MAP Pricing(Ping/TM/Titleist/Etc)

[b10steeple]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

[samm980]

I am not sure what is so tough to understand about that, but I am a simple minded person.

 

I just love a letigious society.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you."

 

 

 

The Chewbacca Defense also would have been acceptable!

[arkstorm]

I have to add that one of the argument above is particularly disturbing to me because it is premised on the notion that price maintenance makes you comfortable inasmuch as you do not go to another store after you bought something and see it being sold for less. Kind of sounds like misery loves company to me. Just because you paid an inflated price you think everyone else also ought to suffer too. What ever happened to shopping around? The cornerstone of the capitalist system is to allow the market, not the marketers, to dictate price. Put the kibosh on that and the whole system collapses.

[samm980]

I have to add that one of the argument above is particularly disturbing to me because it is premised on the notion that price maintenance makes you comfortable inasmuch as you do not go to another store after you bought something and see it being sold for less. Kind of sounds like misery loves company to me. Just because you paid an inflated price you think everyone else also ought to suffer too. What ever happened to shopping around? The cornerstone of the capitalist system is to allow the market, not the marketers, to dictate price. Put the kibosh on that and the whole system collapses.

 

 

Again simple minded guy with a thought, if you don't like the fact that Ping dictates the price then don't buy their products and if it hurts them enough maybe they will change it.

 

And anyone who knows me can attest that I am as pro-capitalism and conservative as anybody but I really don't understand why the concept is to terribly tough.

[arkstorm]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

 

Two interesting things about that article:

 

1. The "bluff" technique described amounts to a resulting acquiescence on the part of the retailer which violates any MAP protections.

 

2. Generally, the discussion above suggests there is some agreement or contract between Ping and its retailers, which would also serve to undermine any defense.

 

If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act.

 

However, it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often.

[arkstorm]

I have to add that one of the argument above is particularly disturbing to me because it is premised on the notion that price maintenance makes you comfortable inasmuch as you do not go to another store after you bought something and see it being sold for less. Kind of sounds like misery loves company to me. Just because you paid an inflated price you think everyone else also ought to suffer too. What ever happened to shopping around? The cornerstone of the capitalist system is to allow the market, not the marketers, to dictate price. Put the kibosh on that and the whole system collapses.

 

 

Again simple minded guy with a thought, if you don't like the fact that Ping dictates the price then don't buy their products and if it hurts them enough maybe they will change it.

 

And anyone who knows me can attest that I am as pro-capitalism and conservative as anybody but I really don't understand why the concept is to terribly tough.

 

 

Off topic, but its funny how a pro-captilasim conservative has a much different perspective than a pro-cpatilasim liberal. One thinks big business is in need of protection, the other thinks the consumers need protection.

 

Just an observation. Sorry for the aside.

[samm980]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

 

Two interesting things about that article:

 

1. The "bluff" technique described amounts to a resulting acquiescence on the part of the retailer which violates any MAP protections.

 

2. Generally, the discussion above suggests there is some agreement or contract between Ping and its retailers, which would also serve to undermine any defense.

 

If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act.

 

However, it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often.

 

I still don't understand how there is case if a retailer goes into a written agreement, or "Contract." I think the only real crime is that things like this waste tax payer money and clog up our legal system.

[binneguru]

i'd hit every driver once in the net. It would be considered used then but would be pratically new. I wonder what their used product price fixing policy is?

[stevepoz]

I disagree about the difficulty of proving damages.

 

ex: I used to sell Pings, made X per your on such sales. I no longer sell Pings, my profits went down Y, or alternatively, I have lost X profits. Pretty simple.

 

It is my understanding there is no agreement btw Ping and the retailers on this front. Ping has a policy and acts unilaterally. Hence, no violation. There is no agreement. A retailer is free to sell Ping products at any price it wants, at least one time, anyway.

[arkstorm]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

 

Two interesting things about that article:

 

1. The "bluff" technique described amounts to a resulting acquiescence on the part of the retailer which violates any MAP protections.

