![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just about all of the major (USA) pilot shops on the web use a "minimum
advertised price" for headsets. The actual price for a popular headset, such as Lightspeed or David Clark are not readily available on the website. Instead you only find out the real price after actually ordering or requesting and waiting for an email. The shops claim the manufacturers require this, and they can't advertise a price below the "minimum adv. price" which is usually somewhat lower than the MSRP or list price. So why is this? Manufacturers *cannot* set actual selling prices, per federal law (Sherman Act and related) so it is strange that they try to impose this barrier. . At any rate it is just a hassle for the consumer becaues it intentionally makes it difficult to find the best price. You would think the manufacturer wouldn't mind the end seller selling for the best possible price to get more sales. UNLESS of course the manufacturer secretly sells to different dealers at different prices..... I've done a lot of business on the web, and it is both weird and annoying that aviation .headsets operate differently than everything else. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Will Thompson wrote:
Just about all of the major (USA) pilot shops on the web use a "minimum advertised price" for headsets. ... So why is this? Manufacturers *cannot* set actual selling prices, per federal law (Sherman Act and related) so it is strange that they try to impose this barrier. . At any rate it is just a hassle for the consumer becaues it intentionally makes it difficult to find the best price. You would think the manufacturer wouldn't mind the end seller selling for the best possible price to get more sales. UNLESS of course the manufacturer secretly sells to different dealers at different prices..... I've done a lot of business on the web, and it is both weird and annoying that aviation .headsets operate differently than everything else. It's certainly not restricted to aviation headsets. For one example this is very common for GPS receivers. Look at the prices at www.tvnav.com - for many of the Garmin receivers it says to click to send email for price. Clicking actually opens your email with the price already listed. As to the rationale, I believe it is to help the small volume retailers who cannot compete on price with many of the mail and internet ordering sites or even with the bigger brick-and-mortar retailers. If the prices were widely advertised it would become even more apparent how much more the small stores are frequently charging. But the small stores are often the ones where customers get a chance to see and play with the products. And probably many of the customers who try on a headset or check out a GPS at a small retailer end up buying from one of the cheaper mailorder or internet shops. If Garmin (or Lightspeed, etc.) didn't help out the smaller dealers with a MAP policy, many would stop carrying these products and it would hurt the overall sales of the products since they wouldn't be as accessible to potential customers who want to 'try before they buy'. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter" wrote in message news ![]() It's certainly not restricted to aviation headsets. For one example this is very common for GPS receivers. Look at the prices at www.tvnav.com - for many of the Garmin receivers it says to click to send email for price. Clicking actually opens your email with the price already listed. Actually, Garmin sent a threatening letter to all their retailers saying that they would cut off shipments of the new GPSMAP 296 for six months to any retailer that they determined had sold (not just advertised) one of these units for less than $1,695. The letter also said that it was necessary to protect the reputation of Garmin. Apparently tvnav.com has retaliated by refusing to stock the 296. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other mass marketers did the same. I suppose the smaller retailers would appreciate the price protection if Garmin actually shipped them some units that they could sell. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() C J Campbell wrote: "Peter" wrote in message news ![]() It's certainly not restricted to aviation headsets. For one example this is very common for GPS receivers. Look at the prices at www.tvnav.com - for many of the Garmin receivers it says to click to send email for price. Clicking actually opens your email with the price already listed. Actually, Garmin sent a threatening letter to all their retailers saying that they would cut off shipments of the new GPSMAP 296 for six months to any retailer that they determined had sold (not just advertised) one of these units for less than $1,695. The letter also said that it was necessary to protect the reputation of Garmin. Apparently tvnav.com has retaliated by refusing to stock the 296. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other mass marketers did the same. I suppose the smaller retailers would appreciate the price protection if Garmin actually shipped them some units that they could sell. That looks like a pretty flagrant violation of anti-trust laws and the Sherman Act. A manufacturer cannot dictate what price an independent seller sells something for. I'm sure that this happens quite often (Saturn cars? Perfumes?) but I could see their letter later being known as "Exhibit A" if somebody starting asking Garmin questions. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This practice is common with lots of mail order products, especially
