September 21, 2014, 04:12:12 AM

Author Topic: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1  (Read 7044 times)

BL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:31:08 PM »
Quote
"Canon to Begin Crackdown on Minimum Advertised Pricing Tomorrow, November 1

Canon will begin cracking down on minimum advertised pricing (MAP) starting tomorrow, Nov 1. The retail prices for several DSLR cameras as well as some lenses will be changing significantly. If you plan on buying a DSLR camera in the near future, I suggest buying it now."

The-Digital-Picture.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/canon-news/

I must be missing something here or perhaps I don't understand the idea behind MAP.

What on earth would incent a retailer to carry Canon gear if they have no control over the pricing of their inventory? 
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

canon rumors FORUM

Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:31:08 PM »

robbymack

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 07:27:21 PM »
Everyone does it. If you want to carry their gear (what camera store wouldn't want to carry cannon?) then you agree to their terms. Ever seen the new pair of Nike sneakers priced differently at different stores...nope. Generally it applies to a few items and sets a floor. Not sure if it applies to the electronic store fronts which is why you see deals pop up on eBay etc however I assume those agreements have been modified in the digital age to include those so my guess is there will not be any more stellar deals coming from authorized sellers, everything now will be grey market.

DB

  • Guest
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2012, 09:43:47 PM »
Quote
"Canon to Begin Crackdown on Minimum Advertised Pricing Tomorrow, November 1

Canon will begin cracking down on minimum advertised pricing (MAP) starting tomorrow, Nov 1. The retail prices for several DSLR cameras as well as some lenses will be changing significantly. If you plan on buying a DSLR camera in the near future, I suggest buying it now."

The-Digital-Picture.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/canon-news/

I must be missing something here or perhaps I don't understand the idea behind MAP.

What on earth would incent a retailer to carry Canon gear if they have no control over the pricing of their inventory?

This is what Mercedes-Benz has been doing for decades to preserve 'Residual Values' (which in turn allow for new premium prices too). Ask any Merc dealer who strayed from this policy - they lost their franchise!

What you are missing is that this is a Manufacturers Recommended Selling Price (MRSP). All corporations spend money on R&D, Marketing, Advertising, Production (COSTS basically) so they wish to maximize their REVENUE - the best way to do that given a fixed amount of SUPPLY => fix PRICES. It is called control. It is also basic marketing theory - company sets the price not the customer (nor any wholesaler or distributor). This is marketing 101, never ever let the consumer dictate price to the manufacturer. Canon designs and produces the product, that gives them the right to insist on a minimum new price.

Preemptive note: before some naiive bright spark decides to respond with elementary (as in elementary school or high school) economics regarding SUPPLY & DEMAND, let me first say that there is no one magic equilibrium point where these are supposed to meet (there are in fact multiple equilibrium points based on a plethora of factors). Suffice it to say, Canon cannot determine or control 'Demand' (that depends on what consumers wish to spend and what they can afford to at any given time), but they can shape 'Supply'. Part of their supply strategy is predicated on an assumed selling price. Hence the control policy.

Postcript: if B&H or Adorama wish to sell for instance the new 6D for $999 (hypothetical illustration) then by Christmas Day they would no longer be a seller of any Canon products - Canon would refuse to supply them for undermining their products. Canon would be absolutely right to do so too. It is their prerogative.

If any of you disagree with this policy, you can invest a couple of billion dollars of your own money and compete with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax etc.

curtisnull

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2012, 09:48:21 PM »
Well, this really sucks. I was just getting ready to buy a 135mm f/2.0L lens. B&H had it yesterday (10/30/12) for $879 with the rebate. Now WITH the rebate it is $989.
1Dx••5D3••300/2.8L IS II••135/2L••100/2.8L IS Macro••24/1.4L II••70-200/2.8L IS II••24-70/2.8L II••17-40/4 L••600EX-RT••lots more Canon stuff.

DB

  • Guest
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2012, 10:18:09 PM »
Well, this really sucks. I was just getting ready to buy a 135mm f/2.0L lens. B&H had it yesterday (10/30/12) for $879 with the rebate. Now WITH the rebate it is $989.

Yeah, but if you buy it at the higher price, you will also be able to resell it at a higher price in the future (than if you'd bought it at the special discounted price) - or at least you will be unwilling to let it go too cheap, plus any potential buyer will have to buy off you or go to a store and pay the high new selling price. It is all relative.

The 35mm f/2L is a superb piece of glass that will always have a high resale value, so if you kept it for 2 years then sold it for $200 less than you paid for it - it has cost you $2 per week. Forget amortizing it over the medium term, think about it as an investment in a 'real asset'.

gbchriste

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2012, 10:22:16 PM »
Apple uses the same tactic.  Look around.  No matter where you buy - the Apple Store, Best Buy, Amazon...name the outlet...for any given Apple product, the price differences among any outlets you care to check will never be more than about $10 different in either direction.

DB

  • Guest
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 10:30:00 PM »
Apple uses the same tactic.  Look around.  No matter where you buy - the Apple Store, Best Buy, Amazon...name the outlet...for any given Apple product, the price differences among any outlets you care to check will never be more than about $10 different in either direction.

Absolutely. The new iPhone costs about $250 to $300 to manufacture, yet Apple Inc. sells it for double that. They sold 5 million iPhone 5's in the first weekend - that's $1.25 billion to $1.5 billion gross profit. Now do you think if they dropped their margin in half, they would've sold 10 million iPhone's the same weekend? Maybe they would have sold only 8 million units, thus reducing their profits to a $1 billion or less. It is just basic math.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 10:30:00 PM »

tpatana

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2012, 11:37:35 PM »
Not sure if Canon is changing their price for retailers too, otherwise they are not making a dime more.