 

2. Generally, the discussion above suggests there is some agreement or contract between Ping and its retailers, which would also serve to undermine any defense.

 

If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act.

 

However, it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often.

 

I still don't understand how there is case if a retailer goes into a written agreement, or "Contract." I think the only real crime is that things like this waste tax payer money and clog up our legal system.

 

If you read the articles carefully, you realize that if they have a contract it makes for a de facto illegal arrangement. If they don't have a contract, the unilateral MAP defense may apply.

 

As for it clogging up the legal system, what exactly is the legal system there for if not to protect consumers' rights -- citizens' rights?

[arkstorm]

I disagree about the difficulty of proving damages.

 

ex: I used to sell Pings, made X per your on such sales. I no longer sell Pings, my profits went down Y, or alternatively, I have lost X profits. Pretty simple.

 

It is my understanding there is no agreement btw Ping and the retailers on this front. Ping has a policy and acts unilaterally. Hence, no violation. There is no agreement. A retailer is free to sell Ping products at any price it wants, at least one time, anyway.

 

Damages are more complicated than that because these cases proceed as class actions and class damages cannot be calculated on an individual basis (otherwise it cannot proceed as a class action and no lawyer in his right mind would take this on as an individual case.)

 

As for the seemingly unilateral nature of Ping's MAP policy, the argument is that intimidation which leads to acquiescence makes the unilateral aspect disingenuous.

[b10steeple]

"If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act. . . it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often."

 

You argue against established law -- effectively stating that the loophole which exists shouldn't. It's not an "intimidation tactic" -- it's a legal way to enforce the MAP/MSP set by Ping. A less unilateral policy would run afoul of the laws you work with. . .

[samm980]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

 

Two interesting things about that article:

 

1. The "bluff" technique described amounts to a resulting acquiescence on the part of the retailer which violates any MAP protections.

 

2. Generally, the discussion above suggests there is some agreement or contract between Ping and its retailers, which would also serve to undermine any defense.

 

If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act.

 

However, it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often.

 

I still don't understand how there is case if a retailer goes into a written agreement, or "Contract." I think the only real crime is that things like this waste tax payer money and clog up our legal system.

 

If you read the articles carefully, you realize that if they have a contract it makes for a de facto illegal arrangement. If they don't have a contract, the unilateral MAP defense may apply.

 

As for it clogging up the legal system, what exactly is the legal system there for if not to protect consumers' rights -- citizens' rights?

 

 

I was thinking the courts could worry more about rapists, murders, drug dealers, that kind of thing. I don't really think they need to worry about how much some guy payed for his G5, but again I'm simple minded.

[arkstorm]

arkstorm. . . it's not quite that simple. . . a good read:

 

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_result....ID=125801232001

 

Two interesting things about that article:

 

1. The "bluff" technique described amounts to a resulting acquiescence on the part of the retailer which violates any MAP protections.

 

2. Generally, the discussion above suggests there is some agreement or contract between Ping and its retailers, which would also serve to undermine any defense.

 

If I was litigating a case against Ping I would argue that a de facto agreement under threat of loss of the account exists as between Ping and the retailer and this is a violation of state consumer protection laws and or the Sherman Act.

 

However, it seems Ping engages in the "Hard Nose" technique, which nonetheless, lends itself to a similar argument that by acting so bluntly towards violators, Ping puts its retailers on notice that they better acquiesce or be next to fall. The MAP protection does not absolve the manifacturer for liability arising from intimidation techniques. In my jurisdiction, as well as others, I believe arguments against ping can be sustained. Proving damages is another issue alltogether which I think is the real reason you don't see these cases in court more often.

 

I still don't understand how there is case if a retailer goes into a written agreement, or "Contract." I think the only real crime is that things like this waste tax payer money and clog up our legal system.

 

If you read the articles carefully, you realize that if they have a contract it makes for a de facto illegal arrangement. If they don't have a contract, the unilateral MAP defense may apply.

 

As for it clogging up the legal system, what exactly is the legal system there for if not to protect consumers' rights -- citizens' rights?

