A who has the worst reputation for shipping, returns service, especially if they’re only making $1 profit on an item they won’t care about end users as it’s numbers of sales…yada yada yada

So if Nitecore sets MAP’s for example, they are more likely to get their products into more resellers stores as there is some guarantee of resale, which in turn gives us more choice of places to order to receive things like better pre/post sales service, faster shipping and so on.

I don’t see this as ‘price fixing’, it’s simply to ensure a sustainable business model. I would hate to see them go the way of others and let the market gut their products meaning we suffer with possibly cost cutting in manufacturing and left to deal with shoddy resellers.

Wouldn’t stop me personally in the slightest buying another Nitecore product, apart from the faulty charger I got :bigsmile: - though the replacement works beautifully, was resonably priced and appeared (to my eyes) to be of a much higher feature set and quality than the current competition.