Like usual, you have the monopoly on logic.
I notice you make that claim quite frequently. :bigsmile:
My vulcan logic tells me paying a lower price for the same item increases my total purchasing power. It is illogical to dispute this mathematical reality, paying more for the same item leaves me with fewer dollars in my possession. 8)
Your example doesn’t apply, because the stores only sell MCD products and MCD products can only be purchased at their stores. Thus TO THE PUBLIC, they are the same entity and it is logical to expect consistent pricing. Now if they were to say, allow all other fast food franchises to sell the Big Mac, but dictate that it cannot ever be priced below an MCD store, then there would be a problem and no consumer would see that policy as a benefit.
Getting to your Nitecore example, I would have no issues with MAP pricing if Nitecore products were only available at Nitecore stores and those stores sold no other brand’s products. If I walk into one of those stores, then I have already made my choice to agree with their pricing policy. But, as soon as they decide that their products should be available to sell in any other store, then they should be willing to offer products with the performance, quality and pricing consistent with what the market determines. MAP is a way for some to artificially maximize pricing, without necessarily delivering the corresponding level of effort in the other two key areas.
As for whether it is fair to you, a re-seller, that’s your choice and issue to deal with. If you’re unable sustain your store because you chose to align with a manufacturer(s) who requires MAP, then it’s not up to me to keep your business afloat when it is found that MAP is not ultimately good for everyone as you and the OP are trying to argue. To me as a consumer, MAP is not fair. Are you willing to make it more fair? Not just to me specifically with a super secret price, but as a consumer in general?
KuoH
raccoon, I’ve never made the claim to any monopoly on logic. In fact, I urge that people use logic as much as possible. Logic doesn’t mean that you agree with me, it just means that you have a reason to either agree or disagree. I don’t care much for your or anyone else’s feelings as a method of making sound choices in life.
Bort, You should know that several economies of the world, including the Chinese economy, thrive on your sort of Vulcan logic. 
Well he did quote Aristotle after all. I guess the rest of us who haven’t been persuaded by his opinion must be illogical?
KuoH
That’s exactly how I see it and why they had me scratching my head by saying the MCD example was the best example of why there should be MAP. Seemed like an apple-orange, cow-chicken, water-air comparison as far as I was concerned.
KuoH
This is the claim that you frequently make.
Some examples can be found in the silly thread entitled, "Title change by request: What's good about AFF links?"
My Vulcan logic also says if i agree to pay for a Cree and you substitute a latticebright without my knowledge you are misleading me to improve your profits, which is also not acceptable, i did not consent to a latticebright.
Wait a minute. Help me understand. If Nitecore makes a product and asks/tells the store to sell it for a certain price, you’re okay with that if there are no competing products on the shelf. But, if there are other products to compare to, with different prices and different features, etc, then the MAP policy of Nitecore is only then wrong. Is that what you’re saying? That MAP should be allowed in an environment where there is no possibility of competition, but disallowed when there is a competing product that someone may choose to buy at a possibly lower price? Isn’t that making the situation worse instead of better?
I've gotta get some sleep.
I hope the thread is still around when I get up. :)
The more I read the red herrings and other illogical extrapolations on both sides of the argument, the more I tend to agree with you.
On the other hand, this is a useful exercise in testing my own biases. 
THAT claim, I do make. THAT claim, that people choose to make so much argument without thought, I most certainly find myself making a LOT around here! As for my “silly” thread, I DARE you to prove it is silly at all, or that THIS thread is silly at all. Claims like that, based only on your feelings, with no reasonable objection, only childish preference, are hard to back up, and I dare you to try. I’ve always been willing to back up what I say, how about you?
No, I’m saying that if Nitecore had their own stores and only sold their products in those stores, then they are perfectly within their rights to set whatever prices they see fit. However, I can either choose to walk into their store or to the flashlight store next door, who sells many other brands at whatever price they feel is profitable enough to keep their business running. There is still competition in the market, but Nitecore better make damn sure that their products are more desirable in performance, quality and price than the competition or else the market will help them to equalize, whether to their benefit or not.
KuoH
Not much backed by logic? The only logic is how much is in my pocket after a sale. Buying power is all I care about. Is that not logical? If so, then I am not logical.