 

 

I was thinking the courts could worry more about rapists, murders, drug dealers, that kind of thing. I don't really think they need to worry about how much some guy payed for his G5, but again I'm simple minded.

 

That's not simple minded at all, but the fact is that different courts deal with rapists, etc. than with consumer protection. And despite the fact that consumer protection is subordinate in my opinion to protecting citizens from dangerous criminals, it is nonetheless still very important.

[Gxgolfer]

 

 

I was thinking the courts could worry more about rapists, murders, drug dealers, that kind of thing. I don't really think they need to worry about how much some guy payed for his G5, but again I'm simple minded.

 

 

There are different court systems for each type of case. This particular issue is very far reaching as it really has very little to do with Ping. This is a marketing technique used pervasively in our society. From food, electronics, and golf equipment. I don't agree with MAP but, I don't think its anti-consumer. It makes consumers shop harder and determine for themselves the value of a product and services.

[littlepoison]

In PING's defense, the retail golf market is as complex as it is cut-throat. They are attempting to protect their prices to stay in business, in a sense. If you compare their market prices to the most notorious company for beating up club prices PING has done a pretty good job. They've brought out G2, G5, and now Rapture (thanks Golfwrx!) in pretty quick succession, yet their price points aren't totally destroyed. TM drivers (along with internet sales) have hurt the entire club market price points.

 

Retail sales is a tough business. Any PING retailer knows this is a real issue.

 

 

I agree to an extent........

 

TM has hurt the business by coming out with a new club twice a week and then having little resale value for the previous model. There are exceptions, I still see some r7 stuff holding value pretty well. I was in no way bashing Ping if it came across that way. Ping has great stuff throughout thier whole lineup. I just think it is a little rediculous to pull thier items from a retailer ( that has to make money also ) for trying to move old products (G2 I belive it was) that Ping will not accept back.

 

 

Its artificial price inflation, plain and simple. Ping should allow the market to dictate the price. If a market retailer feels they can profit by selling the products for less, it is absurd of Ping to pull them. This is anti captialistic and is truly a violation of the Sherman Act and various states' consumer laws.

 

Ark, I am absolutely in favor of more free marktet policies, but G.Wrx has it correct here... in order to become a retailer, not just in golf, but in many product industries, manufacturers have in place strict pricing regulations as part of the contractual agreement in being able to sell as a licensed retailer... bottom line is, if a retailer wants to be a licensed seller, and they willingly accept the terms of the contract, they are just as obligated to the contract, as it is written, as the manufacturer is in terms of it's duties and responsibilities. It comes down to contract law, specifically breaches of contract, and the fact that these retailers, by selling products at the agreed prices essentially ratifying the contract through their actions, and not consumer laws.

[arkstorm]

 

 

I was thinking the courts could worry more about rapists, murders, drug dealers, that kind of thing. I don't really think they need to worry about how much some guy payed for his G5, but again I'm simple minded.

 

 

There are different court systems for each type of case. This particular issue is very far reaching as it really has very little to do with Ping. This is a marketing technique used pervasively in our society. From food, electronics, and golf equipment. I don't agree with MAP but, I don't think its anti-consumer. It makes consumers shop harder and determine for themselves the value of a product and services.

 

Well said. Agreed.

[dfung]

An interesting discussion. I haven't read all the posts in detail, but had a few comments too.

 

I think the Ping policy is net positive for Ping as well as their buyers and sellers too. It's just a decision about how they want to run their business.

 

For buyers - it's good because Ping is a "safe" buy. If you buy a Taylor-Made club and care about the price, you are best served by price shopping and you may have a valid concern that this same club may drop in price very quickly as new models are rolled out or by promotions (get a free fairway, etc.). With Ping, you can avoid buyer's remorse pretty safely by deciding that the Ping club is what you want, then buying it anywhere. For many people, the value of avoiding buyer's remorse outweighs getting the lowest price or finding a good sale.

