http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087840110661643.html
Rejoice americans!
The result probably is that us europeans now will get double triple raped.
Anyway, for everyone who thinks coffee equipment prices are bad, check Grado headphone prices in Europe, while keeping in mind Grado forbids their american retailers to ship to Europe. They don't want to price competitively in Europe because they feel they can't compete against Sennheiser. They feel that way because they don't sell a lot in Europe.
Ahwell, the Allessandro's are also a good option.

Edited because i have no idea why sentence nr.3 got posted again at the end of the post.

Rejoice americans!

I'm sorry you think we would celebrate your misfortune.

The result probably is that us europeans now will get triple raped.

I didn't get that from the article at all. Could you elaborate?

Prices in Europe tend to be higher because the mfg's charge the same in euro's as in dollars and over that already higher price, we pay more tax. It is so bad that even our prince bought an iPhone in NY, and not here in Holland. Since the manufacturers will make less profit because they can't exploit the MAP thing in America, they will probably charge more here in Europe to compensate.

iPhone seems like a silly example; It must be purchased with a contract, or on pay-as-you-go, and the price is largely determined by local telecom companies who suffer from varying degrees of abject evil. I'm not trying to absolve Apple of the sin of evil multinational corporationism, but certainly the price of that phone is all over the map... all over the map.

I'm not saying there aren't other examples, but I would certainly question your implication of the US killing MAP/MSRP as a cause for manufacturers hiking prices in Europe. I'd think that the international money market would be a bigger foe for you guys than MAP/MSRP.

HB wrote:I would gladly pay MSRP and your higher taxes if it meant 20% less hours of work per year, not to mention other financial advantages like [near] universal health care, state-sponsored tuition, retirement benefits, etc.

I spend 2 months a year in France (in fact I'm in Lyon, France, as I type this) and would not trade this time for anything, but . . . .

I'm nowhere near as impressed with the "quality of life" here for average people as Dan seems to be. I think it depends entirely on specifically where you live in Europe and what you do (including what your work actually entails and how much money you get paid for doing it). There are a whole host of variables here, and for a large percentage of French people their quality of life is (in my view) WORSE than that of the average American.

Over about 4 years, I've had occasion to work, learning French, with about 8 young French people who were working in my town in Idaho. Only one of these people was happy to go home at the end of his or her work stint. One of them, my most recent French teacher, went so far as to propose to an American woman, in part for the promise of a green card to work in the USA. I think he will end up living in the USA for most of the rest of his life. My other most recent teacher, with whom I'm working through the month of May, has been fighting a losing battle to try to get his visa extended to allow him to continue working in Idaho. To say that he and his wife are unenthusiastic about rejoining the French workforce would be an understatement.

ken

HB wrote:Indeed, I can only speak from experience with my employers, IBM USA and IBM France. My French colleagues complained about how poorly they were compensated relative to those in the US. Only after living there for a few years and becoming eligible for the same benefits they enjoyed did my viewpoint change. They're spoiled and few of them realized it.

Working conditions aside, the quality of life difference I refer to isn't entirely based in economics. For example, American conversation is dominated by work because an American's identity is tightly coupled with their profession, hence the perfunctory question, "What do you do for a living?" When I worked at IBM France, talking about work outside of work was viewed not only as gauche, but sad (as in "Do you have nothing else worth talking about? Is your life really that boring?"). The discussions I enjoyed in France were far more lively than those in the US, but that's a topic better suited for one of my Overextracted threads.

I just got off my Paris to San Francisco flight. While waiting to get off the plane after arrival at the gate, a flight steward who had struck up a long conversation with me and a woman passenger on the flight (whom I had met before by coincidence, the owner of a French winery, who is an American by birth but has lived in France for 40 years) went into a near tirade about how unpleasant life is in the Paris area. He said that everyone does whatever they want, they throw trash everywhere and make noise without reference to how it impacts others. He said he can only tolerate be outside or on public transport with headphones on to block the noise made by others. He said that only the rich people in French cities enjoy tranquility, that the quality of life for the rest of them (including himself) was poor.

He said he was coming back to San Francisco on another flight in a few days and was looking forward to spending 2 weeks of vacation in the San Francisco area where he could relax and be free of the hassles of everyday life where he lives in the Paris metro area.

