Polar put Polar4Less.com out of business

newsbirdie-<< We felt a 25% profit margin was MORE THAN ACCEPTABLE >><BR><BR>

Then you don't have a clue as to what a 'break even' margin for bicycle
products is. 25% is not it.
Polar has the right to protect it's distribution, has the right to not supply
if somebody is discounting their products, and jeapardising a legit re-seller.

A reseller of anything call sell at whatever price they wish and a disctrobutor
has the right to sell to whomever they wish also.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Quoted message said:

Polar has decided to FORCE companies to advertise their products at a
HIGHER PRICE than what we wanted to sell their products at.
We felt a 25% profit margin was MORE THAN ACCEPTABLE
POLAR feels that we needed to ADVERTISE AT A HIGHER PRICE
LISTED BELOW ARE OUR FORMER PRICES and POLAR's FORCED PRICE
MAYBE YOU SHOULD RETHINK BUYING A POLAR PRODUCT UNTIL THEY ALLOW YOU
TO SEE PRICES THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR WANTS TO SELL YOU THE PRODUCT FOR.
ALL WE TRIED TO DO WAS SAVE THE CONSUMER $$$
AND THAT COST US OUR POLAR DISTRIBUTORSHIP

--

I find this totally unacceptable. I'm suprised it's not illegal. Can
we let Polar get away with this? If we do we'll continue paying very
high mark-ups for our watches. I hope some Polar competitors come up
with some good quality products to compete with Polar, and if I can I
will help them do so by buying my next HRM from a company other than
Polar.

-Michael

Many items are sold in this way. This is not to say they are not
discounted; they can only be advertised at the MSRP. Go to the B&H Photo
website or J & R Music World to see examples of some consumer electronics
items which are advertised with the MSRP, and then they ask you submit an
email address (or call them) to get the actual selling price.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

newsbirdie-<< We felt a 25% profit margin was MORE THAN ACCEPTABLE

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Then you don't have a clue as to what a 'break even' margin for bicycle
products is. 25% is not it.
Polar has the right to protect it's distribution, has the right to not

supply

Quoted message said:

if somebody is discounting their products, and jeapardising a legit

re-seller.

Quoted message said:

A reseller of anything call sell at whatever price they wish and a

disctrobutor

Quoted message said:

has the right to sell to whomever they wish also.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

What you say is 100% accurate. People may not like it, but it's the way
things are allowed to work in the USA.

What is also true is that the consumer shouldn't have any second thoughts
about your profit margin, and for that matter the distributor shouldn't
either. If you as a business owner can make it work with a smaller profit
margin, and you believe that competing on price is a valid parameter, let
the competition begin! If you are selling at a higher price, but offer
services that others don't, and you believe that superb service is a valid
business parameter, let the competition begin! Some will be winner and some
losers - let the market decide. Ultimately policies like Polar's let weak
players hide from natural market forces, and long term that will not benefit
those players.

I understand MSRP enforement policies a little more where items are sold
that require a high training or service component. In effect part of the
selling cost goes towards providing those services, and if the retailer
isn't doing it well, the burden falls back on the manufacturer. I don't
view Polar HRM watches as this type of item. They are pretty simple
devices.

Peter Chisolm said:

A reseller of anything call sell at whatever price they wish and
a disctrobutor has the right to sell to whomever they wish also.

"That's a pretty naive statement. When a distributor insists that
its vendors sell a product at a certain price or the vendors will be
cut off, that's considered price fixing, and price fixing is illegal
in most states:

"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or
service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal.
The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with
another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a
fixed price within a certain market...For example, where competitors
agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum
price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an
agreement, they are in violation of price fixing."
http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm

Here's a comparable case:

"In 2002, all 50 states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Salton,
Inc., the distributor of the George Foreman barbeque grill.  The
suit alleged that Salton coerced retailers into charging a specific
price for the grill and also coerced them into removing
competitors¹ grills from their stores.  The suit was settled by
Salton for $8.0 million, with the proceeds going to the states for
distribution to charities or government agencies with health care
responsibilities.

