MAP Pricing(Ping/TM/Titleist/Etc)

[GehenHerzog]

My dads account with PING was closed yesterday because he sold an UG-LE putter for $9 less than their MAP Pricing.

 

There have been numerous accounts around here that were closed because of similar things.

[br61]

What if a guy comes into a local pro shop wanting to buy a G5 driver from an assistant pro but he wouldn't buy it at retail price of $299, threatening to go elsewhere for a G5 driver unless he got a discount so he got a small discount. He paid for it with cash and walked out of the proshop. 4 months later, this pro shop had their Ping account closed due to that sale.

 

Wouldn't this be ethical or not on Ping's part for setting up this kind of scenario?

[arkstorm]

My dads account with PING was closed yesterday because he sold an UG-LE putter for $9 less than their MAP Pricing.

 

There have been numerous accounts around here that were closed because of similar things.

 

You know what, I think I'm boycotting Ping. All this BS about MAP helping mom and pop shops is such a load. Show me the last time Ping pulled their line from a Golf Galaxy? Until Ping changes this policy I'm never buying a single product of their's again.

[Boise59]

I understand your frustration but in Ping's defense:

 

1. The retailer agrees to the MAP pricing with their dealer contract, if they can't agree to MAP pricing they should not carry Ping.

 

2. Ping's policy helps small retailers. With quick turnaround times, a small shop can carry smaller inventory and compete with "big box" stores.

 

3. As a consumer, you benefit because your Ping equipment is worth a lot more when you are wanting to sell/trade it (see PGA Value Guide and Golf Club Exchange). Ping holds its value much like Toyota or Honda.

 

As a company Ping makes the highest quality product and sells it at a fair price keeping 1000 people in the Phoenix area working and fueling the economy. When we want the "cheapest" price as Americans we get it, but then we wonder why the manufacturing jobs are going to China and Mexico.

 

Ping has not pulled their line in GG because it is strict company policy that the Ping MAP can in no way be violated (including free product, lessons, promotions)and that any employee that does so is in violation of company policy and subject to diciplinary action.

[Schmeidecki]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes two sides to a story.

 

A contract which stipulates terms that are unlawful is never enforceable!

 

The real victim here is the consumer...who pays more because retailers are prevented from discouning down to a non-inflated price. This is textbook retail price fixing. The OEM's you mentioned, Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, etc. should be put on notice that there are multi-billion dollar law suits making their way through the courts seeking redress for retail price fixing violations.

 

 

Just curious, are you a law student?

[CLEVELAND59]

This is not a new subject with Ping. Ping has just become far more aggressive in terms of enforcing this policy.

 

A local Ping rep explained to me that it is more about protecting their brand image (thats their theory on this) as a premium brand of golf equipment. They feel that dealing with retailers that offer deep discounts on their items either in a brick and mortar shop, online or via auction sites such as ebay tarnishes the consumers image of Ping and causes long term harm to their reputation of quality and also damages their ability to price for the mutual profit of Ping and their dealers.

 

The closing of long time accounts is nothing more than firing a warning shot to the rest of their accounts to get in line and follow policy. Certainly I think the ultimate loser is probably Ping, as its my experience that shoppers tend to be very loyal (in particular to smaller Mom and Pop type of stores) in this marketplace and backlash from former customers or the future customers can be quite severe. The other side of this is Ping will never target the big box chains, as the business is far to lucrative to ignore, it will be the Mom and Pops that suffer. I carried a Ping putter for years and as soon as I can find a good deal on a Scotty Big Sur, that Ping will be retired to the closet permanently (I won't sell it, it was a gift from my Grandfather) as I don't want one of their products in my bag and I won't even consider buying any Ping products. They closed a small account that I buy most of my equipment through, for selling to a secret shopper at $13.00 below MAP. Thirteen freakin dollars. And the secret shopper appeared as 16 year old high school kid looking for the best deal he could get on a putter...so the guy cuts the "kid" a break on the price because he was a junior player...and gets his account yanked for it. Nice deal.