My earlier conversation with this flight steward was just some chit chatting in France and had nothing to do with any of this. His near-tirade reaction came when I asked him what he was going to do in San Francisco during his layover from this flight . . . . .all of these conversations were in French.

Obviously, peoples' experiences differ and I would not want to generalize other than to say that most of the French people I know personally who are middle income and who have experienced living and working in the USA, seem to prefer the way of life in the USA to what they have experienced in France.

ken

You cannot take Paris as representative of France just as you cannot take NYC as representative of the US. I spent 9 years in France "en provence" and Parisians were looked down upon. As a native "rotten appler" I understood that and didn't want to live in Paris as much as I don't want to live in my home town now.

Marvin

iginfect wrote:You cannot take Paris as representative of France just as you cannot take NYC as representative of the US. I spent 9 years in France "en provence" and Parisians were looked down upon. As a native "rotten appler" I understood that and didn't want to live in Paris as much as I don't want to live in my home town now.

Marvin

I don't like big cities either, however I think you could say much the same things (above) that were said about the Paris metro area, about Lyon, Marseilles, and at least several other large cities in France. If we are going to talk about the life in the countryside, then you have to compare apples to apples.

People living in the French countryside that I have personally met, who enjoy a reasonably good standard of living, tend to be self employed people running their own businesses. Those that I have met and know who meet this description tell me that they live well because they work 24/24, e.g. 24 hours a day. Examples would include people owning and running small wineries, owning small hotels, and the like. These people don't enjoy extensive vacations in the same way that salaried people do, unless they (the middle class owners) take the time off themselves, which is then going to be reflected in their bottom lines. They avoid hiring very many employees to reduce their exposure to French work rules which make profitability difficult.

Those people I have met (and there are very many of them) living in the French countryside who are salaried employees in the types of businesses one finds there (hotels, restaurants, agriculture, wine production, etc.) are no where nearly as well compensated as Dan was in his work. They very seldom go out to restaurants, and they have to try hard to get their small budgets to stretch to provide a reasonably quality of life for themselves and their families.

I had occasion to visit several wineries this last month, by appointment, for tasting visits. I only got these appointments because I'm a good customer of their American importers. In most every instance getting the appointment was difficult because the vigneron/owner had to take time away from his dusk to dawn fieldwork and other chores to see me. One of them told me he is working all day, every day this time of year (includes the weekends).

Another specific example is a small hotel I stayed in for 2 days in Uzes, near the famous Pont du Gard. The owner works in the hotel all day long as receptionist, then reappears for lunch and dinner in the dining room as a waiter, with only one other serving person (plus a chef) working for him. We had many conversations during my visit. He told me he was successful only because he works 24/7.

My personal opinion of what Dan wrote about this mythical French lifestyle is that it is somewhat dated, and that things have deteriorated even in the last few years since Dan left. It is also my impression that Dan had a better job and was better compensated than the great majority of French workers. He probably associated mostly with people in more or less the same level of employment and compensation. The kind of job Dan has is not something you can have living in Provence. You will have to live in Paris or some other big French city to experience what Dan experienced. And, the huge majority of the other French workers out there who enjoy perks such as Dan describes (many weeks of vacation; health insurance, etc.) are probably somewhat less enthusiastic about their quality of life as Dan seems to have been satisfied with his.

ken

Yes, we here, in Europe, have the same problems as original poster. Only with US products, being 2x more expensive than they are over the ocean. It is sometimes even so ridiculous, that it pays off to buy a plane ticket, fly to New York, buy the stuff there, and fly back with it. And one still saves some money.

Vad wrote:Yes, we here, in Europe, have the same problems as original poster. Only with US products, being 2x more expensive than they are over the ocean. It is sometimes even so ridiculous, that it pays off to buy a plane ticket, fly to New York, buy the stuff there, and fly back with it. And one still saves some money.

I used to regularly buy French-made stuff during my long trips in France, bringing the stuff back home because it was a lot cheaper than the same items in the states. With current exchange rates I no longer do this since most everything in France is frightfully expensive when compared to similar stuff available in the U.S.

Most everything in France seems now to cost about 2x as much as the same items sell for in the States. The only items I bring back from these trips now are things with other added value (to me), such as a set of engraved steak knives I bought this last trip that came from my favorite restaurant in France. I'll think of the restaurant each time I use those steak knives, but were it not for those sentimental values, I would not have bought the knives at all.

ken

When I lived in France over 2 decades ago, I would buy my Italian made bicycle parts in the US as they were cheaper here than in either France or Italy due to the "TVA"- value added tax.

