105 and Ultegra

Friday Wrote:
I once emailed Shimano Australia and they replied by saying they had to
charge more to cover for advertising and because they have a smaller
turnover than the "states". They added that they give better service
than the mail order companies too.

It didn't sound very convincing.

FridayI don't know if this is the case for cycling equipment in general or
Shimano in particular, but, for many other kinds of goods,
manufacturers set different wholesale prices for different markets. The
wholesale cost that the local distributor pays may be higher than the
retail prices in other countries! Add to that the fact that PBK and
other big sellers may get OEM (cheaper than wholesale) pricing, it
makes it very difficult for local retailers to compete on price.


--
roshea

Donga Wrote:
On May 8, 10:09 pm, gplama gplama.2q9...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
John Pitts Wrote:



Some LBS's are finding that it's quicker and cheaper to quietly
order
some items from PBK than from their suppliers...

'quietly' meaning illegal parallel imports? (not that I'd know the
first thing about commercial importing though).

Quite the opposite. Competition reforms to federal trade law in recent
years were explicitly aimed at making parallel imports legal. I also
understand that it is illegal to try to circumvent these laws by
formal or informal agreements - known as cartel behaviour or price-
fixing. I have picked up a few hints that there is no shortage of this
sort of activity in the industry, e.g. shops not getting to distribute
certain brands (from the Aust agent) if they discount etc. There is
even a widely known example of a shop that does parallel imports and
sells cheaply, that was allegedly drummed out of advertising in a
major magazine.

Donga
Correcto. Current phrase for that general sort of behaviour is
"anti-competitive conduct".

But there are ways around the competition law restrictions. I recently
replaced my dishwasher. I wanted a Miele. I found the one I wanted and
started a subtle discussion that would lead to talking about how keen
they were to sell it to me, and therefore how reasonable the price
would be. I told the salesman I wasn't going to sign up there and then
as I wanted to talk to a few other shops about price. He stopped me
there and said that no shops would discount as Miele didn't let them.

I worked for the Trade Practices Commission in the 1990s and ran a
number of court cases where people's conduct was anti-competitive.

I was getting ready to tackle Miele for their anti-competitive conduct
when the salesman told me that no-one could discount Miele products as
no-one retailed their products. The shops where you see Miele are just
agents who display the product on behalf of Miele. You actually buy the
product from Miele itself. And Miele does not discount.

They have very simply got around the 'resale price maintenance' part of
the competition law.

So I negotiated a $700 discount out of price of the fridge I was buying
at the same time.

(what has this to do with cycling? - bugger all unless you count the
fact that I wash my water bottles in the dish washer)


SteveA


--
SteveA

"SteveA" wrote in message
...

Donga Wrote:
On May 8, 10:09 pm, gplama gplama.2q9...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
John Pitts Wrote:



Some LBS's are finding that it's quicker and cheaper to quietly
order
some items from PBK than from their suppliers...

'quietly' meaning illegal parallel imports? (not that I'd know the
first thing about commercial importing though).

Quite the opposite. Competition reforms to federal trade law in recent
years were explicitly aimed at making parallel imports legal. I also
understand that it is illegal to try to circumvent these laws by
formal or informal agreements - known as cartel behaviour or price-
fixing. I have picked up a few hints that there is no shortage of this
sort of activity in the industry, e.g. shops not getting to distribute
certain brands (from the Aust agent) if they discount etc. There is
even a widely known example of a shop that does parallel imports and
sells cheaply, that was allegedly drummed out of advertising in a
major magazine.

Donga
Correcto. Current phrase for that general sort of behaviour is
"anti-competitive conduct".

But there are ways around the competition law restrictions. I recently
replaced my dishwasher. I wanted a Miele. I found the one I wanted and
started a subtle discussion that would lead to talking about how keen
they were to sell it to me, and therefore how reasonable the price
would be. I told the salesman I wasn't going to sign up there and then
as I wanted to talk to a few other shops about price. He stopped me
there and said that no shops would discount as Miele didn't let them.

I worked for the Trade Practices Commission in the 1990s and ran a
number of court cases where people's conduct was anti-competitive.

I was getting ready to tackle Miele for their anti-competitive conduct
when the salesman told me that no-one could discount Miele products as
no-one retailed their products. The shops where you see Miele are just
agents who display the product on behalf of Miele. You actually buy the
product from Miele itself. And Miele does not discount.

They have very simply got around the 'resale price maintenance' part of
the competition law.

So I negotiated a $700 discount out of price of the fridge I was buying
at the same time.