 

Ping isn't the only company with secret shoppers out there. Titleist has been very active in the northeast this summer with secret shoppers, and they have been targeting stores without Titleist/FJ accounts who have inventory of Titleist/FJ goods, trying to determine where the merchandise was acquired from and in some cases closing accounts of those that were knowingly selling to others for the strict purpose of resale.

 

The golf business is becoming as sleazy as any other industry in the US unfortunately.

[arkstorm]

Just curious, are you a law student?

 

I was a law student once. But three years and one three-day exam later and I got my merit badge. I practice consumer/antitrust/securities class action law and other complex litigation.

[stevepoz]

Just curious, are you a law student?

 

I was a law student once. But three years and one three-day exam later and I got my merit badge. I practice consumer/antitrust/securities class action law and other complex litigation.

 

 

On the Plaintiff's side?

[arkstorm]

Just curious, are you a law student?

 

I was a law student once. But three years and one three-day exam later and I got my merit badge. I practice consumer/antitrust/securities class action law and other complex litigation.

 

 

On the Plaintiff's side?

 

Yep!

[mgrabowy]

You know what, I think I'm boycotting Ping. All this BS about MAP helping mom and pop shops is such a load. Show me the last time Ping pulled their line from a Golf Galaxy? Until Ping changes this policy I'm never buying a single product of their's again.

 

Golfsmith lost the ability to sell any Ping products for 6 months online because of a pricing violation. This was before the new tougher requirements took place. I'd say they are serious about this with vendors of all sizes.

 

Matt

[sergizmo]

It's not the policy itself that is worrisome to me, but the way they enforce it. Appearing as a student looking for a deal or a person from charitable organization and then using these secret shoppers to pull accounts reeks of entrapment.

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

I read this whole thread.

 

I think my spleen just exploded.

[Husky18]

Sign on Pro Shop window today-

 

"We are blowing out our Ping stock--because we sell to cheap for......PING" I had to laugh

 

 

 

Sold Ping G2 for $12 under MAP--BUT they sell maybe 20 clubs yearly for PING

[Bulldog]

Ping has pulled two accounts in my area. One for selling a set of irons below their price, and the other was a putter that was sold for $5 less than they said he could sell it for. Ping is sending people (spys) out to the golf shops to make purchases, and then with the receipt in hand, they close the account.

Ping will not be in shops around here for long, and thus NO SALES of Pings.

I have Ping irons, Ping putter, and a Ping bag...but when I buy my backup set it WILL NOT BE PING!

In fact, if the new set works out, the Pings will be history.

Bulldog...

[br61]

It's not the policy itself that is worrisome to me, but the way they enforce it. Appearing as a student looking for a deal or a person from charitable organization and then using these secret shoppers to pull accounts reeks of entrapment.

 

Exactly! I have no qualms about their pricing policy but how they enforce it through entrapment reeks of Gestapo or KGB.

[GehenHerzog]

Ping has pulled two accounts in my area. One for selling a set of irons below their price, and the other was a putter that was sold for $5 less than they said he could sell it for. Ping is sending people (spys) out to the golf shops to make purchases, and then with the receipt in hand, they close the account.

Ping will not be in shops around here for long, and thus NO SALES of Pings.

I have Ping irons, Ping putter, and a Ping bag...but when I buy my backup set it WILL NOT BE PING!

In fact, if the new set works out, the Pings will be history.

Bulldog...

 

 

 

Yup, because when they closed my dads account they showed him a copy of the exact reciept in the email

[Bulldog]

Dear Ping,

Now that you have closed your account at my club, I will no longer have Ping Demo days, Ping products to view, and test.

 

BUT, Callaway, Taylormade, Mizuno will be having Demo days...And in the Pro shop...Callaway, Taylormade, Mizuno products for me to view and test.

 

Gee, I wonder which brands will be selling at my club.......Ping?......NOT!!!

 

Bulldog...

[gjones77]

I hate to disagree with allot of you guys, since this is getting heated, but in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms.

 

And as for secret shoppers, the industry has been doing that for years, not just golf, but retail in general.

 

So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?

