Let's see what the FTC has to say about vertical price restraints in the biz.

[Genesis]

My political work is not "party-oriented".

Most of it has to do with family law reform and kid's rights, but not all.....

 

[Genesis]

Gee, there is some prior effort in this case...

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3700/3716.htm

Time for me to amend the letter before I send it...

 

[Bob3]

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0800/0891.htm

The Scuba Retailers Assn was put out of business, Rodales left holding the bag.

 

[Ryan P]

It seems to me, that you need to show that there is a colaborative effort among scuba manufacturers to prevent mail order of their products. That would violate the Sherman anti-trust act. There may not be a case, if the manufacturers are all acting on their own.

Ryan

 

[ckharlan66]

I don't think that the manufactures are NECESSARLY solely to blame. In Europe (i.e. DiveInn) apparently some of the manufactures allow online sales. I think the problem in the US is the distributors. If you have more than on distributor for the same company that are independent but service different regions on the US and have simular restictions for the same products (as I believe to be the case) then the Sherman Act might apply.

Chad

PS. I am not a Lawyer and I am speaking of situations as I understand them and not from personal knowledge.

 

[Genesis]

Vertical restraint of price (price-fixing) is not per-se illegal only when the agreement is to set maximum retail prices.

(Note that its not automatically legal EITHER, but its not a blanket violation)

A vertical price restraint for MINIMUM retail prices is a per-se violation of anti-trust law in the United States.

Period.

See the following cite for a decision that turns on very, very similar grounds to that for scuba gear (in shoes!)

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/03/ninewest.htm

From the announcement:

According to the FTC's complaint, Nine West divisions entered into agreements with retailers that fixed retail prices for their shoes and restricted promotion periods - called "clearance windows" - when retailers could promote sales or sell shoes at reduced prices. Retailers who deviated from Nine West's policies were threatened or penalized. In response, retailers communicated to Nine West that they would not deviate from the policy in the future.

The FTC alleged that Nine West's practices artificially propped up the prices of Nine West products and restricted competition among retailers who sold Nine West brands in violation of federal law.

The FTC's settlement will bar Nine West from fixing the price at which dealers may "advertise, promote, offer for sale or sell any product." It also bars Nine West from "requiring, coercing or otherwise pressuring dealers to maintain, adopt or adhere to any resale price." Finally, the settlement bars Nine West from notifying dealers in advance that they are subject to a temporary or partial suspension of supply if they sell Nine West shoes below a designated price. Nine West will be required to use disclaimers on price lists reaffirming retailers' freedom to set their own prices. The settlement also contains certain record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.

This ought to be interesting.

 

[gentlegiant]

I would like to see if some of the DS owners will respond to this thread. Come on guys, tell us the truth, what is your cut and does the rpice you pay for the gear come close to the prices of some of the online merchants?

I am not against anyone making money and I do support my LDS's. I understand that DS owners have to pay rent, staff, utilities, insurance, etc. out of the profits made from the sales of gear and the repair business and I do not have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is big manufacturers setting their pricing differently in the states vs. other parts of the world. This does amount to price fixing and they (the manufacturers) should be punished for it. If the wholesale prices did become equal for gear, online vs. LDS, I would probably still purchase a good amount of gear at the LDs to show my support and help keep them in business.

I know that if any of the owners respond they might get into legal trouble themselves if they do not "toe the party line" due to their reseller agreements, but it would be nice for us to have all the info.

 

[Aquamaniac]

Im yet to meet a Dive store owner who is getting good margins on merchandise, its all low volume, high overheads, seasonal crap.

I would not even get out of bed with the margins these guys have to work with.
BUT
There is working for a living, and living for work, thats the seperator.

 

[Genesis]

A per-se violation of the law doesn't even require that you make money from doing it to get you in trouble!

 

[Spectre]

I've battled this before with the skiing industry, and the inline skate industry. The fact of the matter is until the laws get written a little better, we're not going to get anywhere. Everything is based on the 'minimum _advertised_ price', and it gets around the price fixing.

I don't remember all the details to my research at the time, but I'll try to dig up my notes and review...