(what has this to do with cycling? - bugger all unless you count the
fact that I wash my water bottles in the dish washer)


SteveA


--
SteveA

There's one bike distributor that jars with me as a bike shop owner. I have
to commit to x number of bikes (the number is set by them) or I'm not
allowed to buy any of that brand. I'm told that it's because it stops the
guy down the road from buying just one bike and undercutting me when I've
made the commitment to the distributor, so thats much more fair (!). Seems
to me that that's business - that's how all the other brands operate. Some
demand that I carry a number of bikes on the floor at all times, but the
number is small, so I have no problem with that. The idea that I have to
commit to buying the number of bikes set by them (not by me) for the year is
what galls me.

They distribute 3 popular brands, so I can't afford not to stock their
product but I have to buy more than I need, making their sales targets my
problem. I've wondered if the practice is contrary to fair trading but I'm
so new in the game it's best not to make waves. Sucks though...

me

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 09 May 2007 13:19:00 GMT
Plodder wrote:

There's one bike distributor that jars with me as a bike shop owner. I have
to commit to x number of bikes (the number is set by them) or I'm not
allowed to buy any of that brand. I'm told that it's because it stops the

COuld be worse, at least it is bicycles... A while back the new
importer of an expensive and not well known (but with a history)
revived Italian brand of motocycle would only have dealerships on a
similar model. The dealer had to commit to buying x number of bikes a
month, and the importer refused to carry spares, requiring the dealer
to have a minimum spares inventory and then any others would have to
be flown from Italy at dealer expense.

You can see why there were almost no dealers for that marque!

I suppose though if Honda did it, then dealers would have to roll over
and take it...


Zebee

On May 9, 11:19 pm, "Plodder" wrote:
"SteveA" wrote in message

...





Donga Wrote:
On May 8, 10:09 pm, gplama gplama.2q9...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
John Pitts Wrote:

Some LBS's are finding that it's quicker and cheaper to quietly
order
some items from PBK than from their suppliers...

'quietly' meaning illegal parallel imports? (not that I'd know the
first thing about commercial importing though).

Quite the opposite. Competition reforms to federal trade law in recent
years were explicitly aimed at making parallel imports legal. I also
understand that it is illegal to try to circumvent these laws by
formal or informal agreements - known as cartel behaviour or price-
fixing. I have picked up a few hints that there is no shortage of this
sort of activity in the industry, e.g. shops not getting to distribute
certain brands (from the Aust agent) if they discount etc. There is
even a widely known example of a shop that does parallel imports and
sells cheaply, that was allegedly drummed out of advertising in a
major magazine.

Donga
Correcto. Current phrase for that general sort of behaviour is
"anti-competitive conduct".

But there are ways around the competition law restrictions. I recently
replaced my dishwasher. I wanted a Miele. I found the one I wanted and
started a subtle discussion that would lead to talking about how keen
they were to sell it to me, and therefore how reasonable the price
would be. I told the salesman I wasn't going to sign up there and then
as I wanted to talk to a few other shops about price. He stopped me
there and said that no shops would discount as Miele didn't let them.

I worked for the Trade Practices Commission in the 1990s and ran a
number of court cases where people's conduct was anti-competitive.

I was getting ready to tackle Miele for their anti-competitive conduct
when the salesman told me that no-one could discount Miele products as
no-one retailed their products. The shops where you see Miele are just
agents who display the product on behalf of Miele. You actually buy the
product from Miele itself. And Miele does not discount.

They have very simply got around the 'resale price maintenance' part of
the competition law.

So I negotiated a $700 discount out of price of the fridge I was buying
at the same time.

(what has this to do with cycling? - bugger all unless you count the
fact that I wash my water bottles in the dish washer)

SteveA

--
SteveA

There's one bike distributor that jars with me as a bike shop owner. I have
to commit to x number of bikes (the number is set by them) or I'm not
allowed to buy any of that brand. I'm told that it's because it stops the
guy down the road from buying just one bike and undercutting me when I've
made the commitment to the distributor, so thats much more fair (!). Seems
to me that that's business - that's how all the other brands operate. Some
demand that I carry a number of bikes on the floor at all times, but the
number is small, so I have no problem with that. The idea that I have to
commit to buying the number of bikes set by them (not by me) for the year is
what galls me.

Shimano Australia do that, to a certain extent, with shoes. Unless
you carry a full range (or some approximation thereof) you can't order
a single pair of shoes from them. This sucks for me because I like
their shoes, but we're too small to carry the range, so I have to
pay ... RETAIL for them! Urgh!