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.
Of course its not to benefit the consumer, its to make money, and ensure brand recognition and consistency, stop being silly. You can’t compare franchising to MAP.
Nobody bought a flashlight franchise with rules on every little aspect of the business to become “ONE” of them, its “psst, I’ll give you a discount if you buy this many and don’t ask less than this other amount when you sell it”. While it can create a stable environment for some sellers, and create a reliable income per unit for manufacturers, I’m not sure how you sell that as being good for the consumer. Yeah maybe it may help keep those sellers and manufacturers around, but that doesnt mean they are inherently good for the consumer.
These two statements conflict. Any time someone selling something is performing an action that “has very little to do with the end consumer” it couldn’t then be “good for … consumers”
Because when someone is selling something, the only person they should be concerned about is the end consumer regardless of how many middle men. Simply, without an end consumer, why are they even selling?
This is later proved by you:
Except it’s not ultimately. It it just is.
Well, I don’t really know anything but my own opinion, which may be wrong. That first statement you quoted from me is my actual opinion about MAP. From the little information I have, it appears to me that MAP is an agreement between the manufacturer and the re-seller, and so has nothing specific to do with you or me, although, as you know, we can’t not be affected by it. The other statement you quoted from me was a little tongue-in-cheek and not entirely to be taken seriously. :bigsmile:
Edit:
Which is why MAP can never hurt us, only them. So, if they want it, it must be good!
It won’t be able to, just like “bait and switch” used to be a standard industry practice and earned many retailers bad reputations until the public said enough and pressured the government to “help” the businesses get back on the right path. That’s why there are now “minimum quantity” disclaimers and other advertisement regulations. There is a fine line between MAP and price fixing, which why in the US at least, laws had to be enacted to maintain balance. If it were the golden rule of business & ethics and benefited manufacturers, sellers and consumers alike, there would be no need for those laws and this thread wouldn’t even be in existence.
KuoH