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
Now I know why you said that. I get it: you meant it’s an agreement between the manufacturer and the re-seller.
But let me point out the reality of what you said:
You just said that what the end consumer specifically should pay, isn’t specific to the end consumer.
How is it anything like price fixing? Price fixing stifles competition. MAP can’t possibly do that, because it is the manufacturer setting the price for their own product. The re-seller still can choose to sell other manufacturers’ products and let them compete on both price and quality! If the product isn’t worth the price, then it won’t sell. Simple market force stuff. How does MAP have any ability to interfere with that?
Where I live, house prices are set by the owner and the Real Estate agent and are not specific to the buyer. Is that wrong? Isn’t it the same thing?
They say a fool and his money are easily separated, i’m beginning to believe a fool and common sense are separated even more easily
Remember the A is for “Advertising” — resellers can sell for a price “too low to advertise” — in the US under current law.
One of the links I quoted earlier warns that — in the US under current law — MAP cannot be an “agreement” and spells out the caution that manufacturers are warned against even extended conversations with resellers about the advertised price. In fact it points out that the services searching the web for MAP violations are used in part so the manufacturer is not even under suspicion of playing favorites or cutting special deals. Instead the monitoring is done by an independent business that provides that service.
Under the Supreme Court case that controls — in the US under current law — that kind of agreement is explicitly something MAP is supposed to avoid, because that’s where price-fixing happens.
— in the US under current law —
By the way, there’s plenty in the news about actual price-fixing, which is different.
With the usual caveat.
Ya know....never EVER was this intended to start arguments or even give reasons to hurl personal insults. That shows nothing but a lack of civility and complete ignorance. Nobody stated that anybody "had" to agree but because someone does not follow your ideology does not make him or her and idiot as you guys all portray them (anybody) to be. I have never been afraid to state an opinion in a respectful manner, and I even have corrected/reversed myself when logical arguments are produced. The majority of this thread is nothing but emotion and not fact and logic even if the facts or logic do not benefit you.
- DavidEF - My apologies that you got caught up this. Thank you for trying to at least understand, whether in agreement or not.
- Bort - MAP is not price fixing as your own words so state. You also mention "our rights"...do not business have the right to choose also or are we living in a society where we will have to ask for permission to make purchases by getting on a government list. Also paying for CREE and getting Lb has nothing to do with MAP...that is fraud.
- Muto - Freddy was eventually killed but capitalism cannot ;)
- Wdkingery - The free market means that the consumer has a choice, as do the suppliers. All a business is responsible for is to provide us with what we agree to pay for and the consumer pay for what is provided.
- Southland - We have proven time and time again that MAP can be avoided and often circumvented
- SawMaster - Actually it is not about controlling any market as much as it is maintaining profitability of a distributing infrastructure to allow people to have more choices.
- Hank - Whether you agree or not thank you for at least looking at this objectively
- O.L - I cannot comment to your comments, I want to but I am torn and since I am NOT a dealer with NOTHING to gain I would rather just be surprised and disagree.
- Jack Kellar - The subject of MAP is not price gouging if for nothing else you do not need to buy any flashlight other than what you want to pay for
- RC -
- Kuoh - Simply put, if a dealer cannot profit selling an item then that dealer will not stock that item and then since no dealers will purchase an item from a manufacturer then that manufacturer will cease to exist which in turn actually limits choices more and even raises prices because of less competition. If a manufacturer stated that a dealer can sell no other brand (and they used to) then that is limiting choices.
- DanielM - Do you really have anything to say that has any substance, whether in agreement or not? You have added nothing but insults in the last several postings you made not in this thread but many threads.
- B42 - The consumer chooses whether or not they feel something is worth paying for. If not then it does not sell and the market automatically corrects it or it ends up going away.
Yeah, yeah.
Everyone that agrees with you uses fact and logic.
Everyone that disagrees with you uses emotion, lack of civility, and complete ignorance.
...
Two friends walk into a bar.
The bartender asks, "What will you have?"
The first friend says, "I'll have you know that MAP helps everyone."
The second friend says, "I agree, and my claims are based on fact. Anyone that says differently bases their claims on feelings, with no reasonable objection, and only childish preference."
The bartender says, "Two cosmopolitans, coming right up."
:p
Well this has been a rather eye opening post… Where is the pig head on a stick???
I am rather new to this forum, and am quite surprised by this outburt of pitchforks, torches, tar, and feathers. I am not affiliated with any company on this forum, I just work at a small automotive shop and have some experience with MAP.
I don’t see why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about Minimum ADVERTISED Pricing… That all important word implicitly states that’s the lowest price a selling dealer is allowed to advertise. All it does is keep some seller on the “internetz” from creating a cheap website that sells everything for $1 over cost, drop shipping items, and punting any claims of damages or defective goods back to the manufacturer. So, yes it is good for the dealers, because it allows them to earn a living wage, pay their bills, pay their employees, invest in more inventory to better serve you, buy a jetski, etc… Profit is NOT a four letter word.
MAP has nothing to do with true cost, if a manufacturer makes a product that is of a build quality that does not warrant its price tag, it will not sell. You as a consumer still live in a dollar democracy where you vote with your money. If you have enough gumption to root out a better price, more power to you, all MAP does in the day of the “Internetz” is keep some cutthroat company from spamming Google with super low prices to be at the top of any web search for a product… It isn’t this malevolent force that’s out to bleed you dry.
Brad I appreciate the example. I'm definitely picking up some whitecastle burgers this week. :)
Sharpie,
What's wrong with a US perspective?
I understand that the EU, AUS, and UK may deem it to be illegal but let me ask:
- As of when do the laws of a nation equal the laws of the rest of the world?
- This post is about the purpose of MAP and not the validity of the laws of sovereign nations
- Why are people in the EU, AUS, and UK ordering internationally?
- If those same laws deem MAP to be illegal then everybody in the EU, UK, and AUS should be able to purchase the same products at the same prices that we buy internationally.
- Unless of course those product by those companies are not available due to the government interference (which is what the USA was actually founded upon)
- Why is it that more products are available in the US than any other place in the world?
- Free trade allows for all products, except items that affect national security or public health, to be sold if the market (or populace) is willing to pay. VAT is the biggest hindrance to free trade, not MAP
All of the products that we here purchase internationally are available in the US. We choose to forego the immediate satisfaction of receipt in order to achieve a better price. Even so, we and all flashlight forums combined still do not put a dent in total sales of the flashlight market (one reason why we get away with what we do...which also provides benefit to manufacturers and dealers). The stocking dealers need to make money in order to survive, it is as simple as that.
For those that disagree, please open a brick and mortar store that sells/distributes flashlights (and all that goes with it such as rent, insurance, payroll, inventory with buy-ins) and sell for what you think at this moment is a fair price and profit. How long would that store actually stay around? MAP helps that and obviously it does work because those dealers that endure the expense of a business actually do stick around. Even an internet dealer would find it difficult to be profitable.
As stated in the OP...the manufacturers benefit because dealers DO want to sell their product to their own customers that are willing to pay for it. It does not mean BLF members have to be willing to pay for it but we are not a blip in the whole picture. :)
caugh China caugh
Everything, or about everything is available in Europe as it is in the US. (EDIT no it is about the same, maybe product A not here but product B not there /EDIT)
Buying stuff from China as a lot of us do is simply cheaper.
Sure government plays a huge part in this, taxes, wages, expenses are higher because of regulations we have that they don’t have in China. And I agree that US government is slightly less influential then EU governments, but companies have a bigger influence on rules and regulations in the US, thus it is very locigal a system like MAP that mainly benefits companies and seems less beneficial for consumers is allowed in the US.