 

Not at all, since you can't always trust the retail owners to be honest, so you have to protect your investments, and Ping's clubs are the investment for the company.

 

If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?

 

Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product.

 

When and average shopper sees a barrell full of discounted clubs do they automatically go over there and buy a few, or do you look at the newer stuff on the rack that hasn't been marked down?

 

In our retail society price = quality, lower cost clubs usually equal low quality, though that may not always be the case, but that's the perception.

 

It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand.

 

Now you only have 1 store in the area carrying Ping's, and he then jacks the price up since if you want Ping you have to go through him.

 

There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's

 

And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple.

[Bulldog]

I hate to disagree with allot of you guys, since this is getting heated, but in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms.

 

And as for secret shoppers, the industry has been doing that for years, not just golf, but retail in general.

 

So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?

 

Not at all, since you can't always trust the retail owners to be honest, so you have to protect your investments, and Ping's clubs are the investment for the company.

 

If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?

 

Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product.

 

When and average shopper sees a barrell full of discounted clubs do they automatically go over there and buy a few, or do you look at the newer stuff on the rack that hasn't been marked down?

 

In our retail society price = quality, lower cost clubs usually equal low quality, though that may not always be the case, but that's the perception.

 

It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand.

 

Now you only have 1 store in the area carrying Ping's, and he then jacks the price up since if you want Ping you have to go through him.

 

There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's

 

And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple.

 

Bottom line....I have NO Ping products at my club to buy, view or test. Why should I buy any golf club without testing it first.

Bulldog...

[arkstorm]

I hate to disagree with allot of you guys, since this is getting heated, but in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms.

 

And as for secret shoppers, the industry has been doing that for years, not just golf, but retail in general.

 

So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?

 

Not at all, since you can't always trust the retail owners to be honest, so you have to protect your investments, and Ping's clubs are the investment for the company.

 

If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?

 

Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product.

 

When and average shopper sees a barrell full of discounted clubs do they automatically go over there and buy a few, or do you look at the newer stuff on the rack that hasn't been marked down?

 

In our retail society price = quality, lower cost clubs usually equal low quality, though that may not always be the case, but that's the perception.

 

It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand.

 

Now you only have 1 store in the area carrying Ping's, and he then jacks the price up since if you want Ping you have to go through him.

 

There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's

 

And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple.

 

I was really resisting the temptation to respond to this and prolong this argument, yet again, because some arguments have no right or wrong answers. But your comments here are just so ridiculous that I feel I owe a duty to anyone who has taken the time to read this thread to make a rebuttal.

 

Let's take this point by point:

 

1. "...in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms."

 

They never really agree to the terms so much as they don't have a choice. This isn't a meeting of the minds, its Ping saying, "here are our terms, take it or leave it!"

 

2. "So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?"

 

The use of secret shoppers in general is not unethical. The use of a secret shopper posing as a sixteen year old kid begging for a deal is highly questionable.

 

3. "If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?"

 

This is truly absurd. A stock broker has a fiduciary duty to his client, be it the buyer or seller. A retailer has no such duty. This is a bad example because it is simply meant to inflame the issue and is more different than similar.

 

4. "Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product."

 

Well, not every right. They have some rights so long as they do not violate consumer protection laws. Their behavior regarding MAP walks the line and perhaps crosses it.

 

5. "It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand."

 

This is called a free market where the market, not the sellers, determines the price. Ping's MAP is contrary to a free market.

 

6. "There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's"

 

This is one more example of your fundamentally bad rationalle. The competition should be among retailers to set the aprropriate market price. The consumer thus benefits. Competition between Ping and other OEM's has nothing to do with this. Ping's MAP is meant to supress retail competition not inter OEM competition.

 

7. "And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple."

 

This is just an example of Ping's draconian attitude and arrogance toward free market capitalism and consumers. There are plenty of practices which are within one's rights but still unethical. This is a perfect example and is why I suggest a boycott of Ping.

[gjones77]

I was really resisting the temptation to respond to this and prolong this argument, yet again, because some arguments have no right or wrong answers. But your comments here are just so ridiculous that I feel I owe a duty to anyone who has taken the time to read this thread to make a rebuttal.