 

For sellers - it's good because the playing field really is somewhat level at a point where they can make some money and even plan on including some customer service too. The little guys benefit because the customer incentive to buy at the big box shop is mitigated. The big box guy pays less at wholesale because of volume and makes money even though he will lose some sales to other dealers (of course, he may gain some purchases as well through the same mechanism). The big box guy doesn't have to worry about the other big box cost cutting against him, too.

 

For Ping - it's good because they spend less time dealing with battling dealers. They make more money off big guys than little shops, but they too incrementally pick up sales against the competition at pro shops and small dealers who may prefer their lines because it's not a minimum profit model like the competition. Having more smaller shops available increases the chance that the dealer will offer a fitting which Ping seems serious about recommending. The competition will happily play lip service to the importance of proper fit, but only to the extent that it causes dealers to carry even more stock so the various shaft options are all on the floor.

 

The bad part (and the objectionable part) is that the price that everybody pays is higher. But, even with this tweak, it's a generally free market. If Ping sets their recommended (and enforced) prices too high, they won't sell and they'll certainly hear about it from their dealers. I don't think Ping's objective is to be the volume leader, so if they set their pricing right, it can balance out.

 

As far a lawsuit or class action, I don't think that's very realistic even if it is legally viable. As many have pointed out, this is about demonstrating damages to dealers and (more importantly) buyers. It would cost a lot to take this case to court, and that cost would basically have to be borne by small dealers who are least able to afford it (yet, it ultimately would be paid from damages if you won, but the chances of winning are low and the plaintiff would have to pay costs to bring the case and in the event of a loss). Ping's arguement would be much like the "good stuff" laid out above - the business model is different but beneficial to all parties.

 

Ping would also argue that the true value of their clubs is greater (fit, trained dealers, a history of innovation, etc.). The remedy for their price control would be that they would simply jack up the suggested retail price of the clubs, $1300 for a set of G5 irons or $650 for G5 driver for instance. Now, the dealers would gain the freedom to mark the price down and show that they have flexibility, but the reality is that the pricing will likely drop to exactly where it's hanging out now. The only guys that get really screwed if you went to fix the system would be the guys that end up paying full boat for the driver at the country club pro shop. I do understand that the manufacturer setting and vigorously enforcing the "value pricing" is exactly the problem that's being discussed here, but what Ping's doing doesn't, on the face of it, seem egregious.

[arkstorm]

In PING's defense, the retail golf market is as complex as it is cut-throat. They are attempting to protect their prices to stay in business, in a sense. If you compare their market prices to the most notorious company for beating up club prices PING has done a pretty good job. They've brought out G2, G5, and now Rapture (thanks Golfwrx!) in pretty quick succession, yet their price points aren't totally destroyed. TM drivers (along with internet sales) have hurt the entire club market price points.

 

Retail sales is a tough business. Any PING retailer knows this is a real issue.

 

 

I agree to an extent........

 

TM has hurt the business by coming out with a new club twice a week and then having little resale value for the previous model. There are exceptions, I still see some r7 stuff holding value pretty well. I was in no way bashing Ping if it came across that way. Ping has great stuff throughout thier whole lineup. I just think it is a little rediculous to pull thier items from a retailer ( that has to make money also ) for trying to move old products (G2 I belive it was) that Ping will not accept back.

 

 

Its artificial price inflation, plain and simple. Ping should allow the market to dictate the price. If a market retailer feels they can profit by selling the products for less, it is absurd of Ping to pull them. This is anti captialistic and is truly a violation of the Sherman Act and various states' consumer laws.

 

Ark, I am absolutely in favor of more free marktet policies, but G.Wrx has it correct here... in order to become a retailer, not just in golf, but in many product industries, manufacturers have in place strict pricing regulations as part of the contractual agreement in being able to sell as a licensed retailer... bottom line is, if a retailer wants to be a licensed seller, and they willingly accept the terms of the contract, they are just as obligated to the contract, as it is written, as the manufacturer is in terms of it's duties and responsibilities. It comes down to contract law, specifically breaches of contract, and the fact that these retailers, by selling products at the agreed prices essentially ratifying the contract through their actions, and not consumer laws.

