The Demise Of The Sf Discount Part2 - Page 17

Mauro when the tylenol doesn't fix the headache feel free to contact me too. I'm sure between Gavin and myself we'd be able to come up with something that'll work for you.

I'll be looking at the site when it launches!

Wow, there are some of us here. I work in strategy and product development for an online display and text ad exchange. We do all sorts of targeting, but main is real-time, page-level contextual.

Mainly focused on web-based analytics tool. We integrate with major ad servers, but then break performance down more granularly down to contextual level - impressions, clicks and conversions (both view and click-through). So you'll know how your ads are performing on all your buys and then also break it down by content type and creative you ran. Pretty cool.

And yes, the eyes glaze over when I try to describe to my layman friends. Don't think most here care about SEO, SEM, affiliate marketing and the like. Make something a member's only privilege and then it's not worth most retailers' time. This presumes that most members are the ones clicking the links and driving the lion's share of conversions. But my guess is there are a lot of dudes (and gals) out there in the aether coming through google and other search engines and clicking around the links.

So here's the scenario:
1. Guy types in 'filson messenger' into google.
2. Sees link to styleforum in results and clicks it. Actually it's the 5th result.
3. Looks at the thread. Sees Crane's above as the first affiliate icon.
4. Looks in affiliate thread and sees code. Uses it to buy messenger and gets discount.
5. Crane's gets purchase revenue from user
6. Styleforum gets affiliate kickback or whatever revshare agreement is in place
7. All are (relatively) happy.

That's the most straightforward scenario. You make that code or affiliate link a member's only privilege and that ain't happening. And retailers leave cos their marketing spend here is less effective and then styleforum doesn't get the kickback. And then less money to run the site and no one's happy. Or something along those lines.

Now that the marketing and sales analysis guys are piping in I have a question.

Certain retailers - even big retailers like Amazon - do not reveal the price of certain items directly: the customer has to first add the item to the cart before he can see the price. Why is this? Is it to skirt some sort of pricing policy by the manufacturer? If so, it seems like pointless dance, but then again, I am not supportive of price fixing.

I am not 100% clear on how the affiliates discount works. However, is it possible that APC, EG, and Woolrich are simply misinformed, or are misinterpreting the transactions? The affiliates are NOT selling the apparel items for a lower price, correct? They are advertised and sold at the agreed upon fixed price: however certain affiliates reward customers by issuing a discount on their purchase totals. It has nothing to do with the sales price of the items ;-). If the affiliate has an agreement to sell items at the MSRP and for example, advertises and sells a $100 item for $80 I could see that as a breech of an agreed upon price: but if the affiliate lists the price at $100 and sells the item for $100, but rewards certain customers with a discount on the order, it doesn't appear to violate a pricing policy. It is still a $100 dollar item.

Very interesting questions, I was wondering the same exact thing.

They don't see it that way which in my opinion is out of line. Since they are the manufacturer all they do is cut you off until you do what they say. Of course I've heard all their "justifications" and most of them are bunk. Some of them need to read the Supreme Court decision and understand that what they are doing can be challenged. In any case the retail market sucks right now so they should play it smart and leave us retailers alone. If WE do not carry their product then they go out of business, not the other way around.

My understanding from a B&M perspective was to get the customer into the store. From the online side, I thought it was to keep their prices out of certain web crawlers that aggregate item/price lists. Could be off though.

Me too actually. Especially because of his WAYWNs.

It's a common practice with certain electronics and apparel manufacturers. It's a standard called "Minimum Advertised Price." Canon is a good example of this. They tell their retailers that a certain camera cannot be advertised for a price lower than xxx amount. Online listings count as "advertising," so they can't post the lower price on the first page. When you add it to your cart, it's become a transaction - so that price can be discounted. Huge mass-market vendors often work this way. I think that it's a pain in the ass. It's so frustrating to buy a Canon camera, because you have to look at 100 different outlets - some more or less legit than the next - to ferret out the lowest price. And just to be clear, United States trade rules absolutely prohibit price fixing. If you have a store, you can buy anything you want (provided the vendor wants to sell it to you) and sell it for whatever price you see fit. Sell a EG vest for $10. A Woolrich shirt for $25. Hell, you could sell a Rolex for $5 if you want. Once you buy it, you can do whatever you like with it. The only control that vendors can exert is whether they choose to keep you as account. If you violate the terms that they dictate, then they can choose not to sell you again in the future. For some brands like these discounting on the internet is an issue. For a lot of them, international shipment is forbidden. For a hot brand like Woolrich - with a great sell-through rate at full price - the threat of cutting off future shipments is a very real incentive to play by their rules. Hell, my first job out of school was Men's Shoes Assistant Buyer for Lord & Taylor (don't ask - it was horrible), and I had the same restrictions from Timberland and Kenneth Cole "Collection." It's actually pretty common.

Do your homework again. The Supreme Court ruled in the manufacturers favor regarding set pricing. It could be straight MSRP or a MAP price, doesn't matter. If the company finds out you are selling below that price point they can cut you off, period. Of course the court left it open for case by case evaluation but the law as it stands now favors the manufacturer.

As far as I understand, the Manufacturer can cut you off for any reason they like. Maybe you're selling too cheap, maybe you brought in other product they don't like, maybe they're pulling back distribution in your area, etc.

But you're right - vertical price fixing between a manufacturer and retailer is not a violation.

And I'll second the Filson thing. I actually bought a bag from you last year - with the discount (thank you!) - and I keep thinking about another one every time that your username pops up.