 

Let's take this point by point:

 

1. "...in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms."

 

They never really agree to the terms so much as they don't have a choice. This isn't a meeting of the minds, its Ping saying, "here are our terms, take it or leave it!"

 

No, they do have a choice, it's the choice to not be a vendor for Ping, again, not always the most optimal choices, but choices none the less.

 

2. "So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?"

 

The use of secret shoppers in general is not unethical. The use of a secret shopper posing as a sixteen year old kid begging for a deal is highly questionable.

 

Questionable, maybe, but the agreement states that they can't discount the clubs for any reason, but when you hear that when people ask for a discount and get one, Ping has the right to find if this is true since it's a violation of the agreement

 

3. "If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?"

 

This is truly absurd. A stock broker has a fiduciary duty to his client, be it the buyer or seller. A retailer has no such duty. This is a bad example because it is simply meant to inflame the issue and is more different than similar.

 

Tell that to the guys at Enron and the various stock brokers that got sent to prison int eh 80's, they have the ethical and legal obligation to do such, but that doesn't mean they're all ethical, just like violating a legal agreement with Ping is unethical whether you agree with their MAP or not

 

4. "Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product."

 

Well, not every right. They have some rights so long as they do not violate consumer protection laws. Their behavior regarding MAP walks the line and perhaps crosses it.

 

They have every legal right, now you're just playing symantecs here since I didn't include the word legal, horrible rebuttal to my point.

 

Now as far was walk the line or cross it, that's not for us to say, it's for the legal system to decide and I haven't seen anything done yet to say that they're practices are illegal

 

5. "It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand."

 

This is called a free market where the market, not the sellers, determines the price. Ping's MAP is contrary to a free market.

 

Their MAP may or may not be contrary, none the less the manufacturer always sets the price for product, been that way for years, and if they don't want their product discounted that's their decision.

 

The aforementioned scenario basically shows how by not using a MAP they can have their market reduced more than just by pulling product and in the end possibly drive them out of business since larger chain stores have more leeway in price cuts than off course pro shops.

 

6. "There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's"

 

This is one more example of your fundamentally bad rationalle. The competition should be among retailers to set the aprropriate market price. The consumer thus benefits. Competition between Ping and other OEM's has nothing to do with this. Ping's MAP is meant to supress retail competition not inter OEM competition.

 

No, it shouldn't be because it's Ping's product, and yes the market sets the price much as it's doing now, what are most drivers selling for?

 

Most are $300 - $400, more for special models, and each OEM works within this.

 

The Consumer doesn't benefit when they have only 1 option for purchasing a product from, because that 1 retail store can then inflate the price and play with the market all they want

 

7. "And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple."

 

This is just an example of Ping's draconian attitude and arrogance toward free market capitalism and consumers. There are plenty of practices which are within one's rights but still unethical. This is a perfect example and is why I suggest a boycott of Ping.

 

You may feel that way abut Ping, I don't, that last point is opinion, nothing more, doesn't fall into the context of the debate

 

If you're so free market, why do you want to government to get involved with a private business?

 

Not very free market

[arkstorm]

I was really resisting the temptation to respond to this and prolong this argument, yet again, because some arguments have no right or wrong answers. But your comments here are just so ridiculous that I feel I owe a duty to anyone who has taken the time to read this thread to make a rebuttal.

 

Let's take this point by point:

 

1. "...in the end the pro shop/store agreed with Ping's terms."

 

They never really agree to the terms so much as they don't have a choice. This isn't a meeting of the minds, its Ping saying, "here are our terms, take it or leave it!"

 

No, they do have a choice, it's the choice to not be a vendor for Ping, again, not always the most optimal choices, but choices none the less.

 

True enough, but that's oversimplifying things.

 

2. "So do I think Ping using a secret shopper is unethical?"

 

The use of secret shoppers in general is not unethical. The use of a secret shopper posing as a sixteen year old kid begging for a deal is highly questionable.

