Slashdot Mirror
Ban On Price Floors Abandoned, Internet Prices May Rise
paro12 and i_like_spam informed us of a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court which abandons a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products. The Slashdot community discussed the issue when the case was argued back in March. The ruling means that anti-competitive complaints based on price-fixing will have to be argued case-by-case and will be harder to prove. Discounts and discounters in all venues may be under pressure, with internet sales possibly the hardest hit. "Importantly, this case points a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly aspects of the Internet. The Internet has shifted power to the consumer in two ways. First, it allows consumers to search for and gather information in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Second, it provides a low-cost means of retailing, making it easy for discounters to offer products to the public. This combination squeezes excess profits and inefficiencies out of product prices. Retail price maintenance seeks to short circuit this extremely consumer friendly process. By setting minimum prices, manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers -- prices that consumers have no choice but to pay."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why is this tagged slownewsday? Is this not something that will in theory affect all internet shoppers?
I thought companies like Apple or Palm already did this - an iPod shuffle is $79 everywhere for example.
Could somebody elaborate?
It doesn't really matter. Retail price maintenance was an issue when manufacturers were big and retailers were little. Today, it's the other way round. Wal-Mart can dictate prices to manufacturers.
Might matter for some luxury goods, like the iPhone, but that's about it.
There's an argument that this is actually PRO-consumer since it makes it possible for businesses to compete on the basis of quality and service instead of being forced to compete on price alone. Price-only competition is surprisingly corrosive since there really is no middle ground on many things -- even if you're willing to pay a 50% markup for quality (and it really is cheaper to pay 50% more if the product lasts twice as long) there's not enough other people to make it economically viable in most cases. Look at t-shirts. You have really cheap junk at Walmart, shirts from other stores that can't charge much more than Walmart so their quality has also suffered, and the $100 designer shirts. No middle ground with good fabric but no handstitching.
I'm not sure I buy this argument, no pun intended, but the race to the bottom has got to stop. I know it's in Walmart's interest that I need to buy a new tv every two years, but it's not in mine.
(Sidenote: I've never entered Walmart/Sam's Club due to this policy and the way they mistreat their employees. Costco, baby, Costco!)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
That was _the_ eminent domain decision. When that decision was made the Court was weighted to the left. It decided that the gov't can take your land and sell it to the highest bidder in the interest of collecting higher taxes.
Basically, it allowed large developers to lower their land acquisition costs. If you want too much for your little slice of heaven, the guys with guns will come and take it away. An erosion of one of the most basic rights in Western civilization.
My only thought when I saw this was, "Jesus F. Christ, they did it *again* already?"
Let's look at this week (which isn't even over yet).
* Can't sue the government for using your money to fund religious groups, effectively overturning the 1968 precident allowing it -- all under the loophole that it wasn't spending specifically approved by congress, but by the executive branch via funding granted by the congress.
* Corporate ads supporting candidates are free speech, and are protected unless "the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
* "Bong Hits For Jesus" isn't free speech, and isn't protected (meaning that schools can now kick people out for saying almost anything that the school doesn't like).
* Efforts to desegregate schools can't look at the race of students. In other words, while a school can't officially be "whites only", it effectively can't be stopped from actually being whites only because the district can't consider race in school assignment and, more critically -- if you go by the majority's wording -- cannot even be monitored to know if they're unofficially skewing a school towards racial segregation. All this despite racial integration proving to be one of the few things in education that significantly improves the average academic scores of an area without a significant increase in funding.
And now, this -- effectively saying, "welcome back, collusion" and gutting the effectiveness of antitrust legislation.
Depressing, depressing.
(I think I missed one of the frustrating early-week ones, too)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
You actually hit on the right answer.
This is affecting small groups that cannot negotiate prices directly and can harm them on BEHALF of wal-mart.
Wal-Mart can demand a lower price, something they already do, but smaller groups cannot demand lower prices.
This makes it so that everyone just goes to Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart now has the ability to severely undercut prices while smaller, local groups have to sell them at high prices or not sell them at all. At worse they will even be forced to keep stock that they cannot return because they cannot sell the stock. That is the reason you have sale prices in the first place, it is to get rid of stock that you can't sell at the regular price.
