06-12-2014, 02:49 PM
#1
User Info
Not sure where to post this, but if interested here is the link--

https://www.massdrop.com/buy/simpson-ch2

0 47
 06-12-2014, 03:07 PM
#2
  • grantmm
  • Friend of the Badgers
  • Draper, Utah
User Info
For folks who don't want to register.

https://www.massdrop.com/buy/simpson-ch2...guest_open

10 759
 06-12-2014, 03:28 PM
#3
  • Johnny
  • Super Moderator
  • Wausau, Wisconsin, USA
User Info
Doesn't this go against their very own MAP (minimum advertised price) policy?

If I were a vendor or retailer of these products, I would not be to happy about this.

179 23,934
 06-12-2014, 04:09 PM
#4
User Info
(06-12-2014, 03:28 PM)Johnny Wrote: Doesn't this go against their very own MAP (minimum advertised price) policy?

If I were a vendor or retailer of these products, I would not be to happy about this.

That was what I thought too Johnny. I've seen this posted on other forums around too.

21 555
 06-12-2014, 05:21 PM
#5
User Info
I was about to post something on this, then I saw that a thread was already started.

I've never purchased from Massdrop. However, as I understand it, they pool buyers to get a low price directly from the manufacturer or distributor. In this case, if they reach 20 buyers one can get a Chubby 2 Best for $143.00. As I write this they already have 17 buyers and still have four days to go. This brush normally sells for $180.00 from the retailers who are bound to Simpson's minimum price policy.

I don't see how this can happen. How can Massdrop get this brush directly from Simpson, a distributor, or some other party, and sell it in violation of Simpson's minimum price policies?

If I was a retailer of Simpson brushes I would not be happy about this. Moreover, why would Simpson risk alienating its network of retailers to sell a few as 20 Chubby 2's for 143.00 on Massdrop?

Maybe some explanation will emerge from this discussion.

50 6,427
 06-12-2014, 06:58 PM
#6
  • v4257
  • Always chasing the perfect shave
  • Boston, USA
User Info
(06-12-2014, 03:28 PM)Johnny Wrote: Doesn't this go against their very own MAP (minimum advertised price) policy?

If I were a vendor or retailer of these products, I would not be to happy about this.

AFAIK - MAP pricing is difficult to defend legally (i.e. it is illegal?) in the US & several other countries - esp when margins are very high.

Why not let the free market dictate pricing? Just my 2c.

17 535
 06-12-2014, 08:15 PM
#7
  • Johnny
  • Super Moderator
  • Wausau, Wisconsin, USA
User Info
(06-12-2014, 06:58 PM)v4257 Wrote:
(06-12-2014, 03:28 PM)Johnny Wrote: Doesn't this go against their very own MAP (minimum advertised price) policy?

If I were a vendor or retailer of these products, I would not be to happy about this.

AFAIK - MAP pricing is difficult to defend legally (i.e. it is illegal?) in the US & several other countries - esp when margins are very high.

Why not let the free market dictate pricing? Just my 2c.

A) The margins are not high at all. In fact, they are below average.

B) MAPS are perfectly legal. If a vendor violates a MAP, the manufacturer can cut off supply. The manufacturer has the right to sell to whomever they please.

C) In order to sell Simpson, vendors agree to the MAP.

To me, it is a matter of honor. Mass Drop is not adhering to the agreement.

179 23,934
 06-12-2014, 08:36 PM
#8
User Info
What I don't understand is why Simpsons would risk alienating both loyal retailers and current and future customers in order to sell only around 20 regular production brushes?

I could possibly see the rationale for a limited edition two-band or Manchurian or non-standard resin just like the anticipated TSN 2014 brush, particularly now that they've stopping taking custom orders. However, a manufacturer direct reduced price only creates resentment by vendors, anticipation of lower or sale prices by consumers, and actually may diminish Simpsons luxury brand status. Huh

0 386
 06-12-2014, 08:41 PM
#9
  • Agravic
  • Emeritus
  • Pennsylvania, USA
User Info
These Mass Drop phenomena may serve as marketing avenues, and potentially provide a nice discount to participating customers. What is not readily acknowledged through these events is the damage done to the vendors and stockists of said products as a result, ie the folks who are diligently compliant with MAP rules.
In essence, Mass Drop type of 'group buys' negate the very rationale for having MAP to begin with ... not optimal for many parties in the end.

102 18,669
 06-12-2014, 10:27 PM
#10
  • MarkW
  • Senior Member
  • Isle of Man
User Info
We are looking into this currently.

If they are found to be selling a Simpson brush below MAP, they lose the opportunity in the future to purchase directly from us or through an authorised Simpson distribution channel.

