Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) - Overseas

[Kym]

Canon and others are starting to enforce MAP
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3304
Which will affect some suppliers (B&H, Adorama etc.)


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

BUT!!!

s48 of the CCA ... http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816378


Suppliers may try to impose a resale price to maintain brand positioning or to give resellers attractive profit margins.
Any arrangement between a supplier and a reseller that means the reseller will not advertise, display or sell the goods the supplier supplies below a specified price is illegal.
It is also illegal for a supplier to cut off, or threaten to cut off, supply to a reseller (wholesale or retail) because they have been discounting goods or advertising discounts below prices set by the supplier.

The reference above makes it pretty clear that Canon cannot in Australia. Ditto Nikon etc.

It will interesting to see the impact on Grey prices.

[Starman]

Hi Kym,

I just checked B&H and while a 5dM3 was advertised for $3499 USD (MAP), they had a discount of $200.

The Australian price comparisons ranged from $2,799 up to $4,299 tonight, so at present it looks like Australian companies (at least by address) are still the same.

Cheers
Starman

[cupic]

Corporation dictates there own policy unfair:yes
Question is what does free trade mean.Is it only one way traffic :(

cheers

[Warbler]

You know, the really stupid thing about this whole thing is that the people selling below the MAP got their gear from someone at a price that doesn't mean they are selling below cost. If they were selling below cost, they wouldn't be doing it for long. Nobody is selling counterfeit Canon gear, so I can only assume that the gear being sold came from a Canon wholesaler. They are their own worst enemy and IMHO the MAP is just there to create a wedge within which an official importer/distributor can reap profits without being undercut by unofficial sources. The ACCC should be looking at the whole retail/wholesale chain for imported products.

[Steve Axford]

I have noticed that B@H sometimes put a little note next to the advertised price which says "just add to cart to see the real price". Then they give you a reduced price. This seems to get around the MAP problem because it isn't an advertised price.

p.s. I note that now they have

price xxx
instant saving yyy
you pay zzz

So the price isn't too low, just the "you pay" amount.

[Mathy]

I feel sorry for specialist Camera retailers in OZ. Having a Nikon V1, I wanted to buy a FT1 mount for it. Price in Australia $395. Price at B&H, $231US landed at my door. I rang my local retailer to see what sort of deal they could cut. Best price? $349 (that's what they pay) plus the cost of going into the city and paying for parking - it's appalling, not just for the consumer but also for the retailer. These products cost $x to manufacture (usually in a low cost environment), therefore they should be sold to all retailers (globally) at the same price, and then let currency exchange rates and freight costs sort it out.

So, I would love the ACCC to actually investigate why our retailers have to pay such inflated prices. And they can investigate the inflated car part prices whilst they're at it. I own a Citroen C4 turbo diesel which has done 90,000+ Km and needs the timing belt done. Cost? $1100, of which the timing belt kit comprises $700. Cost of OEM parts landed at my door from the UK? $120. Give. Me. A. Break! cheers Deb

[Starman]

I did read somewhere that the ACCC or government were starting or had an enquiry re software / hardware, but i don't believe it covered all technology. Nor did I hear of the results.

What is interesting is that the retailers themselves are not kicking up a stink, it is mainly the buyers. I suppose not biting the hand that supplies is sensible.

Cheers
Starman

[Bennymiata]

The fact is, is that there is no law preventing anyone from making whatever profit margin they want to and this is why the ACCC is just a toothless tiger.

While our importer/distributors buy at similar pricing from the factory as they do in the US etc., they need much larger margins to cover their costs.
Their warehouse space costs more per square metre than it does in the US, and the warehouse staff have to earn around $20/hour here, where in the US, they work for $7.50/hour, and in the US, they sell more than 10 times the volume than they do here, so they can afford to sell at much lower margins than our importers here can.
Our retailers make about the same % margin that US retailers make, but their buy-price is much higher.

As I've said before, the camera business comparisons are not anywhere near as bad as many other trades are.
Take sports shoes for example.
A new pair of Nikes in the US will cost you $45-$50, where here you pay over $200 for the same shoes.
A new porsche 911 costs around $75K in the US, but here it will cost you around $250K, so who is ripping off who?

[Mark L]

While I agree with what you've said Benny, for photographic equipment, I'm not so sure about this;


While our importer/distributors buy at similar pricing from the factory as they do in the US etc.,

[bobt]

Personally, I go with market forces - the basic laws of supply and demand.

I have just purchased a Canon G15, the very latest release which has only just hit a couple of shops here.

I went to JB Hi Fi who wanted $700 for it when the US release price is $500. I actually bought it from Hong Kong for $485, which is a huge difference. I'm not going to pay a whacking $200 more simply to support local shops who are selling it at inflated prices.

By the way .... love the camera - it's a great backup to a DSLR.