 

Questionable, maybe, but the agreement states that they can't discount the clubs for any reason, but when you hear that when people ask for a discount and get one, Ping has the right to find if this is true since it's a violation of the agreement

 

Now here's the problem. You obviously didn't read the entire thread, but I'll reitterate that any agreement would be in violation of the Sherman Act. For an MAP to be within the law there can be no agreement between the manufacturer and the seller, there can only be an expressed policy dictated by the manufacturer.

 

So as far as violation of an agreement, well, there is no agreement.

 

3. "If you had asked a stock broker to sell your stocks at the best market price possible, and he in turn sold it back to his own company or friends for a much lower price than it would of sold for with some one else wouldn't you get upset since you just lost money on that investment?"

 

This is truly absurd. A stock broker has a fiduciary duty to his client, be it the buyer or seller. A retailer has no such duty. This is a bad example because it is simply meant to inflame the issue and is more different than similar.

 

Tell that to the guys at Enron and the various stock brokers that got sent to prison int eh 80's, they have the ethical and legal obligation to do such, but that doesn't mean they're all ethical, just like violating a legal agreement with Ping is unethical whether you agree with their MAP or not

 

Again, what do you mean by this? The guys from Enron went to jail for violations of criminal laws. However, in the example of MAP's there is no fiduciary duty as there is between a broker and his client. Do you mean to suggest that a Ping vendor who doesn't comply with a unilateral MAP should go to jail? This argument makes less sense than it did the first time you tried to push it.

 

4. "Ping has every right to protect their brand and pricing because it's a direct reflection on the product."

 

Well, not every right. They have some rights so long as they do not violate consumer protection laws. Their behavior regarding MAP walks the line and perhaps crosses it.

 

They have every legal right, now you're just playing symantecs here since I didn't include the word legal, horrible rebuttal to my point.

 

Now as far was walk the line or cross it, that's not for us to say, it's for the legal system to decide and I haven't seen anything done yet to say that they're practices are illegal

 

This is also absurd. It is not an argument on symantics to say that they have every right which is legal. In asserting a right, they cannot break a law. The product of civilization is that actions which in one instance may be a right, in another instance may be a violation of law if they infringe on others' rights.

 

The next thing that's absurd about it is saying its not for us to say... No, it is for us to say as there is both a civil mode of enforcing violations of consumer protection laws in addition to simply boycotting manufacturers who act in a way that is contrary to a free market.

 

5. "It's not just that, but if one store in an area could sell Ping irons at $100 less than everyone else then people would only buy them from that one store, the other store would lose sales or have to mark down the product, possibly to a razor thin margin, and more than likely they most would just stop carrying the brand."

 

This is called a free market where the market, not the sellers, determines the price. Ping's MAP is contrary to a free market.

 

Their MAP may or may not be contrary, none the less the manufacturer always sets the price for product, been that way for years, and if they don't want their product discounted that's their decision.

 

The aforementioned scenario basically shows how by not using a MAP they can have their market reduced more than just by pulling product and in the end possibly drive them out of business since larger chain stores have more leeway in price cuts than off course pro shops.

 

You are completely wrong. A manufacturer may not engage in retail price fixing by entering into an agreement with a seller of their goods. This is a violation of the Sherman act. (if you took the time to read the entire thread in detail you would already know this).

 

6. "There are many reasons that MAP prices are a good thing, and some that they're not, but as for competition, Ping doesn't compete against stores, they compete against the other OEM's"

 

This is one more example of your fundamentally bad rationalle. The competition should be among retailers to set the aprropriate market price. The consumer thus benefits. Competition between Ping and other OEM's has nothing to do with this. Ping's MAP is meant to supress retail competition not inter OEM competition.

 

No, it shouldn't be because it's Ping's product, and yes the market sets the price much as it's doing now, what are most drivers selling for?

 

Most are $300 - $400, more for special models, and each OEM works within this.

 

The Consumer doesn't benefit when they have only 1 option for purchasing a product from, because that 1 retail store can then inflate the price and play with the market all they want

 

The important question here isn't what most drivers are selling for, its why are they selling for that price. If its because the market set the price, that's great. If its because of vertical price fixing, that's a real problem.

