Haha, I see GAK are in trouble too. That was my local store. Naughty boys! I used to get some sweet discounts from them from time to time, but I emailed them about a Model:Samples they had, B-Stock, at something like £320 and highlighted it was over new RRP, said I’d offer them £225.
Someone from the offices replied and said they couldn’t lower the price of an open box one below the listed price of £320!
So I don’t know what happened there. I recall looking at other prices and seeing they were crap on something too. Maybe new management. For sure the guys that used to work on the shop floor haven’t in the last year or two.
I don’t see why a government should be allowed to dictate what prices a company wants its products to sell for, this isn’t the same as price gouging, it is about protecting the brand.
If I’m a music store and I want to shift some unsold units of a certain bit of gear, shouldn’t I be allowed to decide on the price? I’ve already paid the manufacturer for them, so if I want to sell them at very little profit, or even lose money on them (to attract customers, or just get them out of my stock room) that should be my choice.
If the manufacturer says they’ll refuse to deal with me in future then they are using their size and power to prevent me running my business how I see fit.
That’s how I understand the rules anyway. I’m not a music store, or a lawyer, or a cartel 
I think that is slightly different, and yes I think of course that should be allowed, provided the manufacturer is cool with it and is being done for genuine reasons.
Transparent and clear pricing is important and protects consumers, no doubt, but I think that price wars are potentially harmful to companies and their employees.
Well it’s a two way street, if you do not give them the freedom to choose their retailers , you are preventing them to run their business as they see fit.
If they wan to protect their brand and not devalue their brand or the market, it should be their choice not yours.
You as a retailer has a choice, to either accept the terms or deal with another manufacturer, so should they.
Forcing cooperation never works.
If the reseller bought the stock isn’t it their property at that point and can (should) they be able to sell it for what they need to? If they need to have a sale to drive up some traffic it shouldn’t be rolands business.
Unless retailers operate on a sale or return basis with the manufacturers?
The government is not dictating what prices a company can sell its goods for. Roland can sell its products to retailers for whatever price it chooses. The government in this case is protecting the rights of retailers to set their own prices for resale to consumers.
In the free market, the retailer has to be allowed to set its own prices - to do otherwise is anti-competitive, and is not in the interests of the consumer (as shown here, what happens is you get collusion that prevents the product falling to its “natural” market price). The only way to do it differently is heavy regulation across the board, and that ain’t happening in the UK.
It all depends on the contracts between the manufacturers and retailers which should be entered freely and not controlled by 3rd party.
I’v worked in the retail business for many years and there are all kinds of different deals/contracts which benefits both parties.
Those who wants to solely vilify the manufacturer don’t understand the business or simply wants the government to control the open market.
When we were making pedals we were very serious about MAP (minimum advertised price) which is really only there, from our perspective, to protect smaller dealers. A guitar center or something could afford to sell our stuff at a stupid low profit, while a mom and pop could not.
We were constantly plagued by MAP violations, and bundling (buy this pedal get a free cable and picks or something)
And uh… eventually we just quit.
MAP isn’t legal in the UK.
Nobody is vilifying anybody here.
In most countries in the EU it’s not, but it’s legal to have a recommended “market price”.(in most EU countries i believe) Of course there is no law to support that the recommended price is followed.
But it can be regulated very simply by a manufacturer choosing which retailer to sell to. You can’t force a manufacturer to sell to all retailers or to anyone specific. Nor are they obliged to have the same price to all the retailers, naturally the manufacturer who wants a stable price margin for everyone does not shift their prices much.
I did not say you personally did, but for anyone who do not understand the business it’s easy to do.
Yes, that’s the point I’m making. MAP doesn’t work without a large amount of regulation. RRP / SRP is supposed to regulate itself… until manufacturers and retailers collude to fix prices.
My point is that in most countries the manufacturer are not bound by law to deal with retailers they do not wish to deal with, so it’s regulated simply by that.
I hadn’t heard that before, but it wasn’t ever an issue for us, import taxes and things like that make it pretty hard for a UK dealer to price gouge our stuff and profit.
I think the more government get involved the worse it becomes for businesses, sure certain things need to be regulated by government, but business stuff like minimum/maximum pricing should be up to the manufacturer, not government. If a product was priced too high for consumers then they simply won’t buy it, fuck all to do with government IMHO.
But I’m anti “big” government anyway, so ymmv.
Would not be surprised if Korg and Roland stuff in the UK becomes more expensive now, given the fines.
MAP/MSRP is all that is needed IMHO.
I noticed Juno had stopped offering Roland on their website and wondered if it was due to being called out for low pricing.