Here’s the simple truth: Retailers will likely sell both MAP and NOMAP right next to each other on the shelf and not be bothered at all by it. All the retailer cares about is that it does sell. And, if it does not sell, they will offer a coupon to get rid of it, and not order any more from the manufacturer. In the end, only the manufacturer can be hurt by MAP policies. Consumers can always choose not to buy, and retailers can always choose not to lose money by giving store shelf space to something that will not sell. As for the supposed conflict about more/less profit for the retailer. I’m certain they won’t let that be a major factor in whether or not to sell the product. If it can sell, and make some reasonable profit, they will give shelf space to it. The bigger problem for them would be for their competitor to have it on the shelf and they not, if it is a good selling product.
Sawmaster,
The MAP policies are for the dealers. The MAP police come about because of complaints. The manufacturers set their prices. Any salesman worth a flip will not let someone walk out the door (within reason) BUT that is not a violation of MAP and happens regularly. The discount, if given, is based on the the profit needed by the dealer and not necessarily greed. Yet the uninformed believe that profit is evil and based on greed. That is just simply not true (unless we want to discuss pharmaceuticals that we subsidize for the world.)
Not sure if everyone’s on the same page.
MAP ≠ what flashlight companies are claiming as MAP.
We had our group buys stomped on because our secret price as below the minimum advertised price.
As some have pointed out, large online malls (Amazon, etc.) go around this by putting “Too low to show… please view price in cart,” which isn’t a violation of MAP. Weirdly enough, Chinese manufacturers shoot us nasty PMs saying “you’ve violated MAP blah blah blah” when they’re the ones not grasping the meaning of minimum advertised price.
So, I do agree that MAP can be useful when used correctly, I’ve yet to see a proper implementation in the flashlight community.
MAP is a deliberate attempt to drive up prices and create an artificial prestige status to a brand.
In Australia for example, it is illegal as it is seen as a form of collusion/market fixing.
How much are the companies paying you to be their spokesman OP ?
Are you aware you’re advocating a criminal offence in some countries?
If you are shopping for the frozen ones, remember to look for the best price.
Now that one is funny! LOL
The United States slipped to second in manufacturing in 2010/11, it isn’t as though it isn’t still a global manufacturing powerhouse.
“”Manufacturing
Publication Date: January 6, 2014
Author: Dan Meckstroth
Councils: CFO, Division Leadership, Environmental, Health & Safety, Ethics & Compliance, Financial, Global Logistics, Law, CEO, Purchasing, Quality, Sales, Strategic Planning & Development, Sustainability
Topics: Global Economy, Money & Finance, GDP
China is the largest manufacturing economy in the world, with a 22% share of manufacturing activity. The U.S. is in second place with a 17.4% share. China has achieved this position through extremely fast growth in physical volume of manufacturing activity with modest inflation. China has more than four times the population of the United States, and though its manufacturing intensity of $1,856 per capita value-added in 2012 is high for a developing economy, it is well behind advanced countries such as the United States ($6,280).
World Rankings
ChinaRefers to mainland China. displaced the United States as the world’s largest manufacturing nation in 2010 and widened its lead in 2012, according to recently published data from the United Nations.“”
Which European country manufactures more than the country called the United States, or China?
Top 10 Manufacturing Countries in 2020Dec 9, 2015
A new study on future global competitiveness, by Deloitte Global and the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, predicts that the U.S. will dislodge China as the most competitive manufacturing nation in the world in 2020.
“Manufacturing competitiveness, increasingly propelled by advanced technologies, is converging the digital and physical worlds, within and beyond the factory to both customers and suppliers, creating a highly responsive, innovative, and competitive global manufacturing landscape,” says Craig Giffi, a leader in Deloitte US Consumer & Industrial Products Industry group and co-author of the report.
The 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index forecasts that the top eleven countries will remain consistent between now and 2020, with some exchange of rankings.
“While emerging markets continue to push the leaders, the findings demonstrate the strength of the manufacturing powerhouses of the 20th century with the United States, Germany, and Japan holding three of the top four positions currently and in the future” commented Giffi.
“If you add in the UK and Canada, which are also part of the top ten most competitive manufacturing nations, it really emphasizes the ‘back to the future’ theme of these research findings. It also suggests that the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) – with the exception of China – seem to have lost their allure as highly competitive manufacturing locations today, based on the views of executives responding to this study. India, however, is projected to move back up to the top five in the world, demonstrating executive optimism for the country in the future.”
I keep reading and promising myself not to get involved, oh well.
I don’t like MAP, it is a PITA when trying to get the best deal on a product. “Price available in cart!” YUCK - Just one more obstacle in the way of me getting the information that I need.
