Canon's MAP Pricing Goes Into Full Effect Today
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Except the original post is all in US dollars, referring to US retailer sites. Why would I look further into UK pricing when the MAP has no effect on it. Especially when most of those sites don't even ship internationally at those prices.Gothmoth said:
It doesn't blow up my "theory" at all, because its not cheaper for a US customer to buy it in the UK and have it shipped here (it'd be $3200+ for a D800, for example). I'm still unaware of any site that allows an authorized Nikon dealer to sell a Nikon camera for less than full US retail. That your starting prices are wildly inflated and they give discounts that mean you only overpay by 10% instead of 30% is one thing, but, its only loosely related to this policy.
In the US, before the increase, the 5DMark III was cheaper than the D800 by a few hundred bucks. So if Canon is strict about this like Nikon has been in the US, it could hurt them. Especially if it means the 5dIII is selling near retail and they aren't aggressive with their instant rebates. But that remains to be seen.
Upvote
0
My question is - now that everybody knows what the fair market price of the camera is (quite below $3K) - how many bodies Canon is hoping to sell with MAP being enforced? 
Do they really expect customers to pay MSRP now?? ??? Is Canon even paying ANY attention with what is going on in the market these days?
Do they really expect customers to pay MSRP now?? ??? Is Canon even paying ANY attention with what is going on in the market these days?
Upvote
0
Goodness some of you need to calm down. The world has not ended. Canon has just decided to enforce their policy which simply means authorized retailers cannot advertise (in print, online, etc) a price below their msrp. That just means the price you see in the official canon online store will be the same across the internet. If they do advertise it lower then they risk losing canon as a supplier. Secondly those of you who think canon makes any more or less money off the msrp are dillusional. They sell it to a retailer who in turns sells it to you for msrp or whatever you agree upon. That transaction is between you and the retailer not you and canon. If you don't like it please feel free to check out Sony and Nikon who do the exact same thing just have actually been enforcing their policies unlike canon. Sony is notorious for their map pricing requirements across the entire gambit if their electronics empire. this doesn't mean the end of all "deals". The unauthorized sellers don't care about map pricing, and if you don't care about warrantee issues or have done business with that shop (or better its your local camera store) and know they will honor any issue then you are golden. In the end this is much ado about nothing.
Lastly, I know this will drive some of you bonkers, the big stores (BH, adorama, best buy, ET al) love this. It means no one can undercut them on an advertised price if they are an authorized seller. It means your local shops who doesnt have the buying power to get better deals out of the supplier are squeezed even further likely requiring them to either drop authorized status or raise their in store price which in turn drives more customers to the big stores who are happy making more money off you when you don't bother to negotiate price. You feel good because you saved money over local camera store, but realistically you just made the big box store very happy because their margin on this item is twice what the local stores is and you still think you got a super deal. It's sad, but it's crony capitalism at its finest.
Lastly, I know this will drive some of you bonkers, the big stores (BH, adorama, best buy, ET al) love this. It means no one can undercut them on an advertised price if they are an authorized seller. It means your local shops who doesnt have the buying power to get better deals out of the supplier are squeezed even further likely requiring them to either drop authorized status or raise their in store price which in turn drives more customers to the big stores who are happy making more money off you when you don't bother to negotiate price. You feel good because you saved money over local camera store, but realistically you just made the big box store very happy because their margin on this item is twice what the local stores is and you still think you got a super deal. It's sad, but it's crony capitalism at its finest.
Upvote
0
I was never really thrilled with the price of the 5DIII for what you get anyways. I've almost purchased it at least 3 times but always managed to talk myself out of it. We'll see how long this MAP pricing lasts, the camera isn't exactly flying off the shelves these days. I'm not worried, the market will settle this....
Upvote
0
+1 with Canon on this subject.
Alot of people said:
1. " early adopters always pay for premium price tag"
2. " You get to play wiith camera before us"
3. " Demand and supply law"
I say if you think $3500 is too much for 5D III then switch to Nikon. or get the mrk II.
Allowed 20%ish price drop on new & hot body is unacceptable. Canon needs to keep their reputation as leader in this market.