Marvin

Back in the olden days when I worked retail (at a small independent shop), we really liked MAP.

It meant that we (as a local retailer) had a half a chance of getting the customer's business.

Numbers out of nowhere department:

ABC corporation obviously gives volume discounts. If you buy by the piece, you get one price. If you buy by the case, you get 10% lower than that. If you buy by the pallet, you get another 10% off. If you buy by the intermodal shipping container, you get another 10% off.

MAP was always above the per-piece wholesale price. That way, when a potential customer came in with a magazine advertisement from some firm out of New York City that bought by the shipping container and sold mail order (not having to maintain a showroom), we could say "we can match their advertised price", and we didn't lose money. We could move around some prices, we could put together package deals, we could provide splendid customer service, we could reinvest in the local economy, and we managed not to lose our shirts (for the most part). (We still had a few problems because mail order places weren't charging sales tax, but we had to - and most customers conveniently forgot that they were obligated to report their untaxed purchases and pay the appropriate use tax on them.)

Manufacturers sell to dealers (or distributors), not individuals. Protecting the dealer network is in the interest of the manufacturers - dealers write the checks to manufacturers.

Honoring MAP means that you can select a vendor based on the quality of service they provide, rather than on which one has managed to cut the most corners to reduce overhead to the point where they can afford to sell it for 6% over wholesale.

Showrooms, service departments, toll free numbers, and expertise are not free.

Now, putting my rant back on topic: you'll enjoy your coffee more if you don't have a headache from fighting the system to save a dime.

Espin wrote:Back in the olden days when I worked retail (at a small independent shop), we really liked MAP.

It meant that we (as a local retailer) had a half a chance of getting the customer's business.

Numbers out of nowhere department:

ABC corporation obviously gives volume discounts. If you buy by the piece, you get one price. If you buy by the case, you get 10% lower than that. If you buy by the pallet, you get another 10% off. If you buy by the intermodal shipping container, you get another 10% off.

MAP was always above the per-piece wholesale price. That way, when a potential customer came in with a magazine advertisement from some firm out of New York City that bought by the shipping container and sold mail order (not having to maintain a showroom), we could say "we can match their advertised price", and we didn't lose money. We could move around some prices, we could put together package deals, we could provide splendid customer service, we could reinvest in the local economy, and we managed not to lose our shirts (for the most part). (We still had a few problems because mail order places weren't charging sales tax, but we had to - and most customers conveniently forgot that they were obligated to report their untaxed purchases and pay the appropriate use tax on them.)

Manufacturers sell to dealers (or distributors), not individuals. Protecting the dealer network is in the interest of the manufacturers - dealers write the checks to manufacturers.

Honoring MAP means that you can select a vendor based on the quality of service they provide, rather than on which one has managed to cut the most corners to reduce overhead to the point where they can afford to sell it for 6% over wholesale.

Showrooms, service departments, toll free numbers, and expertise are not free.

Now, putting my rant back on topic: you'll enjoy your coffee more if you don't have a headache from fighting the system to save a dime.

Reading this one could get the impression that the government has some sort of vested interest in the quality of service that an independent purchaser gets from a merchant when he or she buys some particular good, and further, that it is in the interest of the government to promote one sort of merchandising model (such as a small independent shop) over another, such as a big box retailer or other sort of "category killer" merchant.

I would submit that there is room in the marketplace for merchants who provide real service (at a price) and for those who provide almost no service in exchange for better pricing. I live in a small resort type community where outdoor recreation is the most popular way to spend your free time. As such, we have a lot of sporting goods stores selling every sort of outdoor oriented piece of equipment you can imagine, such as high end bikes, skis, snowshoes, hiking boots, backpacks, and everything else. I would never think of buying a bicycle or a pair of skis by mail order, because I value the service I receive from my favorite merchant(s) when using this sort of equipment regularly. On the other hand, I have yet to receive any sort of useful service on the purchase of a pair of hiking boots or a backpack, regardless of price, so I buy this sort of stuff on the internet for half price (or less).