Here's the way I shop for something. I find out it's name like "widget XY-001" and I search for it on the Internet. I get all kinds of hits and I look at all of the places selling that exact item. If I see prices that are fluctuating, then I start with the very lowest price I can find and see if the seller is one I want to use. Many times I get lucky and find that places like Amazon, or other well known sites, have what I want for the lowest price. Sometimes it's through places I do not know, but at least I have seen what the "average price" is and I can decide for myself.
When I see an item that is the same price everywhere, I immediately know that the Manufacturer has built in at least a 200% markup on the item, (MAP). 100% markup for the Mfg and 100% markup for the Retailer/seller. That is how I see it and then I find one used on ebay, or I forget the item all together and buy something else.
It is my choice as a consumer to either pay exorbitant MAP prices which make the seller and the mfg rich, or to buy items at the lowest price possible, that are still functional, for what I need. Every consumer should shop around, unless they just don't worry about money, as some people do. That is fine, but for me, I will not buy the high price if I know the mfg and seller are raking in 100% markup off the item. 100% markup is more like 150% reality, so an item made for $1, then sells for $2.50 wholesale, to the seller and $5.00 to the consumer. That is how MAP and Markup work.
Believe me, even places like Wal-Mart sell lots of things at 100% to 200% markup, while they also sell other things "loss leader" at 10% markup, just to get customers in the store. We, the customer, hardly ever get to purchase at less than 100% markup, because we never truthfully know how much it cost to produce. No one wants us to know that.
Any manufacturer that says "it costs X amount to make", go ahead and divide that number by 3 or more, since the real value is most likely 33% or less than the value they quoted. It is the way it is. No Mfg in their right mind would tell a consumer how much something really cost to make, or even a dealer, since the dealer "wholesale price" is still at least 50% markup.
How do I know? I've been in sales during my life and in manufacturing most of my life. Been through enough budget meetings and sales and marketing meetings, to know how much things cost and how much profit there was, or how much it needed to sell for, before X amount of profit would be made and at what volumes the pricing could be changed.
Yes, but why is it not just as healthy (or even more healthy) competition to make Nitecore sit on the shelf next to that possibly lower priced and/or better made product? It is Nitecore that makes the light and then wants it sold for a certain price. If it isn’t worth that price, it will be more obvious if it’s sitting next to the lower priced equivalent product, right? I mean, I just read O-L’s post above about simply not buying the light or finding a used one. We all have that choice. So, if MAP hurts anyone, it must be the manufacturer, and yet they are the one enforcing it. MAP can never hurt us, because we still always have the choice of either not buying or of buying from another manufacturer, or of buying the product used for a much lower price.
I’m sure that any one of us could go back, look at our previous statements, and poke holes in our own arguments. 
If something stinks it goes in the garbage or it gets flushed. Kinda like this thread defending MAP. Kinda like that other thread by our resident logical prodigy.
It’s only logical right?
If Nitecore were the only ones or just one in a few who implement MAP, then what you said might be reasonable. But what we’re seeing these days is a lot more than that, because even the newcomers think they can establish some kind of brand reputation by using MAP. If it is so beneficial, then why the need for secrecy and laws to prevent abuse? When most of the industry thinks they can ensure profitability and sustainability by leveraging MAP, that’s when the market can stagnate and collapse.
I’m not here to argue whether they should be allowed or made to implement MAP, but rather against the notion that it is for the good of everyone as you two are implying. I do make my choices to not actively support MAP whenever possible. I also don’t participate when the pricing is secret, as that is not in the public interest either and just encourages MAP behavior. If I’m wrong, I save a few bucks and miss out on the opportunity to experience the glory of a product and the manufacturer gets to stay in business. If I’m right, I get better value for my money and the manufacturer gets to stay in business. If MAP is the sole determining factor of whether a manufacturer stays in business or not, then it probably doesn’t deserve to stay in business anyway. I have no problems with any of those outcomes.
KuoH
This message approved by “resident logical prodigy”. You are all now free to agree with it! :bigsmile:
Well, thank you for the discussion. I’m sorry if my position seems unreasonable. I actually see my opinion as closely matching yours. The only difference to me is that I believe that things that are truly bad can make themselves go away without our explicit help. I don’t believe bad business practices need help from picketers and people crying “ban! ban!” If people will only vote with their wallet, bad business practices will not be able to support themselves. With this belief, I choose to see that MAP is not one of those inherently bad things. Ultimately, manufacturers do need to sell to us. If MAP were bad, it could only ultimately be bad for them. They don’t get to choose who they sell to, but we get to choose who we buy from.