Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies on gun stuff

I'm seeing a lot of manufacturers pressuring online retailers with Minimum Advertised Price policies ("MAP", for short). The manufacturer sets a certain price as "MAP", and retailers can't advertise a price that's lower than MAP. The retailer can charge less than MAP, but can't put the price where buyers can readily see it.

Crimson Trace is enforcing their MAP policy. They make online retailers require customers to click the Add to Cart button or something like that in order to see the below-MAP price. The price can't be advertised anywhere else, either.

Trijicon also has a pretty aggressive MAP policy.

With Crimson Trace, they allow retailers to put "add to cart to see our price", so the customer could see the price right away. Trijicon won't even allow the price to be shown in the shopping cart. That presents a couple of problems: customers can't see the price right away, nor can they see the price when they're buying.

All of the manufacturers who push these MAP policies cut off the offending retailers by putting them on a "no sell to" list, and sending that list to all distributors.

With Trijicon, if the retailer still doesn't comply, they hit him with the threat of a trademark infringement lawsuit, saying that the name "Trijicon" is trademarked, as are the names of their products. So, the retailer not only can't show the price, he can't say what it is he's selling.

There's not much doubt in my mind that retailers like Cabela's, Optics Planet and others who do mega-volume with the manufacturers are pushing those manufacturers to enforce MAP policies.

The result is that consumers are nervous about not seeing the price up front, and most won't try to find out what it is. Retail is a zero sum game, so the big outfits selling at MAP win the sales, and the consumers don't realize they could have saved a lot of money elsewhere. Sometimes the savings are hundreds of dollars.

This is all legal, which is mind-boggling.

oneounceload, it's many of the little guys who are lower on price (because they're not well known) who are getting squeezed with the MAP policies. The least expensive retailers for Crimson Trace, Trijicon and others brands usually are the small retailers with "price on request" on the product page, and because of a MAP policy by the manufacturer.

Cabelas, Optics Planet and other big retailers are charging $20-$40 more on a set of laser grips, or $200-$300 more on an ACOG because they're well known. The smaller outfits are often the ones who have to compete using price because they don't have the name recognition. There are distributors whose wholesale prices are low enough to allow small stores to still make a decent profit while pricing below the big guys.

Do a little searching for ACOG's or Crimson Trace grips and see who has the lowest prices. You'll probably find you have to contact some retailers to find out their prices are the lowest.

Sorry Monkey, that has not been MY experience - mine has been the opposite as I have stated

Click to expand...

That's okay. Let me give you an example.

Crimson Trace LG-401 laser grips for a full-size 1911:
Crimsontracelaser.com (a little outfit): $247.95, price not shown until you click on something, per MAP requirements
Cabelas: $299, price shown
OpticsPlanet: $299, price shown
Cheaperthandirt: $299, price shown
Bud's: $299, price shown
Able Ammo: $299, price shown

Notice a pattern with the $299 price? That's MAP.

If shooters-resource had them in stock, you'd see that you have to add them to the shopping cart to see their price ($247.95), per the MAP policy. With them out of stock, you can't see the price at all, but instead have to contact them to be put on backorder.

I could do this all day for Crimson Trace, Trijicon and other manufacturers.

Dude welcome to the retail game and by the way the map pricing is there to protect those brick and mortar stores who's overhead eats up their profit where as some Internet store run out of a basement who's overhead is zilch or next to zilch from under cutting the price so the brick and mortar stores are able to sell product.

I myself would rather pay more and deal with a large retailer as most one man shows I've dealt with in the past have been nothing but a pain.
Not everyone has a Walmart mentality.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.

Why is it mind boggling? It is capitalism at its finest. If you don't like their policies, don't buy the item. Crimson Trace will be fine without your business. It sucks for the consumer but it is what needs to be done to enhance profits and that is important for stockholders.

Click to expand...

What's mind boggling is that the company would do something that "sucks for the consumer". Crimson Trace (or whoever) is going to sell just as many laser grips no matter what the retail price. Actually, they'd probably sell more if there were more retailers with lower prices, as it would allow those with a bit less money to buy.

Crimson Trace makes the same amount no matter what the retail price is, so why keep those with lower budgets from buying? If it's the image they're trying to maintain by keeping up prices, then why have a $50 off rebate sale that makes it clear that there's $50 in the price that's over and above what they need to still make a profit? Doesn't that say they're overpriced to begin with?

It's not just manufacturers that make it mandatory... some large retailers demand the manufacturer have a MAP policy or they won't carry the product.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought.

All I know is if I don't see a price beforehand I don't buy.

Click to expand...

That's right, and there's many people like you, and that's why forcing retailers to hide the price winds up making many people pay a lot more than they have to. If you could buy the same laser grips for $248 as you could for $299, which would you buy? Or a Trijicon for $1400 versus $1700?

These companies are skating very close to the thin ice when it comes to price-fixing and restraint of trade laws.

Nice part is the internet, though. It's helping to undermine these sorts of policies.

Google shopping/products, for example, can read the price from multiple sites, even though if you actually visit the site you'd have to add it to your cart. Google does the work for you and displays it all in a list so you can easily compare.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's the internet retailers that the companies are primarily pursuing. Most companies will allow brick and mortar retailers to show any price they want inside the stores. They just don't allow the retailers to advertise below-MAP prices outside the store.

On the internet, most companies enforcing MAP policies don't allow the merchants to advertise below-MAP prices in places like Google Products. That's a violation of MAP policies, and the companies will pursue internet retailers who have below-MAP prices shown in Google Products, even if they don't show prices on their websites. They give the retailers an ultimatum: show MAP prices in Google Products (or elsewhere) or don't show the products at all in Google Products.

That's called retail pricing; after all, those places ARE retail establishments. No different for any other type of products

Click to expand...

Yes, those are retail prices from retail stores.

But that's not the point. All of those big retailers are charging $299. Not $298 or $297 or $300 or $301. $299. (Well, one of them had a carefree spirit and posted $299.99).

The point is that those are the minimum prices that can be shown under Crimson Trace's MAP policy. Any less and the stores couldn't show the price. That's not MSRP, that's MAP. Two different animals.

Also for a company like CT they want their product to be viewed as a premium product. Allowing people to sell it at a loss harms their companys image and it value.

Click to expand...

Who's selling CT at a loss? Even the low-price retailers are making a profit, just not as large a profit as the MAP price sellers. Further, and to repeat myself, if it's image that CT is worried about, then why have a $50 factory rebate sale that shouts "there's $50 in our price that we can actually live without and still make money"?

Look at Colt. They keep their prices high. They limit distribution and create value. They sell every single gun they make at a reasonable profit margin. Why on earth would you want to devalue that with a volume based model?

Click to expand...

The more common view I've seen of Colt is that they're saddled with high labor costs and are unable because of their problems to produce enough guns to seriously compete with the likes of Kimber, Springfield Armory, etc. That may not be the reality, but it's what I read on the gun forums.

I completely understand the concept of perceived value. I was an advertising photographer for 30 years and, in advertising, perception is everything. I priced myself amongst the highest in my area, as my work was as good as the best in the area. Most of my competitors undercut me on price, and sometimes by a lot. They sold on price and volume.

Guess who made a lot of money and are retired right now, and who, despite the high prices, didn't make as much and won't be retiring?

That's not my point, though. My point is that there are retailers willing to sell a product for considerably less than their competitors, and give consumers a better deal, but the manufacturers do everything possible to squeeze those retailers out. And it's the consumers who lose.