It may prove to be a quick buck for them, but that's all it will be.

1 635
 06-12-2014, 10:48 PM
#11
User Info
I've used Massdrop before for medium and higher end audio equipment. It worked out well for me and others. IIRC some companies like Sennheiser that were involved in MassDrop buys had minimum pricing. There were no huge repercussions in fact many people who didn't get in went and picked up the items at retail.

2 71
 06-12-2014, 10:54 PM
#12
User Info
(06-12-2014, 10:27 PM)Simpson1919 Wrote: We are looking into this currently.

If they are found to be selling a Simpson brush below MAP, they lose the opportunity in the future to purchase directly from us or through an authorised Simpson distribution channel.

It may prove to be a quick buck for them, but that's all it will be.

Mark, thank you for your comment.

The implicit assumption was that the Massdrop was an interlocutor for the purchase of the CH2 brushes directly from Simpsons. Is Massdrop dealing with a third-party vendor without Simpsons' prior knowledge or permission? If so, that would certainly explain the confusion.

0 386
 06-12-2014, 11:58 PM
#13
  • MarkW
  • Senior Member
  • Isle of Man
User Info
We deal with Massdrop on a variety of projects.

They are aware of our Simpson MAP stipulation. If there has been an infringement, there will be an investigation as to why & how it happened followed by an action yet to be determined.

I should add that Massdrop is a wonderful shopping medium, but there are boundaries and limitations in which sales should be administered.

(06-12-2014, 10:54 PM)branford Wrote:
(06-12-2014, 10:27 PM)Simpson1919 Wrote: We are looking into this currently.

If they are found to be selling a Simpson brush below MAP, they lose the opportunity in the future to purchase directly from us or through an authorised Simpson distribution channel.

It may prove to be a quick buck for them, but that's all it will be.

Mark, thank you for your comment.

The implicit assumption was that the Massdrop was an interlocutor for the purchase of the CH2 brushes directly from Simpsons. Is Massdrop dealing with a third-party vendor without Simpsons' prior knowledge or permission? If so, that would certainly explain the confusion.

1 635
 06-13-2014, 02:52 AM
#14
  • Mouser
  • Senior Member
  • Forest City, Florida U.S.A.
User Info
(06-12-2014, 06:58 PM)v4257 Wrote:
(06-12-2014, 03:28 PM)Johnny Wrote: Doesn't this go against their very own MAP (minimum advertised price) policy?

If I were a vendor or retailer of these products, I would not be to happy about this.

AFAIK - MAP pricing is difficult to defend legally (i.e. it is illegal?) in the US & several other countries - esp when margins are very high.

Why not let the free market dictate pricing? Just my 2c.
Quote:Why not let the free market dictate pricing?
You'd think. doesn't it sound like collusion? I'm just asking.

7 2,359
 06-13-2014, 02:52 AM
#15
User Info
I don't think there's an infringement in having a sale. If they always sold the brush at a lower price it would be a completely different matter.

Enviado de meu GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk

0 163
 06-13-2014, 07:16 AM
#16
  • refles
  • Senior Member
  • New York
User Info
Well to also add, Massdrop may potentially expose Simpson to a broader audience just by seeing the brush on Massdrop, not just buying it.

From what I can see Vulfix was the last completed deal according to the history just searching under "brush", so its a matter of wanting the Simpson brand on there to complete this commitment to buy or cancelling it but the brand awareness for being there is done.

36 1,336
 06-13-2014, 07:21 AM
#17
  • v4257
  • Always chasing the perfect shave
  • Boston, USA
User Info
(06-13-2014, 02:52 AM)Mouser Wrote: Why not let the free market dictate pricing?
You'd think. doesn't it sound like collusion? I'm just asking.

This is a tangent on Min Price agreements. I am not a lawyer but find the subject fascinating and have tried to read as much on it as I can. A great summary is here complete with case law history and current status.

To most people - it feels like that MAP pricing is not in the interest of the consumer. Courts in most countries agree. For e.g. in the UK: "In 1964, the Resale Prices Act was passed, which now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise.". The European Court of Justice also agrees - and MAP pricing is generally not allowed in the EU.

In the US - the law has gone back & forth with MAP being illegal for most of the 20th century. Since 2008 - it is legal federally but status in individual states is untested. MAP must comply with Rule of Reason. This means that MAP must not be detrimental for the consumer. In reality - it is very amorphous.

So the Q becomes - is Simpson's MAP contract legal? Of course opinions will vary - but given the size of the market (super niche) - I think the discussion is moot. I doubt it will ever be tested.

Of course - if every manufacturer imposed MAP pricing - the free market in retail would suffer considerably. So personally I oppose MAP agreements. As always - YMMV.