 

Again, you must read in detail the link which highlights the law regarding the presence of a contract in an MAP situation. If there is a contract, you are breaking the law! And despite the contract representing an agreement and mutual promise between the parties, any contract which agrees to engage in unlawful activities is:

 

a. Unenforceable; and

 

b. Evidence of criminal conspiracy.

 

If you disagree, please read the law explained in the prior links carefully before responding.

[taylormadefan]

 

Again, you must read in detail the link which highlights the law regarding the presence of a contract in an MAP situation. If there is a contract, you are breaking the law! And despite the contract representing an agreement and mutual promise between the parties, any contract which agrees to engage in unlawful activities is:

 

a. Unenforceable; and

 

b. Evidence of criminal conspiracy.

 

If you disagree, please read the law explained in the prior links carefully before responding.

 

arkstorm,

 

You've been EXTREMELY patient in explaining this stuff again and again to us. I for one really appreciate your patience and willingness to explain things to leagal noobs like myself. :drinks: :crazy:

 

Everyone has really kept a fairly controversial argument very civil, can't think of many other places where a thread like this would stay on topic like this.

[finalist]

About 2 months before the the Ping G2 driver was released I purchased my first driver from a huge pro shop in my area. An Si3 380 and haggled 10 percent off. Does this follow that the shop should lose their account?

[kgk]

An Si3 380 and haggled 10 percent off. Does this follow that the shop should lose their account?

 

Should/shouldn't is debatable, but if Ping found out, the shop _would_ lose their account.

[b10steeple]

where is there any evidence that such a contract exists? considering the draconian manner in which Ping enforces its policy -- a recognition, on their part, it appears, of the legal necessity of doing so -- i would be very surprised to learn that a contract or agreement concerning MAP exists between Ping and those who retail its products.

[Gxgolfer]

There must be a dealership agreement that outlines the rules and regs. Not only advertising but, also stocking, warranty, etc.

 

 

where is there any evidence that such a contract exists? considering the draconian manner in which Ping enforces its policy -- a recognition, on their part, it appears, of the legal necessity of doing so -- i would be very surprised to learn that a contract or agreement concerning MAP exists between Ping and those who retail its products.

[mahanate]

Frankly, I support Ping's pricing policy. These manufacture their clubs (irons atleast , anyway) in Arizona, pay higher labor costs, and still price their clubs about level with their competition, which manufactures them overseas and pockets the difference in marketing and profits.

 

I buy Pings with the peace of mind that I pay fair market value about anywhere, and knowing that they maintain their value better than any other brand out there- no other manufacturer has 10-year old retail iron sets selling for $250 on average on EBay.

 

I love bargain hunting as much as anyone, and know that as far as Ping stuff goes, my best bet is EBay. But when I spend $600 on a set of irons, I appreciate the fact that everyone else who has them paid about the same.

 

But their brand stewardship is something I admire, and I appreciate the fact that half of the price I'm paying isnt going toward the cost of a marketing blitz that touts the "latest" advancement 3 times a year, or paying 20 guys on tour to wear identical hats.

 

Also, I fail to see the point of debating MAPs etc., If a company is able to enforce its policy for decades, I presume they are within their rights and move on.

 

As far as people losing accounts because a newbie employee incorrectly rang up a price that was $14 less than MAP, I find that hard to believe. Would rather posit that the real reason the shop lost the account was more egregious, and the owner was providing a convenient excuse to show them in sympathetic light.

 

Just my $0.02.

[arkstorm]

Also, I fail to see the point of debating MAPs etc., If a company is able to enforce its policy for decades, I presume they are within their rights and move on.

 

This just blows my mind...do you mean to say that whatever a corporation does, if it does it for long enough its legal? Have you read the prior posts in detail?

