Business >
Business News & Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas the US Supreme Court right to allow manufacturers and distributors to create resale price agreements?
Results so far:
| No | 51% | 37 votes | Total: 72 votes | |
| Yes | 49% | 35 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe big guys get together and there's only one loser - you and I. If companies can effectively fix prices, there's only direction prices are going to go - and it isn't down. The courts are supposed to protect the interests of society as a whole. I cannot see how those interests are being protected if the courts say to businesses, 'Sure, get together and set a price you want for your goods.' It stifles competition, which in the end leads to poorer quality goods. What pride do manufacturers have in their products if they know they are going to sell for $X come what may? If they were genuinely competing with an opposition company, then firms would have to keep on their toes. Quality and value for money are what the consumer demands. But with resale price agreements they aren't going to get them.
Learn more about this author, Phil Hill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
While it may seem that this ruling hurts consumers, the concern of the court is constitutionality and law, not necessarily what is best for a buyer. It is and should be legal for buyers and sellers (manufacturers and distributors in this case) to agree to contract terms to govern their relationships.
Please notice that I said "legal", not "wise". In reality I think this ruling will have minimal effect on most markets and brands. Few manufacturers have the brand strength to demand and enforce price agreements. In most cases, the manufacturer is more dependent on the distributor/retailer to carry its goods than the retailer is on having them. Aside from a few high end brands, most attempts at resale agreements would simply cause the retailer to go to a competitor's product.
Even in the case of a brand strong enough to demand price agreements, it is not always in the interest of the manufacturer to do so. Retailers making some products available at reduced prices can increase the recognition of the brand, and make the more expensive "top line" products sought after to "trade up" from the discounted basic models. Propping up prices can also allow room for competitors to enter the space and compete on price, so artificially inflating prices can be risky in the long term.
Finally, manufacturers can only push for price agreements as far as the market will bear. Insisting that retailers sell for $500 when the market will only pay $400 is a sure way to fail, and "the market" is made up of consumers like you and me. If the item you want costs more than you want to pay, vote with your wallet and don't buy it! In time, either sales will fall and prices will follow, or you want items that are simply more expensive than you can afford. I may strive to buy Burberry and Louis Vuitton, but pricing agreement or not they simply cost more than I can pay and complaining will not change that. A little mental readjustment and you'll be amazed at the savings when you stop buying the "brand" and start buying quality items regardless of the name on the label.
Learn more about this author, David Janke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Business News & Issues
- Do Motorola's falling sales rates represent a temporary dip or signal doom for the company?
- Was Whole Foods CEO John Mackey using business smarts or acting unethically when he promoted his company through an online alias?
- Is Wal-Mart bad for America?
- The 2012 Olympic Games in London will damage the British construction industry
- Should large companies maintain high ethical standards?
- Can the Fed's new tools fix our ailing economy?