For example, let's take 5D3. Assume Canon builds 5D3 for $1000, sells them to retailer for $2500 (totally pulled out from my a**, no idea what's the real price), and MSRP is $3500. Canon makes $1500 each, and retailer makes $1000 each, assuming they sell them for $3500.

If retailer sells the camera for $2800 (like we saw the 5D3 often at Ebay), Canon still makes the same $1500 each, just the retailer is making less profit.

So even if Canon forces everyone to sell at certain minimum price, Canon itself is not making a dime more unless they also change the price they sell to retailers.

Some effect might come from the fact that some people buy directly from Canon. That might increase if you cannot get cheaper price from any other shop, but that's impossible to estimate.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8686
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2012, 11:52:38 PM »
Sony has forced dealers to advertise full price for years, Nikon started last year, and Canon this year.  In addition to that, the Supreme Court may rule that you cannot import a copyrighted item into the USA and resell it. 
However, there are many sellers in the mean time that are not Canon Authorized resellers who will undercut prices, and combo deals may still abound.
Canon also has ongoing rebate deals, so prices will not immediately jump.  If sales continue to drop, we will continue to see lower and lower prices, you can bank on that.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 11:56:22 PM by Mt Spokane Photography »

thexfile

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2012, 12:42:12 AM »
Sony has forced dealers to advertise full price for years, Nikon started last year, and Canon this year.  In addition to that, the Supreme Court may rule that you cannot import a copyrighted item into the USA and resell it. 
I imagine eBay sellers are watching that case closely.

AlberD

  • Guest
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2012, 01:00:10 AM »
From Wikipedia

On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[4] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.

In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons, 220 U.S. 373 (1911), the United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's holding that a massive minimum resale price maintenance scheme was unreasonable and thus offended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision rested on the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance is indistinguishable in economic effect from naked horizontal price fixing by a cartel. Subsequent decisions characterized Dr Miles as holding that minimum resale price maintenance is unlawful per se - that is, without regard to its impact on the marketplace or consumers.

During the Great Depression in the 1930s, a large number of U.S. states began passing fair trade laws. These were intended to protect independent retailers from the price-cutting competition of large chain stores by authorizing resale price maintenance. Since these laws allowed vertical price fixing, they directly conflicted with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Congress had to carve out a special exception for them with the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937. This special exception was expanded in 1952 by the McGuire Act (which overruled a 1951 Supreme Court decision that gave a narrower reading of the Miller-Tydings Act).

The fair trade laws became widely unpopular after World War II and so the Miller-Tydings Act and the McGuire Act were repealed by the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975.

In 1968 the Supreme Court extended the per se rule against minimum resale price maintenance to maximum resale price maintenance, in Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968). The Court opined that such contracts always limited the freedom of dealers to price as they wished. The Court also opined that the practice "may" channel distribution through a few large, efficient dealers, prevent dealers from offering essential services, and that the "maximum" price could instead become a minimum price.

In 1997, the Supreme Court overruled Albrecht, in State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997).

Several decades after Dr Miles, scholars began to question the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance, a vertical restraint, was the economic equivalent of a naked horizontal cartel. In 1960, Lester G. Telser, an economist at the University of Chicago, argued that manufacturers could employ minimum resale price maintenance as a tool to ensure that dealers engaged in the desired promotion of a manufacturer's product through local advertising, product demonstrations, and the like. Without such contractual restraints, Telser said, no frills distributors might "free ride" on the promotional efforts of full service distributors, thereby undermining the incentives of full service dealers to expend resources on promotion. Six years later, Robert Bork reiterated and expanded upon Telser's argument, contending that resale price maintenance was simply one form of contractual integration, analogous to complete vertical integration, that could overcome a failure in the market for distributional services. Bork also argued that non-price vertical restraints, such as exclusive territories, could achieve the same results.

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court held that non-price vertical restraints, such as vertically imposed exclusive territories, were to be analyzed under a fact-based "rule of reason." In so doing, the Court embraced the logic of Bork and Telser as applied to such restraints, opining that, in a "purely competitive situation," dealers might free ride on each other's promotional efforts.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the 21st Amendment could not shield California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act. California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980).

Thus, from the 1975 enactment of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act to the 2008 Leegin decision, resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4506
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2012, 01:22:58 AM »
how will this effect the low cost hong kong sellers?
APS-H Fanboy

thexfile

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2012, 01:33:19 AM »
how will this effect the low cost hong kong sellers?
They'll have to get or buy permission from the copyright holder to sell at any lower price.

All internet commerce could be affected. Even selling used cars could be affected.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2012, 01:33:19 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4039
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2012, 01:40:10 AM »
I agreed....It's Bsssssss too see 5D III price drop $700 - $800 after 6months from released date.

Canon needs to monitor these kind of activities. Otherwise, Canon will loose many more loyal customers. THE-END  :-X
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

tpatana

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2012, 02:18:45 AM »
I agreed....It's Bsssssss too see 5D III price drop $700 - $800 after 6months from released date.

Canon needs to monitor these kind of activities. Otherwise, Canon will loose many more loyal customers. THE-END  :-X

Early adopters always pay extra premium on electronics. I'm sure you knew that, so no reason to get mad if you got a great camera much earlier than other people.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2012, 02:18:45 AM »