 

7. "And as for them pulling product from stores, again, it's their right, granted the guy may have been doing a kid a favor, but if that's the case you just tell the kid that you can't discount Ping, maybe he should look at something else, if he wants the Ping he's going to have to pay full price, pure and simple."

 

This is just an example of Ping's draconian attitude and arrogance toward free market capitalism and consumers. There are plenty of practices which are within one's rights but still unethical. This is a perfect example and is why I suggest a boycott of Ping.

 

You may feel that way abut Ping, I don't, that last point is opinion, nothing more, doesn't fall into the context of the debate

 

If you're so free market, why do you want to government to get involved with a private business?

 

Not very free market

 

Where on earth do you see me suggesting that the government ought to get involved? Violations of antitrust laws have civil remedies. I know this because that's how I make my living. If the government wants to get involved, that's up to them (Elliot Spitzer). I'm suggesting a boycott.

[gjones77]

You know what, you seem to know a bit about law...

 

I can sum up Ping's legal reason for this in 2 words...

 

"Colgate Policies" :help:

 

Look it up, and the accompanying Supreme Court Decision concerning MAPs

[emmeline]

As a Ping Clubfitter myself, I think there is a missing component to this argument. Ping, as a privately held company, can choose or not choose to do business with whoever they like. They do not say you've broken a law, they say you've broken their policy. From there, all they then choose to do is not do business with those accounts. Having a Ping account is not a "right" in the golf business and they are not breaking any laws by opting not to do business with any club/course they choose.

[gjones77]

And what Ping is doing is legally backed, here is a California Supreme Court Decision concerning Whirlpool's identical pricing agreements

 

Now this does not mention the Sherman Act, but the that doesn't always pertain to this since Ping doesn't force the reseller to sell the clubs, they have the option not to sell.

 

Plus, from what I've read so far, and I could be wrong, Sherman seems to more apply to monopolies and conspiracies by all vendors of a certain product to keep prices artificially inflated.

 

California courts have ruled that the Cartwright Act also permits non-coercive monitoring of compliance with pricing policies. In Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp.,4 Chavez contended that Whirlpool Corporation engaged in illegal price-fixing by announcing a pricing policy, monitoring actual prices charged by independent vendors, and declining to continue sales to distributors like Chavez that failed to adhere to Whirlpool’s announced prices. The California Court of Appeal held that Whirlpool’s price monitoring did not violate the Cartwright Act:

 

 

Just as the announcement of a resale price policy and refusal to deal with dealers who do not comply is permissible, measures to monitor compliance that do not interfere with the dealers’ freedom of choice are permissible. . . . By monitoring the dealers’ compliance without forcing compliance or seeking and receiving communication of their compliance, a manufacturer permissibly exercises its right to select with whom to do business and on what terms. In this manner, a manufacturer who announces a resale price policy and enforces the policy by monitoring the dealers’ compliance and refusing to deal with dealers who do not comply does not violate the Cartwright Act.5

 

Thus, the Cartwright Act allows companies to both announce and non-coercively enforce pricing policies.

 

And a little more for you, since many here think this is illegal on Ping's part (which it's not)

 

MINIMUM RESALE PRICE AGREEMENTS

 

An agreement between manufacturer and dealer or retailer on minimum resale price levels is per se illegal.(4) However, under the Colgate Doctrine,(5) established by the Supreme Court in 1919, a manufacturer may lawfully suggest prices and stop dealing with those who discount those prices, as long as it does so unilaterally. For example, manufacturers may suggest minimum prices (unilaterally) using a number of techniques, including:

 

* providing lists of suggested retail prices;(6)

* pre-ticketing prices on the product;(7) or

* advertising suggested prices directly to consumers.(8)

 

A manufacturer may cut off a discounter in response to complaints from other retailers, as long as it makes this decision unilaterally.(9) Generally, the FTC does not challenge cooperative advertising programs in which dealers must use manufacturer-supplied information, including resale prices, in the advertisements. However, when dealers pay for their own advertisements, they must be free to price the product at whatever level they choose.(10)