Why it would be in the interest of the government to push me towards any particular sort of retail transaction, or to favor the employees of some small local shop over those working for an internet business, is beyond me. I think the government has enough things it needs to do which it is not doing, that we should not be wasting our time or the time of government agencies to be getting in between willing parties interested in buying and selling, whatever are the terms that they can agree upon.

The producer of high end goods (the sort that mfrs. want to control pricing of) can choose who they sell their merchandise to for resale. Walmart does not sell Gucci products nor those from Mazzer the last time I checked. If these manufacturers are unable to control the behavior of the businesses they sell to, then they need to select their resale merchants better. It is not in the interest of the government, in my opinion, to get in the middle of these transactions, enforcing any sort of pricing, for any reason.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:Reading this one could get the impression that the government has some sort of vested interest in the quality of service that an independent purchaser gets from a merchant when he or she buys some particular good, and further, that it is in the interest of the government to promote one sort of merchandising model (such as a small independent shop) over another, such as a big box retailer or other sort of "category killer" merchant.

Last I checked, MAP is a contract term between manufacturer (or distributor) and dealers. It's a way of saying "sell it for whatever price you want, we won't twist your arm - but be quiet about it, don't shout from the mountaintops that if someone buys it from you, they'll save 40% over their local dealer."

Ken Fox wrote:The producer of high end goods (the sort that mfrs. want to control pricing of) can choose who they sell their merchandise to for resale. Walmart does not sell Gucci products nor those from Mazzer the last time I checked. If these manufacturers are unable to control the behavior of the businesses they sell to, then they need to select their resale merchants better. It is not in the interest of the government, in my opinion, to get in the middle of these transactions, enforcing any sort of pricing, for any reason.

... and that's what MAP does. The manufacturer (or distributor) enforces MAP, not the government. If you advertise below MAP, expect not to receive any further shipments. It's not because the police show up and confiscate your inventory; it's because the manufacturer says "We don't think you're playing fair by the terms we laid out at the beginning and we expect everyone to abide by, so we're not going to let you play any more."

A customer is free to try to negotiate a better price, the industry is not colluding to say "nobody will sell Product RQ for less than $873", they are saying "we all agree to not race to the bottom by advertising things for $1 over cost."

... and that's what MAP does. The manufacturer (or distributor) enforces MAP, not the government. If you advertise below MAP, expect not to receive any further shipments. It's not because the police show up and confiscate your inventory; it's because the manufacturer says "We don't think you're playing fair by the terms we laid out at the beginning and we expect everyone to abide by, so we're not going to let you play any more."

A customer is free to try to negotiate a better price, the industry is not colluding to say "nobody will sell Product RQ for less than $873", they are saying "we all agree to not race to the bottom by advertising things for $1 over cost."

Which is, interestingly enough, flat out illegal in some countries, Australia being one of them. Refusing to supply a reseller because you don't like their prices is called "Abuse of Market Power" and has resulted in humongous fines for companies stupid or ignorant enough to try it. In fact, the whole MAP and MSRP thing is illegal here. A wholesaler is allowed to Recommend a Retail Price (RRP) but is not permitted to enforce it in any way.

Alan

Alan Frew wrote: In fact, the whole MAP and MSRP thing is illegal here. A wholesaler is allowed to Recommend a Retail Price (RRP) but is not permitted to enforce it in any way.

Alan

Our MSRP is your RRP isn't it? (suggested retail vs recommended retail).

Alan Frew wrote:Which is, interestingly enough, flat out illegal in some countries, Australia being one of them. Refusing to supply a reseller because you don't like their prices is called "Abuse of Market Power" and has resulted in humongous fines for companies stupid or ignorant enough to try it. In fact, the whole MAP and MSRP thing is illegal here. A wholesaler is allowed to Recommend a Retail Price (RRP) but is not permitted to enforce it in any way.

Alan

Fascinating. I enjoyed learning about that one.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=801189&nodeId=4783021f23be781f6396709e69b16a48&fn=Resale%20price%20maintenance.pdf

I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are ways around it, like the distributor/importer/manufacturer may pay for your advertising provided the advertising is in compliance with their MAP policy. (Businesses surfing the grey area of legality in search of profit? Never.)

It's probably just a fundamental difference in philosophy - Australia seems to be focused on the rights of the individual in this case, where the USA seems to be focused on letting big business do what it wants.