electronics. Look though any computer magazine and you will see "$CALL" listed as prices for various electronic equipment. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Richard Kaplan wrote: This practice is common with lots of mail order products, especially electronics. Look though any computer magazine and you will see "$CALL" listed as prices for various electronic equipment. It's also common with photography gear. George Patterson This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com... This practice is common with lots of mail order products, especially electronics. Look though any computer magazine and you will see "$CALL" listed as prices for various electronic equipment. The use of MAP was much more relevant when magazine and T-A-P ads were the primary source of customers for the mail order houses. With published ads, they have to be set two months or more ahead of the actual publish date. If the "other guy" set his price $10 below yours, he got more sales. So price setting was kind of like a game of chicken. Set it a few bucks too high and you lose sales, set it too low and you lose profit. The end result was that most dealers actually wanted the manufacturers to set a MAP. That way all the ads were the same -- either the MAP or "Call". They could then adjust their price as needed when the customers actually called. It's not so important today with almost everyone having a web site. I guess not having the price on the site does avoid having a quick Froogle(TM) search point everyone to the one "cheapest" dealer. If a dealer lowers his prices, it may not be reflected in the web searches for a week or longer, if at all. With customers having to send an email or load a shopping cart, they get that customer interaction and can adjust prices dynamically to make the sale. As I mentioned, the dealers point to the manufacturers and say it's their MAP policy; but when I worked for one of those manufacturers, it was the dealers that asked for the MAP policy. It was a tool that let them avoid really steep discounting which hurt their margins. Gerry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() So why is this? Manufacturers *cannot* set actual selling prices, per federal law (Sherman Act and related) so it is strange that they try to impose this barrier. That's exactly why they have the concept! (It wasn't the Sherman act. Minimum retail price fixing was stilll very much around when I was in high school, and I post-date the Sherman act ![]() saying: I can't stop you from selling cheaper, but I damn well can stop you from boasting about it. Think of all the merchants who promise to meet any competitor's "advertised price". You're supposed to bring in a clipping to show them, and they'll rebate you the difference. Presumably they wouldn't honor an email, since that was a private offer just to you. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You are half right.
Manufacturers can set _minimum_ sale prices: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/question.htm "Will Thompson" wrote in message ... So why is this? Manufacturers *cannot* set actual selling prices, per federal law (Sherman Act and related) so it is strange that they try to impose this barrier. . |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
MichaelR wrote:
You are half right. Manufacturers can set _minimum_ sale prices: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/question.htm The above website does not support your assertion. It states: "If the manufacturer and a dealer entered into an agreement on a resale price or minimum price, that would be a price-fixing violation. The agreement could be formal, through a contract, or informal, when the dealer’s compliance is coerced. However, if the manufacturer has established a policy that its dealers should not sell below a minimum price level, and the dealers have independently decided to follow that policy, there is no violation." So a manufacturer coercing a dealer to abide by a minimum sales price is a violation of price-fixing legislation. But the manufacturer can suggest a minimum sales price and hope that the dealers abide by it. If Garmin is telling dealers that they must abide by the minimum price for the 296 or have their supplies cut off that would constitute coersion and I expect they would lose in court if Darrel (tvnav) or other affected dealers decide to fight the policy. "Will Thompson" wrote in message ... So why is this? Manufacturers *cannot* set actual selling prices, per federal law (Sherman Act and related) so it is strange that they try to impose this barrier. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Floridians Are Hit With Price Gouging | X98 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 04 04:07 PM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Home Built | 17 | August 4th 04 10:42 AM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Owning | 15 | July 20th 04 03:24 AM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | July 16th 04 04:50 PM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Aviation Marketplace | 5 | July 16th 04 02:36 AM |