I support it in concept but it fails me in execution. They may claim that it's to protect independently run small expertise based camera shops but I'm not sure I buy it. It protects their profits but that's about it...
As a small brick and mortar store owner I appreciate map pricing as a tool useful in competing with on-line retailers operating with much lower expenses than I have. If consumers want to shop at any brick and mortar store they must respect the profit margins necessary to support the retail location.
@bbratlien56 I didn't know that brick and mortar stores existed. I usually have to wade through all the lawn mowers and refrigerators that Lowes shoves in my face in order to get my bricks and mortar. An establishment like yours would really save me a lot of time.
Although I imagine it's difficult conpeting with places like Lowes, specializing as you do. And I suppose that not participating in MAP would be outside of your corporate overlords' vision for how your pricing model should be calculated. Because, as any good consumer knows, innovation is the devil. It takes money out of the mouths of big business types.
Or something like that.
And PS, this is just my opinion. I have no business experience, I am probably wrong. A lot. Even more if you talk to my wife.
@bbratlien56 I support it for that reason. I prefer to shop at local stores, and it's a much easier decision when I know it'll be the same price as online.
Good idea in theory, but not all that helpful since it's only the advertised price that's controlled. A retailer can still sell it for less (aka "too low to advertise") or bundle the item with extras for the same price, so it really doesn't "level the playing field" as purported.
@ianrbuck how does that make any sense at all? You seriously think that some bureaucratic department of a nanny state needs to determine how much someone can sell something for? That basically says the government should empower Canon and American Lighting to shut Meh down completely.
There's a fine line between protecting against anticompetitive behavior and the Bureau of IMAP.
In Mother Russia, Canon camera sells you cheaper than approved price... (So tempted to add or remove a period for @dave's benefit)
@djslack The best thing left in the government's hands is the government's gonads. That way they can play with themselves and leave everyone else alone.
@narfcake it's not perfect, but it doesn't seem like a good idea for one of the participants in a supply chain to determine how everyone else can play. The government already has a lot of responsibilities regarding preventing monopolies, so if someone has to protect small stores from Amazon, it should be the government that does it.
MAP is smoke and mirrors at best, manipulative in practice. Companies can and do advertise a 'deal' on a product that you have to "add to your cart to see the price" - getting their advertising in anyway, while getting customers half way through the purchase process before they can see the price. It's all a game and MAP is an arbitrary set of house rules.
I like toast.
FMAP
@somf69 fap on map
I support it in concept but it fails me in execution. They may claim that it's to protect independently run small expertise based camera shops but I'm not sure I buy it. It protects their profits but that's about it...
No. MAP is unethical at best and illegal at worst.
As a small brick and mortar store owner I appreciate map pricing as a tool useful in competing with on-line retailers operating with much lower expenses than I have. If consumers want to shop at any brick and mortar store they must respect the profit margins necessary to support the retail location.
@bbratlien56 I didn't know that brick and mortar stores existed. I usually have to wade through all the lawn mowers and refrigerators that Lowes shoves in my face in order to get my bricks and mortar. An establishment like yours would really save me a lot of time.
Although I imagine it's difficult conpeting with places like Lowes, specializing as you do. And I suppose that not participating in MAP would be outside of your corporate overlords' vision for how your pricing model should be calculated. Because, as any good consumer knows, innovation is the devil. It takes money out of the mouths of big business types.
Or something like that.
And PS, this is just my opinion. I have no business experience, I am probably wrong. A lot. Even more if you talk to my wife.
@bbratlien56 I support it for that reason. I prefer to shop at local stores, and it's a much easier decision when I know it'll be the same price as online.
@bbratlien56 So can you, and do you price below MAP?
What's brick and mortar?
@jwpatrick The actual store you go into, usually made out of bricks and mortar. As opposed to an online store made of tubes or whatever.
@dayne @jwpatrick And then there's the third option, click and mortar where the business has both, an actual retail store and an online presence.
Good idea in theory, but not all that helpful since it's only the advertised price that's controlled. A retailer can still sell it for less (aka "too low to advertise") or bundle the item with extras for the same price, so it really doesn't "level the playing field" as purported.
It assures the manufacturer makes money, though!
Wat?
Don't make me think about this.
It's a good concept, but it's the kind of thing that should be in the government's hands, not the manufacturer's.
@ianrbuck Government price regulation isn't perfect either.
@ianrbuck how does that make any sense at all? You seriously think that some bureaucratic department of a nanny state needs to determine how much someone can sell something for? That basically says the government should empower Canon and American Lighting to shut Meh down completely.
There's a fine line between protecting against anticompetitive behavior and the Bureau of IMAP.
In Mother Russia, Canon camera sells you cheaper than approved price... (So tempted to add or remove a period for @dave's benefit)
@djslack The best thing left in the government's hands is the government's gonads.
That way they can play with themselves and leave everyone else alone.
@narfcake it's not perfect, but it doesn't seem like a good idea for one of the participants in a supply chain to determine how everyone else can play.
The government already has a lot of responsibilities regarding preventing monopolies, so if someone has to protect small stores from Amazon, it should be the government that does it.
It sure helps make sure that "high-end" products never look too cheap cough Apple cough.
Not on clearance or "last year model" sales.
Once the "new" one is out, anything goes.
Why should an independent camera shop be protected, but not an independent book store?
MAP is smoke and mirrors at best, manipulative in practice. Companies can and do advertise a 'deal' on a product that you have to "add to your cart to see the price" - getting their advertising in anyway, while getting customers half way through the purchase process before they can see the price. It's all a game and MAP is an arbitrary set of house rules.