The purpose of MAP and how it really helps us

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

raccoon city wrote:

DavidEF wrote:

Bort wrote:
raccoon city wrote:

tumblr_mbw417UqsB1r1a37eo2_250.giftumblr_mbw417UqsB1r1a37eo2_250.giftumblr_mbw417UqsB1r1a37eo2_250.gif

seizure Wink Big Smile Beer
…and yet still wrong. Fun, though. Big smile

Quick tip for those keeping score at home:

When the perennial defender of GearBest says that MAP “really helps us”…

that’s when most sane consumers know it totally doesn’t.   Smile


Quick tip for “sane consumers”: Don’t take this kind of advice from anybody! Use your own brain, read the facts, look stuff up, and choose to believe the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be for you. That’s what I’m doing. Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17272
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

DavidEF wrote:
Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

Like usual, you have the monopoly on logic.

I notice you make that claim quite frequently.   :bigsmile:

Bort
Bort's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 7 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8338
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

raccoon city wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

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)

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

DavidEF wrote:
You had said that McDonald’s should be able to set the prices to be the same in all of “their” stores. But, the stores aren’t “theirs”, only the product is. Flashlight manufacturers set the price for their own brand, not for the market. If they all got together and set a market price, that would be price fixing. But, they don’t. They compete with each other. What they don’t want is a “cheap” re-seller under-cutting their other re-sellers and throwing them out of balance.

Here’s an example. Let’s say you and I are both Nitecore re-sellers. We both get the Nitecore products for the same price and we both sell them at a profit. Now, let’s say that you have a local store-front where people can walk in and look at what you have. They can ask you questions about the products and get recommendations. If they have a problem after the sale, they can come back to you and you will make it right. All of this excellent customer service is a valuable resource to your store’s visitors, so they keep coming back to buy from you. They trust you.

Is it fair? Should I be rewarded for being able to make money this way? Over time, if left unchecked, I will run you out of business. All’s fair in love and war, right? The “better” seller wins out and everybody gets cheaper flashlights. Yay!

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

Bort wrote:
raccoon city wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

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)

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. Wink

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

raccoon city wrote:

Like usual, you have the monopoly on logic.

I notice you make that claim quite frequently.   :bigsmile:

kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

brad wrote:
If I could go to the various hamburger factories and buy all their hamburgers at a wholesale price, then I might open a hamburger store online or store front where a customer could buy a McDonald’s, Denny’s, Burger King, In and Out, Jack in the Box, White Castle, burger, but if the burger chains ever allowed their product to go free range like that, and sold directly from the factory to individual non-affiliated global-burger places, then I would not expect them to control the pricing by my business.
raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17272
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

DavidEF wrote:
Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

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?"

Bort
Bort's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 7 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8338
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

DavidEF wrote:

Bort, You should know that several economies of the world, including the Chinese economy, thrive on your sort of Vulcan logic. Wink

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.

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

kuoh wrote:
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


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?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17272
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

I've gotta get some sleep.

I hope the thread is still around when I get up.   Smile

https://xkcd.com/386/

1dash1
1dash1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 08/29/2015 - 22:02
Posts: 1576
Location: Hilo, Hawaii
Old-Lumens wrote:
This is a useless thread that needs to go away.

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. Beer

Rule 1-1 as it applies to life, take it as it comes.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

raccoon city wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
Lots of opinions floating around here, not many backed up by any logic at all.

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?


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? Wink

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

DavidEF wrote:
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?
Old-Lumens
Old-Lumens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 11 months ago
Joined: 11/04/2011 - 11:39
Posts: 7478
Location: Tyler, TX, USA

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. 

My PayPal address: oldlumens (insert the @ sign here) gmail.com

My YouTube Flashlight Video Channel

The BLF Modding Links Thread 

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/1374/jQ2wdL.jpg

 

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

kuoh wrote:
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

DavidEF wrote:
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?

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.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

1dash1
1dash1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 08/29/2015 - 22:02
Posts: 1576
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

I’m sure that any one of us could go back, look at our previous statements, and poke holes in our own arguments. Smile

Rule 1-1 as it applies to life, take it as it comes.

DanielM
DanielM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
Joined: 05/09/2014 - 01:31
Posts: 1804
Location: Romania

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?

Old-Lumens wrote:
I love modding, but I don't have much use at all for flashlights in general.
kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

DavidEF wrote:
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.
DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

DanielM wrote:
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?

This message approved by “resident logical prodigy”. You are all now free to agree with it! :bigsmile:

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

kuoh wrote:
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


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.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

B42
B42's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 5 days ago
Joined: 03/07/2013 - 21:03
Posts: 1876
bugsy36 wrote:

But they actually are not the same entity. They are merely distributors for the same corporation and consequently make millions doing so. Burger King and Wendy’s also franchise and using the same pricing schemes. It certainly is not to benefit the consumer…or is it?

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.

Turby3Pots
Turby3Pots's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/31/2013 - 20:51
Posts: 592
Location: Richmond va USA
DavidEF wrote:
From their perspective, it actually has very little to do with you as the end consumer.
DavidEF wrote:
But, I say MAP is good for everyone, especially consumers!

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:

DavidEF wrote:
Ultimately, manufacturers do need to sell to us.

Except it’s not ultimately. It it just is.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
wdkingery wrote:
DavidEF wrote:
From their perspective, it actually has very little to do with you as the end consumer.
DavidEF wrote:
But, I say MAP is good for everyone, especially consumers!

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, because without the end consumer, why are they even selling?


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:

wdkingery wrote:
Except it’s not ultimately. It it just is.
Which is why MAP can never hurt us, only them. So, if they want it, it must be good!

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

kuoh
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/10/2013 - 12:42
Posts: 565
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

DavidEF wrote:
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.
Turby3Pots
Turby3Pots's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/31/2013 - 20:51
Posts: 592
Location: Richmond va USA
DavidEF wrote:
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

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.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

kuoh wrote:
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

DavidEF wrote:
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.

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?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
wdkingery wrote:
DavidEF wrote:
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

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.


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?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

Bort
Bort's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 7 sec ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8338
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

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

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 21 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9599
Location: Berkeley, California
Quote:
it appears to me that MAP is an agreement between the manufacturer and the re-seller

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.

Pages