17 535
 06-13-2014, 08:24 AM
#18
User Info
(06-13-2014, 07:16 AM)refles Wrote: Well to also add, Massdrop may potentially expose Simpson to a broader audience just by seeing the brush on Massdrop, not just buying it.

From what I can see Vulfix was the last completed deal according to the history just searching under "brush", so its a matter of wanting the Simpson brand on there to complete this commitment to buy or cancelling it but the brand awareness for being there is done.

In my experience with Massdrop audio products typically a bunch of folks start posting about the product and the drop on Audio Forums and others go buy it from other retailers.

2 71
 06-13-2014, 08:43 AM
#19
User Info
(06-13-2014, 07:21 AM)v4257 Wrote:
(06-13-2014, 02:52 AM)Mouser Wrote: Why not let the free market dictate pricing?
You'd think. doesn't it sound like collusion? I'm just asking.

This is a tangent on Min Price agreements. I am not a lawyer but find the subject fascinating and have tried to read as much on it as I can. A great summary is here complete with case law history and current status.

To most people - it feels like that MAP pricing is not in the interest of the consumer. Courts in most countries agree. For e.g. in the UK: "In 1964, the Resale Prices Act was passed, which now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise.". The European Court of Justice also agrees - and MAP pricing is generally not allowed in the EU.

In the US - the law has gone back & forth with MAP being illegal for most of the 20th century. Since 2008 - it is legal federally but status in individual states is untested. MAP must comply with Rule of Reason. This means that MAP must not be detrimental for the consumer. In reality - it is very amorphous.

So the Q becomes - is Simpson's MAP contract legal? Of course opinions will vary - but given the size of the market (super niche) - I think the discussion is moot. I doubt it will ever be tested.

Of course - if every manufacturer imposed MAP pricing - the free market in retail would suffer considerably. So personally I oppose MAP agreements. As always - YMMV.

Let's throw out the MAP argument for a minute. What Mark and Simpsons are doing is a bold slap in the face to their vendors. Vendors have to buy in bulk from Simpsons, there are duties which must be paid when these bulk products enter the US (paid by the buying vendor), shipping charges apply, for most vendors items of this cost ship free so there is double postage on each brush, and Mark is selling these same brushes through drop ship for what is essentially the wholesale his vendors pay. If that's not bad enough, Simpsons vendors can no longer get 2 band brushes (only available on Simpsons' site) nor Simpsons' standard LE runs (also only available on their site).

If I were a Simpsons vendor I'd be highly ticked off by this whole thing.

129 6,685
 06-13-2014, 09:18 AM
#20
  • MarkW
  • Senior Member
  • Isle of Man
User Info
That's why it has been dealt with.

Have a good weekend gentlemen.

(06-13-2014, 08:43 AM)wingdo Wrote:
(06-13-2014, 07:21 AM)v4257 Wrote:
(06-13-2014, 02:52 AM)Mouser Wrote: Why not let the free market dictate pricing?
You'd think. doesn't it sound like collusion? I'm just asking.

This is a tangent on Min Price agreements. I am not a lawyer but find the subject fascinating and have tried to read as much on it as I can. A great summary is here complete with case law history and current status.

To most people - it feels like that MAP pricing is not in the interest of the consumer. Courts in most countries agree. For e.g. in the UK: "In 1964, the Resale Prices Act was passed, which now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise.". The European Court of Justice also agrees - and MAP pricing is generally not allowed in the EU.

In the US - the law has gone back & forth with MAP being illegal for most of the 20th century. Since 2008 - it is legal federally but status in individual states is untested. MAP must comply with Rule of Reason. This means that MAP must not be detrimental for the consumer. In reality - it is very amorphous.

So the Q becomes - is Simpson's MAP contract legal? Of course opinions will vary - but given the size of the market (super niche) - I think the discussion is moot. I doubt it will ever be tested.

Of course - if every manufacturer imposed MAP pricing - the free market in retail would suffer considerably. So personally I oppose MAP agreements. As always - YMMV.

Let's throw out the MAP argument for a minute. What Mark and Simpsons are doing is a bold slap in the face to their vendors. Vendors have to buy in bulk from Simpsons, there are duties which must be paid when these bulk products enter the US (paid by the buying vendor), shipping charges apply, for most vendors items of this cost ship free so there is double postage on each brush, and Mark is selling these same brushes through drop ship for what is essentially the wholesale his vendors pay. If that's not bad enough, Simpsons vendors can no longer get 2 band brushes (only available on Simpsons' site) nor Simpsons' standard LE runs (also only available on their site).

If I were a Simpsons vendor I'd be highly ticked off by this whole thing.

1 635
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)