Now they will just have to burn the stuff or something, not sure exactly, but in the end the company that sold it to them got their money already.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
So, presumably, how it would work is:
/.'ers.
1. Internet seller sells Item by Manufacturer below MDBP (Manufacturer Demanded Base Price).
2. Manufacturer "bans" this. Since they do not have legal power, they'd ask distributors to stop distributing to that silly sod.
3. Distributors that disobey risk never getting shipments of Item anymore, so they comply.
4. Internet seller doesn't get Item anymore and can't sell them at Low Low Prices (tm).
Hmm... assuming that's how it'd work...
5. Progressive Manufacturer Alpha makes a competing product for Item: Item Alpha. They don't have an MDBP.
6. Distributors carry Item Alpha.
7. Internet seller gets a few lots of Item Alpha.
8. Item Alpha now gets sold at Low Low Prices.
9. Item loses market share to Item Alpha.
If you accept the above as not being very farfetched, then you accept that manufacturers act in their own disinterest by colluding for minimum prices. And that by lifting the ban it doesn't automatically follow that everyone's going to do it.
Even if I'm completely wrong about this, that's still always going to be the grey market from overseas, so, don't get your cheetos in a huddle,
More Twoson than Cupertino
First of all, this only said that there are some cases where vertical price restraints are legal. It did not say that they're all legal. In fact, the opinion listed several situations where they're almost certainly illegal.
For the most part, manufacturers don't want to impose price maintenance -- they BENEFIT when their dealers sell at low prices. Why? Well, here's an example: say Apple sells iPods to dealers for $100, sets a retail price of $200, and 5 people buy it. Apple now has $500. Let's say they don't set a retail price, and (because of competition), the retail price stabilizes at $130, and 7 people buy it at the lower price. Apple now has $700. Which one is better for Apple? Both manufacturers and consumers want dealers to make as little profit as they can.
Here's an example why vertical price restraints should not all be illegal: Suppose that you build sailboats, which are somewhat complicated, not many people know a lot about them, and there are a lot of first-time buyers. Your dealers, then, spend a lot of time and money educating the customers, maintaining showrooms, teaching "what to know before you buy your boat" classes, and so on. These things are very expensive, and consumers benefit by having them. The problem, though, is that if one of your dealers does all the education, and another doesn't, the second one will undercut the first one's prices. As a result, customers will go to the first dealer, look at the boats and take the classes, then go buy the cheap boat from the second dealer. Eventually, the first dealer either goes out of business or just stops offering all those extra services. If the manufacturer can set a minimum retail price, he can stop the second dealer from doing this free-riding. Now, the two dealers are still competing with each other, but they're doing it on something other than price -- they're doing it on service. So, consumers may get longer dealer warranties, or dealers may offer free storage or maintenance.
That's all well and good if there are a lot of products on the market that meet your demands, but if your demands are enough that you already know which product you want, this seriously undercuts your ability to save money.
For example, a few years ago, I decided on a specific LCD HDTV (an extravagant purchase that I still regret to this day). At the time, MSRP for the set was $8999. All retail outlets sold it for that price. However, I was able to go online and buy it for only $5499. Had the price floor been set at MSRP or something else favorable to the big retailers, I could've lost thousands of dollars in the purchase.
As an internet shopper, I am pleased by this decision because this will also mean the end of the stupid bargain/rebate/shoparound/missed discount remorse routine.
Yeah, well to nuts to that, my friend. I'd rather know that I missed out on the best deal possible than to know that I never had the opportunity to avoid getting gouged because of legalized price fixing. Besides, price comparison search engines will let you easily get pretty close to the best possible prices out there if you look right. Froogle exists for a reason.
Also, if you're going to argue that the existence of alternate products makes this irrelevant, then you should consider that having to compare alternate products negates the advantage of not having to look around for the best discount. I seriously can't believe, though, that you'd rather everyone be gouged than you feel the remorse of missing out on a sale.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I've believed ever since Samuel Alito was nominated that the single worst legacy of the Bush administration will be nomination of Judges Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, and that those nominations will go down as the worst failures of the Democratic Party to display a spine and stand against Bush's radical ideology.