BUT
I can see how it can be helpful to consumers in the long term.
If I may borrow the use of the MTNElectronics store for a few minutes thought experiment;
Lets say RMM decides to carry a new LIon battery that everyone agrees is just plain awesome. The only other place to get the battery is through Amazon. If Amazon decides it wants to corner the market, it has enough muscle and buying power to advertise and sell these batteries at a loss until RMM can no longer afford to carry them. Once RMM no longer has them in stock, Amazon can raise the price as far as it wants, since there is no competition.
If however, there is a MAP agreement in place, RMM has at least a chance of competing and holding on to some amount of business.
Which of these scenarios benefits the consumer? - Well, your question is incomplete. Which consumer? The lucky buggers who grabbed the first few cells during the price war? (And can no longer get any more at that great price?) Or the consumers who want to be able to source these cells long term?
It isn’t like this is a theoretical argument - every time Walmart moves into a new area, prices go down, small stores go out of business, and prices stabilize at a new, higher than pre-Walmart level. MAP is not a very good or accurate tool to keep this from happening, but it can mitigate the effects.
However with internet stores there are no physical locations to shut down, walmart cannot move in on his region or territory because he has none. Amazon does not have a monopoly on cell production, anyone can open a store, as long as the manufacturer will sell to him he (or anyone else) can always decide to carry them again at any point in the future.
Your points don’t add up anyways because MAP did not save him or benefit amazon, both are still theoretically free to sell at any price, but when companies cut out retailers they affect the small guy disproportionately, amazon can afford MAP induced loses because they are a big business, RMM is a smaller one and MAP police all over him can ruin him when he was just trying to undercut amazon to stay in business.
I also keep saying i am done with this thread, doesn’t seem to work 
Lazy-R-us, Walmart has lower prices, not higher prices.
I have never seen a Walmart drive up prices for the consumer, in my experience it is always the opposite, and why is the store hated by the left and favored by the working people always the example of evil, why not Home Depot, or Costco, or Target, or Albertsons, or Vons?
I see Walmarts in the same strip center as Von’s and other supermarkets, and yet they both survive, in small towns I see Albertsons and Walmarts, and the rest.
When has a single online seller been able to takeover a brand like Olight, and destroy the ability of anyone else online to sell it?
I only have one question.
. . . How’s the Yugo running?
It sounds like you have a political position on what store your fellow citizens buy their groceries and socks from, with some general anti-Americanism thrown in, wherever “here” is for you.
It seems that Walmart has been good for Asda and Britain.
From wiki:
Asda near bankruptcy and purchase by Walmart ” Norman was chairman of the company during the period 1996–99, and remodeled the store along the lines of the world’s largest retailer, Walmart, sending protégé Allan Leighton to Bentonville, Arkansas to assess and photograph the systems and marketing deployed by Walmart.
When Norman left the company to pursue his political career, he was replaced by Leighton. Walmart wanted to enter the UK market so CEO Bob Martin lobbied British Prime Minister Tony Blair on planning issues. Asda, which at the time owned 229 stores, was purchased by Walmart on 26 July 1999 for £6.7 billion, trumping a rival bid from Kingfisher plc.
“Asda Stores Limited is an American-owned, British-founded supermarket retailer, headquartered in Leeds, West Yorkshire. The company became a subsidiary of the American retail corporate giant Walmart after a £6.7 billion takeover in July 1999, and is now the second-largest supermarket chain in Britain, by market share.”
You made your anti-Americanism pretty clear, and as far as Asda and Walmart, they seem to be extremely popular among the British people.
“The company became a subsidiary of the American retail corporate giant Walmart after a £6.7 billion takeover in July 1999, and is now the second-largest supermarket chain in Britain, by market share.””
No, the story is that being the second-largest supermarket chain in Britain shows that Asda/Walmart are fabulously popular among consumers.
I don’t know why the international left hates Walmart but they do, in America, the left rages against them constantly, it seems to be because they don’t give enough money to their political party and are non-union, like almost everyone in America since less than 93% of non-government Americans belong to a union, and many of those because it is required in some of the less free sections of America.
You’re treading on a sensitive subject. :evil:
Nuff said.
I think people can read the responses to your post, and see that your politics led you to make that misleading and inaccurate post, you should have pointed out that it was just your own personal view, about Britain’s second most popular grocery store, which is owned by Walmart.
Maybe one day we will come to our senses
That when we’ll see there’s no difference in our differences
Then we can mend those broken fences and get along
So lets get along, any other way just has to be wrong
Its not there world or my world, cause its our world
So lets get along and learn to live in peace