"It is unlawful under the antitrust laws for a product seller and
its customer to agree on the minimum price at which the customer
will resell the product.  While a 1919 Supreme Court decision
declared it lawful for the seller to suggest a resale price, it is
still illegal to coerce compliance with the suggested price.  There
is a fine legal line between a suggestion and coercion."
http://tinyurl.com/5hcpp

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

NewsBirdie said:

Polar has decided to FORCE companies to advertise their products at a
HIGHER PRICE than what we wanted to sell their products at.

Common practice. Note the company can SELL them for anything it wants,
but it can't advertise them for less than Polar's standards. So you need
to email or call the company instead of browsing. Inconvenient, but no
biggie.

Paul Cassel said:

Quoted message said:

Polar has decided to FORCE companies to advertise their products at a
HIGHER PRICE than what we wanted to sell their products at.

Common practice. Note the company can SELL them for anything it wants,
but it can't advertise them for less than Polar's standards.

That's commonly called a Minimum Advertised Price agreement, and the
FTC has real problems with it. See the following case for example:

"The substantial anticompetitive effects of these programs, balanced
against the absence of plausible efficiency rationales for them,
give us reason to believe that these programs constitute
unreasonable vertical restraints in violation of Section 5 of the
FTC Act under a rule of reason analysis."

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/mapanalysis.htm

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Quoted message said:

newsbirdie-<< We felt a 25% profit margin was MORE THAN ACCEPTABLE >><BR><BR>

Then you don't have a clue as to what a 'break even' margin for bicycle
products is. 25% is not it.
Polar has the right to protect it's distribution, has the right to not supply
if somebody is discounting their products, and jeapardising a legit re-seller.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Polar4Less was happy with a 25%
profit margin, which is what they had with their discounts. That
means the other places that charge the Polar-enforced prices must have
a lot more, I'd guess 50%. I agree with Polar4Less, 25% does seem
like it should be enough.

Look at books as an analogy: We can buy books at Barnes & Noble for
the "list price". Or we can order them from Amazon.com for 30% off.
Now imagine if all the book publishers told Amazon they couldn't sell
30% off any more and had to sell for list price. Not only would
Amazon be out of business, the customer would lose. This is exactly
what's happening with Polar4Less!

-Michael

Paul Cassel said:

NewsBirdie said:

Polar has decided to FORCE companies to advertise their products at a
HIGHER PRICE than what we wanted to sell their products at.

Common practice. Note the company can SELL them for anything it wants,
but it can't advertise them for less than Polar's standards. So you need
to email or call the company instead of browsing. Inconvenient, but no
biggie.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

AND THAT COST US OUR POLAR DISTRIBUTORSHIP

According to this Polar4less.com will not be selling Polar at *any* price.

Phil M.

--
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make
them all yourself." ­Martin Vanbee

Terry Morse <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisolm said:

A reseller of anything call sell at whatever price they wish and
a disctrobutor has the right to sell to whomever they wish also.

"That's a pretty naive statement. When a distributor insists that
its vendors sell a product at a certain price or the vendors will be
cut off, that's considered price fixing, and price fixing is illegal
in most states:

Actually the unilateral setting of a price by a company is probably
not actionable, what is generally prohibited is an *agreement* between
two parties to fix prices.

Quoted message said:

"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or
service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal.
The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with
another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a
fixed price within a certain market...For example, where competitors
agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum
price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an
agreement, they are in violation of price fixing."
http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm

Bingo! Operative word- "AGREE"

Quoted message said:

Here's a comparable case:

"In 2002, all 50 states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Salton,
Inc., the distributor of the George Foreman barbeque grill.  The
suit alleged that Salton coerced retailers into charging a specific
price for the grill and also coerced them into removing
competitors¹ grills from their stores.  The suit was settled by
Salton for $8.0 million, with the proceeds going to the states for
distribution to charities or government agencies with health care
responsibilities.