Roberts is a pretty traditional conservative in most (but not all) ways, which can be bad enough, but Alito is just an out and out fascist who believes strongly in no restraints on executive or corporate power. We're going to be feeling the aftershocks of this administration for decades thanks to the both of them.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
We can all read the SCOTUS decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-48 0.pdf
What it says is not all price flooring is automatically illegal (per se). If the pricing is used to generate services or differentiate the product within a market to be competitive then why not.
What SCOTUS is arguing is that price flooring needs to be decided on it's merits (rule of reason). They say, it is still illegal to have price flooring within a manufacturing cabal. It is also illegal to have price flooring for a monopoly (as if that makes any difference). Generally price flooring is illegal if it is anticompetitive and legal of it is pro-competive.
As to the sale of handbags, anyone can make a handbag and thousands do. In this case the manufacturer had floor pricing to maintain marketing material and consumer cache. This manufacturer wanted a small botique feel to the sale of their products and not a Walmart experience. The retailer in question just wanted to boost sales by under cutting smaller shops and make their margin on volume. The retailer had signed agreements to price floors.
In this case, I too favor the manufacturer. SCOTUS has not thrown out the Sherman act, but merely noted that price flooring in certain circumstances can be OK. I'll still buy handbags at WallyWorld.
Granular decision making: Good
machinator omnis sine licentia
This simply reeks of protectionism for big US manufacturers...
l asticity) will determine what happens as prices rise. In fact artificially high prices may cause additional suppliers to enter the market to compete (an increase in supply) which will cause a surplus of the product which in turn will lead to lower prices as manufactures try to entice consumers to buy. Ultimately unless you impose tariffs or other trade barriers, or all manufacturers collude (and fix prices) the market will solve the problem.
But as any economist will tell you price fixing generally doesn't work well for the economy or consumers as a whole. It may temporarily benefit one industry or sector but is generally undesirable. It is better to let uncompetitive companies face the pressure of competition and either become competitive or go out of business.
If people have a finite amount of money to spend and prices are higher they simply buy less.
They may buy less of different products, for example if the price of gas goes up and people still need to buy the same amount gas, but may not go on vacation or buy a new TV (this is why the price of oil is so important).
Basic concepts of supply and demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
drive pricing. Price elasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#E
Tariffs and other trade barriers are coming down with globalization, and price fixing involving collusion is highly unlikely between a competitive manufacturer, and an uncompetitive one. The competitive (ie lower cost) manufacture is better off selling at a lower price and taking the business for themselves and putting their competition out of business.
Besides the internet puts global manufacturers within reach of US customers. If prices go up in retail stores in the US because of all US manufacturers setting bottom prices, people will simply buy from outside of the US, and a huge gray import market will open up. At least for high value items, where the difference in price is significant.
If anything this is just one more nail in the coffin of US manufacturing. The legal changes may give them a temporary false sense of security, but realistically companies that fail to please the market (ie consumer) by providing good value simply don't last.
Just think what artificially high CD prices have caused people to do. They've found their music online (legal or otherwise).
Or think region codes and DVDs. Many Europeans buy their DVDs online from the US because they don't want to wait for the European release.
This is no different. Shipping costs are not that high (especially not for large volume gray market imports).
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
Sorry. Doesn't work that way in the real world. Those cheap t-shirts they sell at Wal-Mart are often not the same ones you buy in another store, for one thing. Thus, this ruling has little impact on their products. In addition to often carrying products by different manufacturers, they also quite frequently get special sourcing of custom, cost-reduced versions of products (particularly in electronics). Such products won't be affected in any way.
Even ignoring that, though, the Wal-Mart chains of the world, however, who have huge buying power, will still be able to do what they do now: say "You don't like it, fine. We're not carrying your product." Most manufacturers can't cope with the sudden drop of revenue when this occurs, and basically keel over and die. Thus, Wal-Mart is pretty much insulated from strong-arm tactics by nearly all manufacturers.
The people this will hurt most, contrary to the opinion of five SCOTUS justices, are the mom and pop shops. Now, the manufacturers will be able to tell those stores that they have to meet a minimum price while other manufacturers of similar products are still caving to Wal-Mart's price demands. The result will be that the disparity between Wal-Mart prices and prices at smaller stores will increase, driving those smaller stores even more quickly out of business.
There is simply no way to not see this as a serious blow to consumers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.