Alot of people said:
1. " early adopters always pay for premium price tag"
2. " You get to play wiith camera before us"
3. " Demand and supply law"
I say if you think $3500 is too much for 5D III then switch to Nikon. or get the mrk II.
Allowed 20%ish price drop on new & hot body is unacceptable. Canon needs to keep their reputation as leader in this market.
Upvote
0
G
Greg_M
Guest
robbymack said:
Well if B&H "loves it" then they will really love that I will not be buying the Canon- 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM AF Lens USA OR the B+W- 77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter to go on it OR the B+W- 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter to go on it OR the Bower- CS77 77mm Pro Snap-On Lens Cap to go on it OR the Sensei- 62-77mm Filter Wrench (Set of 2) to undo any stuck filters.
I had planned to buy all the above items next week, but I won't now. They are probably rolling on the floor laughing insanely, right?
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
Allowing this camera to be so heavily overpriced is unacceptable. Enforcing this price tag and not allowing the market to have it at its fair price is outrageous.
With all the sub $3K deals showing the real place for this body in today's market, good luck to Canon selling it now at MSRP.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
People are mixing apples and oranges here.
Apples: Canon's retail prices.
Oranges: Canon's minimum advertised price policies.
On the "apples" side: legitimate questions can be made and debated about whether or not Canon is charging too much for some products in relation to either market demand or perceived value. That's a constant subject of debate on this forum with opinions ranging from the delusional and paranoid to those who have no financial constraints and would buy anything with a Canon brand on it. Regardless of what you think the "proper" price should be, that really has no relevance to MAP pricing policies.
On the "oranges" side: Canon is moving to enforce its Minimum Advertised Price policies, which exist to bring price uniformity to its dealer network. On a related thread, another individual posted a link to a Wikipedia article that explains the legal history of MAP pretty well. No point in repeating that. They are legal and they are used by many manufacturers. The simplest summary might be to say that manufacturers cannot tell a retailer what price to actually charge for a product – which is a private transaction between the buyer and seller. But, they can say what price the retailer can advertise the product for sale at.
MAP, as others have pointed out, has absolutely no bearing on Canon's own profit margin. The price that Canon charges its resellers is not being increased.
Why have MAP? To level the playing field between retailers. It is not in the best interests of either the manufacturer or the consumer to allow a single large retailer to undercut all other sellers to the point that they drive the other sellers out of business and create a monopolistic situation where the manufacturer and customer are both totally depending on the whims of one retailer.
Using the 5DIII as an example, we can all see how the lax enforcement of MAP has impacted pricing and the market over the past several months. Canon's MSRP has never changed, but the "street price" has fluctuated wildly. Great news for individual buyers, but a real problem for the network because retailers have no assurance that when they play by the rules they won't be undercut by someone who is gaming the system.
Canon has a dilemma here. If they turn a blind eye to the violators, they risk alienating their dealer network and undercutting their own ability to compete in the marketplace. So, they have moved to enforce what they view as the "real" and "correct" prices for their products.
Which brings us all back to the "apples." The recent "bargain" pricing of the 5DIII seems to show that the "correct" price may be out of line with the marketplace. If that is the case, it will correct itself over time and there is little that either Canon or its dealer network can do to stop that.
Let the marketplace sort it out. If Canon's prices are too high, demand will drop. Canon will be forced to adjust the price and retailers will find new ways around MAP.
Apples: Canon's retail prices.
Oranges: Canon's minimum advertised price policies.
On the "apples" side: legitimate questions can be made and debated about whether or not Canon is charging too much for some products in relation to either market demand or perceived value. That's a constant subject of debate on this forum with opinions ranging from the delusional and paranoid to those who have no financial constraints and would buy anything with a Canon brand on it. Regardless of what you think the "proper" price should be, that really has no relevance to MAP pricing policies.
On the "oranges" side: Canon is moving to enforce its Minimum Advertised Price policies, which exist to bring price uniformity to its dealer network. On a related thread, another individual posted a link to a Wikipedia article that explains the legal history of MAP pretty well. No point in repeating that. They are legal and they are used by many manufacturers. The simplest summary might be to say that manufacturers cannot tell a retailer what price to actually charge for a product – which is a private transaction between the buyer and seller. But, they can say what price the retailer can advertise the product for sale at.