 

Manufacturer actions that attempt to secure compliance with announced minimum prices may result in an improper agreement with the retailer. Such actions may include:

 

* threatening to penalize dealers by mixing up orders;(11)

* requiring manufacturer approval of deviations from suggested prices;(12) or

* removing all of the financial incentive for a retailer to set a price below the suggested minimums.(13)

[arkstorm]

The Colgate Act was repealed in the 70's. But your article does show the crux of the current law. There can be no agreement, but there can be a unilateral policy.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make. There is no agreement between Ping and their retailers, oftherwise the arrangement would be de facto illegal as an example of vertical price fixing which is illegal under the Sherman Act.

 

But what emmeline said above is not exactly true either. A manufacturer is not free to enter into an agreement to set retail prices, all it may do is have an expressed MAP that is enforces without discussion with the retailer. The fact that they are privately held has no bearing on this as this applies to private and publicly held manufacturers.

 

(Earlier on in this thread we have attached some articles that very clearly explain the current state of the law regarding this post 1970's)

 

Now, all this aside, whether or not this is legal is a different question than whether or not it is pro consumer. I'm suggesting a boycott, not a lawsuit.

[gjones77]

The Colgate Act was repealed in the 70's. But your article does show the crux of the current law. There can be no agreement, but there can be a unilateral policy.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make. There is no agreement between Ping and their retailers, oftherwise the arrangement would be de facto illegal as an example of vertical price fixing which is illegal under the Sherman Act.

 

But what emmeline said above is not exactly true either. A manufacturer is not free to enter into an agreement to set retail prices, all it may do is have an expressed MAP that is enforces without discussion with the retailer. The fact that they are privately held has no bearing on this as this applies to private and publicly held manufacturers.

 

(Earlier on in this thread we have attached some articles that very clearly explain the current state of the law regarding this post 1970's)

 

Now, all this aside, whether or not this is legal is a different question than whether or not it is pro consumer. I'm suggesting a boycott, not a lawsuit.

 

A boycott is just fine, and the right of all consumers, I myself will still buy Ping products since I am a fan of the product and quality, but that's just because I don't mind their MAP

 

And Colgate isn't so much an act as it is a guideline on how to circumvent the various laws legally, since you're right, they're not entering an agreement based on pricing per se, but by being an authorized Ping retailer I'm sure there are certain guidelines you're expected to follow, and violating those guide lines means you lose the right to sell Ping

[emmeline]

By following the Ping guidelines, retailers (like myself) will maintain a higher margin. When I look at my margins across the board for each of my equipment vendors each year, the results are the same. With Taylor, Callaway, Cobra etc, I match prices (although I'm always at 20% off retail = street price). Occassionally I have to drop prices to match sales, specials, etc from the big box stores. I have no problem doing that and I always will do it. With Ping, it's never an issue. All retailers sell for the same price (essentially). If you advertise for less, you're gone.

 

Although it's inconvenient at the end of the year when I want to blow equipment out, in the long-run it's protecting the Golf Professional. In the end, if I opt to drop one of my hard good lines, it won't be Ping because the numbers beat all others. Retailers who complain about their policy are being somewhat shortsighted. Check your own numbers and I bet you would find similar results.

 

On a side note, another way Ping "catches" accounts is through warranty cards. I had a friend who sold a putter at 10% Off to one of his members. The member returned the warranty card along with the required receipt and bam - he was gone.

[Bulldog]

Hey Ping...

Florida, Texas & Louisiana have a tax free week once a year....all shops that sold Ping products during that time are now in violation of your policys....You need to pull all your accounts from these three states, and any other states that have the tax free days...

What say you Ping???

[Gxgolfer]

Hey Ping...

Florida, Texas & Louisiana have a tax free week once a year....all shops that sold Ping products during that time are now in violation of your policys....You need to pull all your accounts from these three states, and any other states that have the tax free days...

What say you Ping???

 

 

 

Tax free week sponsored by states is different than a retailer who discounts the club price to reflect the sales tax to make it "tax" free.