"It is unlawful under the antitrust laws for a product seller and
its customer to agree on the minimum price at which the customer
will resell the product.  While a 1919 Supreme Court decision
declared it lawful for the seller to suggest a resale price, it is
still illegal to coerce compliance with the suggested price.  There
is a fine legal line between a suggestion and coercion."
http://tinyurl.com/5hcpp

Yes the fine line becomes very difficult to discern.

DR

"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisolm said:

A reseller of anything call sell at whatever price they wish and
a disctrobutor has the right to sell to whomever they wish also.

"That's a pretty naive statement. When a distributor insists that
its vendors sell a product at a certain price or the vendors will be
cut off, that's considered price fixing, and price fixing is illegal
in most states:

"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or
service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal.
The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with
another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a
fixed price within a certain market...

There is a difference between price fixing and minimum *advertized* price
(MAP). They do not care at all about the price that it is sold, but
advertizing at lower than the dealer agreement MAP is bad for all of the
dealers.

For example, where competitors

Quoted message said:

agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum
price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an
agreement, they are in violation of price fixing."

They have *no agreements about the sale price*. The issue is the
*advertized* price. OK?

Quoted message said:

http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm

Here's a comparable case:

"In 2002, all 50 states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Salton,
Inc., the distributor of the George Foreman barbeque grill. The
suit alleged that Salton coerced retailers into charging a specific
price for the grill and also coerced them into removing
competitors¹ grills from their stores. The suit was settled by
Salton for $8.0 million, with the proceeds going to the states for
distribution to charities or government agencies with health care
responsibilities.

I hope you now see this is not the same situation.

Quoted message said:

"It is unlawful under the antitrust laws for a product seller and
its customer to agree on the minimum price at which the customer
will resell the product. While a 1919 Supreme Court decision
declared it lawful for the seller to suggest a resale price, it is
still illegal to coerce compliance with the suggested price. There
is a fine legal line between a suggestion and coercion."

Of course, but that is not what happens in these cases as discussed. Ever
see a web site with a price section that says "call for price"? That is SOP
(standard operating procedure) for dealers that are respecting MAP but
*selling# for lower prices.

Terry Morse <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Paul Cassel said:

Quoted message said:

Polar has decided to FORCE companies to advertise their products at a
HIGHER PRICE than what we wanted to sell their products at.

Common practice. Note the company can SELL them for anything it wants,
but it can't advertise them for less than Polar's standards.

That's commonly called a Minimum Advertised Price agreement, and the
FTC has real problems with it. See the following case for example:

Gee, that's really stopping companies from doing it. They all must be
quaking in their boots.

dkl

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Gee, that's really stopping companies from doing it. They all must be
quaking in their boots.

The FTC may change their mind and do something about it. I hope they do
because it is simply another way to do price fixing.
---------------
Alex

DirtRoadie said:

Actually the unilateral setting of a price by a company is probably
not actionable, what is generally prohibited is an *agreement* between
two parties to fix prices.

And I think this Polar case is a clear cut one. Polar "suggested" a
retail price, vendor chose a different price, Polar cut off the
vendor in retaliation. Sounds like coercion to me. This type of
thing happens all the time, but it's usually too small to make it
onto the FTC's radar screen.

Quoted message said:

Yes the fine line becomes very difficult to discern.

Based on what's been presented, this case looks like a bold line.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Chris said:

Ever
see a web site with a price section that says "call for price"? That is SOP
(standard operating procedure) for dealers that are respecting MAP but
*selling# for lower prices.

The FTC takes a dim view of MAP, also. See the recent CD antitrust
consent decree, for example.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Douglas Landau said:

Quoted message said:

That's commonly called a Minimum Advertised Price agreement, and the
FTC has real problems with it.

Gee, that's really stopping companies from doing it. They all must be
quaking in their boots.

Sarcasm? Let me try:

The federal enforcement of antitrust laws is the best our tax
dollars can afford.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

TMorse-<< Peter Chisolm wrote: >><BR><BR>

ChisHolm, please. Hammish Chisholm would be horrified.