 

We've argued whether Ping's MAP is legal, there are strong arguments from both sides. However, no one should suggest that if a corporation does something for long enough one should assume it is legal. The fact of the matter is that consumers fall victim to corporations because they tend to assume the corporation is on sound legal footing with everything they do. Wrong! And I can supply plenty of examples where corporations were sued for conduct they committed in complaisency for many years before action is taken. Typically, there is no statute of limitations on making a consumer antitrust claim. I urge everyone who reads this to never roll over just because a corporation has been doing something for a long time. You should champion your cause whenever you feel that you, as a consumer, have been wronged!

 

Believe me, its fighting the good fight.

[Gxgolfer]

I don't think many will disagree with you but, again this discussion really is about MAP more than Ping. Your points are valid from a consumers point of view but, its the dealers and the sales people who make a living selling clubs that MAP effects. Does it help or hurt??? It certainly presents challenges at the very least. MAP policies are supposed to protect dealers and a zero tolerance policy will help to enforce it. Its the realities of MAP pricing that is in question as it seems like the Big Box retailers seem to be doing better than the green grass shops.

 

 

 

Frankly, I support Ping's pricing policy. These manufacture their clubs (irons atleast , anyway) in Arizona, pay higher labor costs, and still price their clubs about level with their competition, which manufactures them overseas and pockets the difference in marketing and profits.

 

I buy Pings with the peace of mind that I pay fair market value about anywhere, and knowing that they maintain their value better than any other brand out there- no other manufacturer has 10-year old retail iron sets selling for $250 on average on EBay.

 

I love bargain hunting as much as anyone, and know that as far as Ping stuff goes, my best bet is EBay. But when I spend $600 on a set of irons, I appreciate the fact that everyone else who has them paid about the same.

 

But their brand stewardship is something I admire, and I appreciate the fact that half of the price I'm paying isnt going toward the cost of a marketing blitz that touts the "latest" advancement 3 times a year, or paying 20 guys on tour to wear identical hats.

 

Also, I fail to see the point of debating MAPs etc., If a company is able to enforce its policy for decades, I presume they are within their rights and move on.

 

As far as people losing accounts because a newbie employee incorrectly rang up a price that was $14 less than MAP, I find that hard to believe. Would rather posit that the real reason the shop lost the account was more egregious, and the owner was providing a convenient excuse to show them in sympathetic light.

 

Just my $0.02.

[mahanate]

Excellent point re: the realities of big box chains doing better than small dedicated shops. I wonder how much of that is due to just the much bigger advertizing dollars of the big box chains, which also can advertize specials on golf balls or accessories to draw the customer in, and then hope they are drawn to other "needs" like spending $800 on the latest set of Callaway irons. Then again, I have occasionally received better service at a big box chain (I'm talking about Golf Galaxy, not Dick's) than some small golf stores... no easy answer, I guess.

 

Re: legality of MAPs etc., Sorry I sounded like I was rolling over- the point I was making (or trying to make) is not whether it is ethical or advantageous to the consumer- it can be clearly be argued both ways. However, the argument that it was patently illegal seems simplistic.

[arkstorm]

Excellent point re: the realities of big box chains doing better than small dedicated shops. I wonder how much of that is due to just the much bigger advertizing dollars of the big box chains, which also can advertize specials on golf balls or accessories to draw the customer in, and then hope they are drawn to other "needs" like spending $800 on the latest set of Callaway irons. Then again, I have occasionally received better service at a big box chain (I'm talking about Golf Galaxy, not Dick's) than some small golf stores... no easy answer, I guess.

 

Re: legality of MAPs etc., Sorry I sounded like I was rolling over- the point I was making (or trying to make) is not whether it is ethical or advantageous to the consumer- it can be clearly be argued both ways. However, the argument that it was patently illegal seems simplistic.

 

If you read the prior posts in better detail you'll see that the argument regarding the legality of the MAP is far from simplistic. Plus I wouldn't characterize it as "patently illegal" as you suggest, but more accurately as arguably illegal. I suggest reading the entire thread to avoid covering ground that has already been discussed.

[mahanate]

The point of a forum is to express opinion. I express mine, you express yours. We can disagree. Posts on many forums frequently have concurring or similar opinions- if every new post had to cover new ground, every thread on here would / should have 20% of the posts.