HaHa! Oh Dear, Roland and Korg!

What has that got to do with a retailer discounting their stock?

You’re attacking a straw man, nobody said that.

The way I understand it, the manufacturer wants to avoid bargain basement dealers who sell the gear at rock bottom prices but with little or no customer service, no aftercare, no expert staff who can give customers advice to get the right product for them.

If everybody buys their synths from cheap-and-nasty.com because they’re slightly cheaper than the bricks and mortar stores, then the established bricks and mortar stores go out of business. That means no showrooms where customers can demo the gear and no experienced advisors to help customers. That can mean unhappy customers who end up with the wrong gear and a bad experience of the brand.

I think that’s the theory anyway.

It was a comment regarding who the protect brand from in general, the view here seems to be very narrow focusing on that retailers aren’t allowed to set their own prices. Which they are, but they might not have any products to sell…

Dumping prices will devaluate a service or product over time. There is also something called brand perception.

Big corporations are often seen as that.

Fine. Just know you’re putting power with corps and their lawyers who have no interest in transparency or accountability, or even a functioning market.

The open letter from the UK CMA to the industry says it’s illegal for a supplier to reduce supply or stop trading with a retailer as a result of them lowering prices:

“Whilst it is generally lawful for a supplier to recommend retail prices for retailers, in
these cases, the supplier threatened retailers with sanctions for not pricing at or above a specified price. Such threats included suspending retailers’ accounts, delaying deliveries, reducing supply, increasing the trade prices retailers paid or in one case ceasing trading with them entirely.”

In our country there is no law to state any reason for not trading with anyone, is the UK any different ?

Government forcing cooperation is a useful as hand full of poo. :slight_smile:

I didn’t state that at all, and I certainly don’t think that either.

A brand setting a minimum price for the products it makes should be their decision, not the government’s, distributors, retailers and consumers have all the freedom they want not to buy it if they don’t see the value in the price. Competitors are free to make goods that they can choose to sell cheaper, which they do.

1 Like

Behringer are like the £/$/€ store, their business model is sell something so cheap that people will buy it, even if they didn’t really want it before, it is a time proven strategy, feeding into peoples love of a perceived deal.

They undoubtedly sell a lot of product, product based on the ideas of others, but they have zero flair, zero innovation and people who buy Behringer only buy it because of the low price as far as I can tell. Nothing wrong with budget gear, but don’t think you are paying budget prices and getting premium gear.

There are plenty of people who won’t buy Behringer but will buy the other brands, because those people realise that there is a difference aside from the price tag, if you don’t think there is a difference and you think that Behringer is great then they have done their job well.

1 Like

I bought my BCR2000, because it was back then the only controller of that size with these features and I bought my Behringer patchbay, because on the Neutrik for the same price, you need quite a bit of force to pull the plugs out.
Had to built a rack first and didn’t want to pull the patchbay across the desk each time i plugged smt in or unplugged smt.

Besides that…don’t like Behringer at all and the patchbay always looks at me in a strange way with its 48 eyes…

3 Likes

Are you seriously suggesting that people don’t really like the sounds or features of Behringer gear but decide to buy anyway purely because of the price?

If you have never purchased any Behringer gear how have you determined that it is not “premium”, whatever that means.

Some of these arguments don’t really take notice of retail in general, They are plenty of premier brands that do reduce prices by huge amounts.

Timberland is a perfect examples, they cost about £180 in the UK but as soon as they have new colours, they never ever change the classic models, there will be discounts on the last batches of colours/ detaiing . So here’s a brand selling the same premium product and discounting purely on colour. The item itself and its usefulness is always the same.

2 Likes

There is a world difference between campaigns and a retailer dumping prices well below the market price to get ahead.

Also generally discounts is not something the retailers eat up, but is actually something they get from the distributor which in turn get it from the manufacturer. In other words the campaign does not eat up the margin for the vendor.

1 Like

Well no midi cc on their clones is a budget decision, no? Compared to say Cyclone Analogic or Roland whose clones do have full midi cc, and cost more.

I never really remarked on how they sound, though I have said in the past some sound ok, some don’t.

I think peoples opinions on sound quality are highly variable, nothing wrong with that, but you can’t expect a Behringer product to sound exactly like the original from which it is based, fair?

1 Like

No he is saying price is the main factor, and the rest is good enough.

For me it’s more a matter of principle than anything else.

No CC? What? I thought you were mistaken, but it seems you’re correct. I knew it seemed to good to be true. That’s a shame. well, that’s them crosssed off my list, I just thought it was a reasonable assumption on my part they would have CC

You’r talking about different things, and again the retailers rarely eats up the cost when it comes to big campaigns. Having a Loss leader has very little to do with price dumping in this context. The premise is also to have a very limited supply to draw customers in.

What’s your argument? What are you trying to argue for? You just seem to be saying “everything else is wrong, because I think so”. Try and summarise your overall point in a few words.

1 Like

If you expect me to summarise the thread for you, you will be disappointed.

I suggest you read it again if it was unclear.

Regarding because “i think so”, all opinions shared here is naturally based on what we think.

That says it all, if you can’t summarise your argument in a few lines you clearly don’t understand the subject you’re talking about.

Don’t forget there’s two things going on here. One is the brand selling a product to a retailer, the other is the retailer selling that product to a consumer. The brand can suggest a retail price at which the retailer can sell to a consumer, but what they can’t do is force that retailer to sell for a certain price (or penalise them for doing so). That’s called retail price maintenance which is illegal in many jurisdictions as it fixes prices between retailers and thus prevents retail price competition, with bad results for consumers.

The brand should be free to set whatever wholesale price they like (or sell direct to public if they want), just as a retailer should be free to sell that product to consumers for whatever they like. Brands dictating prices is anti-competitive.

So in short, we need government regulation to enforce competition and prevent aggressive companies creating monopolies for themselves. Remember that the aim of all capitalists is to destroy their competitors so they can make more profit (through a lack of competition). It’s how the market works, and why we need strong regulators.

3 Likes