MAP, as others have pointed out, has absolutely no bearing on Canon's own profit margin. The price that Canon charges its resellers is not being increased.
Why have MAP? To level the playing field between retailers. It is not in the best interests of either the manufacturer or the consumer to allow a single large retailer to undercut all other sellers to the point that they drive the other sellers out of business and create a monopolistic situation where the manufacturer and customer are both totally depending on the whims of one retailer.
Using the 5DIII as an example, we can all see how the lax enforcement of MAP has impacted pricing and the market over the past several months. Canon's MSRP has never changed, but the "street price" has fluctuated wildly. Great news for individual buyers, but a real problem for the network because retailers have no assurance that when they play by the rules they won't be undercut by someone who is gaming the system.
Canon has a dilemma here. If they turn a blind eye to the violators, they risk alienating their dealer network and undercutting their own ability to compete in the marketplace. So, they have moved to enforce what they view as the "real" and "correct" prices for their products.
Which brings us all back to the "apples." The recent "bargain" pricing of the 5DIII seems to show that the "correct" price may be out of line with the marketplace. If that is the case, it will correct itself over time and there is little that either Canon or its dealer network can do to stop that.
Let the marketplace sort it out. If Canon's prices are too high, demand will drop. Canon will be forced to adjust the price and retailers will find new ways around MAP.
Upvote
0
Sorry for my ignorance, but is this only in the US? I haven't noticed any changes to advertised prices on Amazon.jp, should I be buying up my wishlist?
Update - thanks Unfocused for clearing all that up!
Update - thanks Unfocused for clearing all that up!
Upvote
0
Is Canon marketing team working for Nikon? If Canon wants to have MAP policy, Canon has better have reasonable list prices. Canon is going to loss more market share.
Can those authorized dealers still sell Canon products @ reasonable prices via eBay?
Can those authorized dealers still sell Canon products @ reasonable prices via eBay?
Upvote
0
C
cptobvious
Guest
Just to clarify the post above, this is not a MAP (minimum advertised price) policy. This is a UPP (unilateral pricing policy). The difference is that under MAPs, a retailer can use workarounds like "Add to Cart to see lower price" to offer discounts, whereas with UPPs they can't (well, they can, but the manufacturer will strong-arm them not to by threatening to cut their supply off). UPPs used to be considered illegal price fixing until a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed that.
Quite a few manufacturers use UPPs now...Apple, Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, to name a few.
As to how they affect the industry, it's hard to say. The manufacturer may benefit indirectly from keeping the perceived value of its products up (no more promotions that might create an expectation for lower prices, like those sub-$3000 5D3 sales). B&M stores and smaller retailers benefit over larger stores like Amazon, B&H, etc. Consumers ultimately pay more because retailers are prohibited from competing against each other based on price. When an entire industry does it (I know this is the case for musical instruments, maybe smartphones) it almost creates an anti-competitive effect, because manufacturers can effectively collude with each other not to drop prices below minimum levels. That's how it seems the DSLR industry is shaping up to be.
Quite a few manufacturers use UPPs now...Apple, Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, to name a few.
As to how they affect the industry, it's hard to say. The manufacturer may benefit indirectly from keeping the perceived value of its products up (no more promotions that might create an expectation for lower prices, like those sub-$3000 5D3 sales). B&M stores and smaller retailers benefit over larger stores like Amazon, B&H, etc. Consumers ultimately pay more because retailers are prohibited from competing against each other based on price. When an entire industry does it (I know this is the case for musical instruments, maybe smartphones) it almost creates an anti-competitive effect, because manufacturers can effectively collude with each other not to drop prices below minimum levels. That's how it seems the DSLR industry is shaping up to be.
Upvote
0
I would not worry too much, there is still a wide range of prices at various dealers, even authorized resellers.
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html
Upvote
0
madmailman said:
????? The list price on an mk3 was $3199 with an extra $200 off in rebates...so the $200 rebate is the same as it was before
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
