Supreme Court upholds legality of manufacturers requiring MAP and MARP.

[PhilEllis]

While this case did not really address MAP policies, it does address minimum resale pricing, and with the affirmation of a Mfg's right to set Minimum resale prices it this case has essentially said that a reseller will now have a MAP because the lowest price that will now be able to be advertised is the Mfg's minimum resale price. With this case MAP and MRP become essentially the same thing. My question is in an industry as specialized and as small as the Scuba industry is, do you think the Mfg's will now use this ruling to "force" prices up as a whole and now that they have a court ruling backing them become more aggresive with dealers selling below the Mfg's MRP or will prices go down as and the market segment into MRP Mfg's and non MRP Mfg's or will everything stay the same? I ask and wonder because it seems everday more Mfg's, even 2nd tier Mfg's are supporting MAP and MRP policies.

If this ruling bolsters the confidence of the couple of remaining scuba manufacturers that subscribe to vertical price controls, it will simply hurt dealers more and more. The scuba market, like many other markets, is already segmented by the emerging technology of internet retail sales. The small dealer that does not use alternate methods to expand the sale market will only be in a worse position if MARP policies are strengthened.

While a couple of scuba companies CLAIM that they are strict on the inforcement of their MARP policies, I think you will find that the reality is quite different. My store was disqualified by a large manufacturer about 18 months ago for violation of the MARP policy. I think you will find that this type of action against a retailer is EXTREMELY rare in the scuba industry.

Phil Ellis

 

[PhilEllis]

What this does is insures a bright future for Leisurepro at the expense of authorized retailers who must abide by MARP for those mfgrs that use such anti-consumer policies.

What a franchise for LeisurePro. Never in any industry has anyone been given such an advantage over the field. And the advantage is given by those who claim to detest the very distribution method the LeisurePro employs. Oh well.

Phil Ellis

 

[RonFrank]

Glad to see the good ol' boys network is still going strong!

Why do manufactures care if MARP is enforced? Seems they get theirs regardless of what the final price is. The people who get hurt are the retailers. They are the ones that must convince the public that purchasing a regulator for $250 more than it can be had from LP is somehow a good move.

If people want to live in a country where every product is sold at the same price (think iPhone/iPod) and there is no competition among retailers on price, so be it. This will not prevent some aggressive business owners (think LP) from bypassing the whole silly concept, and beating the junk out of other retailers.

Anti-trust laws are there to protect competition by restricting monopolies, price fixing, and other non competitive practices. I'm not sure how MARP falls through the cracks, but it sure sounds like price fixing to me. Darn Lawyers, and big money.

 

[jviehe]

We all like freedom. In this case, as I understand it, the court has given manufacturers freedom from the most rigid rules of anti-trust law (which prohibits anti-competitive behavior) and raised the bar for proving an anti-trust violation. It is hard to see how allowing manufacturers to enforce a minimum price will increase competition and lower prices. What it will do, perhaps, is allow more innovation in marketing and service.

Regardless of the consequences, I am 100% for anything that keeps govt out of business. No one forces a retailer to sell a manufacturers products. When they choose to do so, they must negotiate a contract which may include MAP or price controls. Thats just good business. Govt has no place telling a biz how to sell its products.

 

[redacted]

Why do manufactures care if MARP is enforced? Seems they get theirs regardless of what the final price is. The people who get hurt are the retailers. They are the ones that must convince the public that purchasing a regulator for $250 more than it can be had from LP is somehow a good move.

Probably because it gives the mfgr an unnaturally large population of shops as they are able to sidestep any serious price competition. Rarely can the shops prosper because if they do too well, someone else will move into their territory (because diving is fun and they do not have to contend with price competition).

 

[jacksatlanta]

Regardless of the consequences, I am 100% for anything that keeps govt out of business. No one forces a retailer to sell a manufacturers products. When they choose to do so, they must negotiate a contract which may include MAP or price controls. Thats just good business. Govt has no place telling a biz how to sell its products.

As I mentioned I am now seeing Mfg's that in the past didn't have MAP or MARP adopting the policies, "in the interest of helping their dealer network" but if all Mfg's do this and the only reseller who doesn't have to abide by it is Leisure Pro (as already almost seems to be the case) who ultimately wins other than LP and the Mfg's?

 

[vladimir]

Regardless of the consequences, I am 100% for anything that keeps govt out of business. No one forces a retailer to sell a manufacturers products. When they choose to do so, they must negotiate a contract which may include MAP or price controls. Thats just good business. Govt has no place telling a biz how to sell its products.

So you think we should eliminate all anti-trust laws. It's a pretty extreme point of view, but you are not alone. Two things that would almost certainly not follow from that, however, are increased competition and lower prices.

 

[jviehe]

So you think we should eliminate all anti-trust laws. It's a pretty extreme point of view, but you are not alone. Two things that would almost certainly not follow from that, however, are increased competition and lower prices.

Yes! We should do that. It is up to the customer and business to compete and negotiate. This naturally leads to monopolies, and then when they get out of hand, small competitors. The free market works! In diving, all you need is for the dive shops to band together and stop supporting the big manufacturers.

 

[lmorin]

Yes! We should do that. It is up to the customer and business to compete and negotiate. This naturally leads to monopolies, and then when they get out of hand, small competitors. The free market works! In diving, all you need is for the dive shops to band together and stop supporting the big manufacturers.

There is the minor problem (not to you, but to me and a few others) that under your set of "no rules," the manufacturers will be able to band together and fix prices across the industry. In that case, there will be no "free market."

 

[jviehe]

There is the minor problem (not to you, but to me and a few others) that under your set of "no rules," the manufacturers will be able to band together and fix prices across the industry. In that case, there will be no "free market."

Sure there is, because that is a FREE choice by manufacturers. And there will always be someone who will fill a demand. Monopolies are the inevitable destination in a free market, but so is the cycle of monolopies being challenged by smart competitors. As long as govt does not make laws to protect large businesses as it does now, it will correct itself. Keep in mind though, consumers often demand monolopies, and if thats what we want, then its right.