T Morse-<< "That's a pretty naive statement. When a distributor insists that
its vendors sell a product at a certain price or the vendors will be
cut off, that's considered price fixing, and price fixing is illegal
in most states: >><BR><BR>

Geezzz, this comes up as often as helmet wars. It is NOT price fixing, has been
hashed in the courts(US) many times and it is POLICY of many manufacturers and
distributors.

As I said, the reseller can sell Polar for whatever pirce they wish, they can
give it away iof they want but Polar 'may' not supply them in the future...

You can whine about discounters of shimano, Rockshox, polar, Look, and probably
many dozens of other bicycle products not being able to get product after they
discount, but it is what it is.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Peter Campagnolo said:

As I said, the reseller can sell Polar for whatever pirce they
wish, they can give it away iof they want but Polar 'may' not
supply them in the future...

You can whine about discounters of shimano, Rockshox, polar,
Look, and probably many dozens of other bicycle products not
being able to get product after they discount, but it is what it
is.

Let me get this straight: If a distributor only "suggests" a retail
price, that's does not constitute price-fixing. Okay, fine. But if
there is any "agreement" between distributor and dealer on retail
price, that is obviously illegal price-fixing. Also fine.

But if the dealer chooses to sell product at a discount, and the
distributor denies product to that dealer in retaliation, that's NOT
price-fixing. If that's the case, our antitrust really messed up.
Agreement or no agreement, the desired minimum price is still
maintained, and consumers still take it in the shorts. From the FTC
website (my caps):

"It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to AGREE on a
minimum resale price. The antitrust laws, however, give a
manufacturer latitude to adopt a policy regarding a desired level
of resale prices and to deal only with retailers who INDEPENDENTLY
DECIDE to follow that policy. A manufacturer also is permitted to
stop dealing with a retailer who breaches the manufacturer¹s resale
price maintenance policy."

So in summary:

price maintenance agreements -- bad
price maintenance policies -- good
net effect of either -- identical

Wow, our antitrust laws truly are messed up! Hopefully we can fix
that when the REpublicans loose their strangle-hold of Congress.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

I can agree with limited price fixing if there is a benefit to it, like a STOCKING distribution system. But when the distributor is nothing more than a pass-through and there is no value added, I find this repulsive.

Case in point, I paid, up front, for the Polar Power Sensor system at my local bike shop. Full price. I thought I would get full service all the way up the stream but the distributor sat on the order from my LBS and after two weeks, NOTHING! Now what is even worse is terms between the distributor and my LBS is by credit card only. No Net30, 45 etc. Basically COD.

Polar and its distributors must justify what value they are adding with the so-called distribution schemes. They are SCREWING the LBS and the end user and for that, I cannot recommend Polar products.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

TMorse-<< Peter Chisolm wrote: >><BR><BR>

ChisHolm, please. Hammish Chisholm would be horrified.

T Morse-<< "That's a pretty naive statement. When a distributor insists that
its vendors sell a product at a certain price or the vendors will be
cut off, that's considered price fixing, and price fixing is illegal
in most states: >><BR><BR>

Geezzz, this comes up as often as helmet wars. It is NOT price fixing, has

been

Quoted message said:

hashed in the courts(US) many times and it is POLICY of many manufacturers and
distributors.

As I said, the reseller can sell Polar for whatever pirce they wish, they can
give it away iof they want but Polar 'may' not supply them in the future...

You can whine about discounters of shimano, Rockshox, polar, Look, and

probably

Quoted message said:

many dozens of other bicycle products not being able to get product after they
discount, but it is what it is.

It is price fixing any way you look at it. What is happening is that someone
is tell a retailer how much they have to charge in order to continue selling
the product.
---------------
Alex

Let me reiterate my point, I don't mind paying a bit extra if I can get the product withing a week. But to pay full price for an expensive item, only to have the distribution channels take their sweet time to fill my order is irresponsible. Either Polar needs to prune their distribution chain or allow stocking retailers to charge whatever price they feel is fair.

Shimano needs to do the same. 4 years ago I could get parts within a week from my LBS at the same price national mail order catalogs listed. Not so today, it takes two weeks. I might as well order online.