False advertising in banners contained on HC

[thefyn]

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/clearance?src=BNMFPRMA&ZYXSEM=0

Led me to a "sale" which promised up to 96% off.

It turns out the retail prices are vastly inflated in order for these deals to look legit.

EG:

This is what is listed in the sale as the item with the most % off guitar wise:

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product?sku=520053X

Here is the same item on Zsounds:

http://www.zzounds.com/item--DNESPLT

Since this is an area for counterfeit etc guitars I figured this would be as good a place as any to see if the people advertising on HC can explain where they get these MSRP prices from?

[Sparkytfl]

http://www.deanguitars.com/dean_winter_08/pdfs/Dean2008pricelist.pdf
I see the same $1375 right here. Doesn't mean anybody charges even close to that, but that seems to be the official msrp.

Of course I would rather have the new one as opposed to the same-priced scratch n dent.

[thefyn]

http://www.deanguitars.com/dean_winter_08/pdfs/Dean2008pricelist.pdf
I see the same $1375 right here. Doesn't mean anybody charges even close to that, but that seems to be the official msrp.

Of course I would rather have the new one as opposed to the same-priced scratch n dent.

So if everyone else is selling it for the same price, how is it a blowout sale? Manufacturers like Mesa are legit when it comes to the msrp. Why do companies like Washburn, Gibson etc stamp these ridiculous msrp prices on their guitars?

How can it be legal to almost triple the going price on conception from a manufacturers standpoint?

Consumers are being flat out lied to by both Washburn, and by Musicians friend. So how can this all be legal? And are there any watchdogs out there for this type of thing? Inflated msrp's in order for it to look like a deal come the eternal sale?

My gripe: I am looking for a whole bass rig. The AMAZING BLOW OUT deals are pretty much identical to every other store out there.

[Anderton]

So if everyone else is selling it for the same price, how is it a blowout sale? Manufacturers like Mesa are legit when it comes to the msrp. Why do companies like Washburn, Gibson etc stamp these ridiculous msrp prices on their guitars?

How can it be legal to almost triple the going price on conception from a manufacturers standpoint?

Consumers are being flat out lied to by both Washburn, and by Musicians friend. So how can this all be legal? And are there any watchdogs out there for this type of thing? Inflated msrp's in order for it to look like a deal come the eternal sale?

My gripe: I am looking for a whole bass rig. The AMAZING BLOW OUT deals are pretty much identical to every other store out there.

First of all, I do not speak for Musician's Friend AT ALL. Although they bought HC back in 2005, I have no affiliation with them. It's like I don't think Jay Leno speaks for GE just because they bought NBC.

But, I can comment as someone who has been in this industry a long time and knows how this process works.

First of all, it's no different in many industries. There is a manufacturer's list price that is often about double the cost to the dealer, and often more. Check the list price of clothing sometime compared to what it actually sells for, you'll see the same kind of list price/street price differences.

So the question is, what's the deal with these MSRPs? And the answer is...I don't think anyone knows. It's a combination of what you can ADVERTISE a product for vs. what it sells for. Not only is there MSRP, there's MAP (Minimum Advertised Price), and "Street" price, which is an arbitrary assessment of what something would cost if you went into a store with credit card in hand. Some of this relates to government trade regulations against price-fixing and such that I don't even pretend to understand (and when I try to, my head explodes), so I won't comment on that aspect.

When I write a review for the Harmony Central Confidential newsletter, I give both the list price and "street" price. The way I determine the street price is I look at the MF and Sweetwater sites. 99% of the time those prices are pretty similar. And to address your question about blowout prices being "non-blowout" prices on other sites, although this industry is very small, that also makes it very competitive because the same dealers are vying for a very limited market compared to, say, food or shoes. As soon as a price gets reduced, other retailers follow suit. Another consideration is that some products just don't sell. What's a blow out for one retailer who overestimated demand and bought way too many could be business as usual for a store that just bought one or two of an item, and wants to get them off the shelves.

I also serve as Executive Editor of EQ magazine and interestingly, now the high MSRP thing is starting to work against companies. The magazine's policy is to print list prices in reviews, but several manufacturers have been saying "You should publish street prices, our stuff looks too expensive." To which I reply..."Well, who sets the list prices?" Mumble mumble mumble...you get the idea. Check out the list price of mics sometimes vs. what you can actually buy them for...the difference is often much more than, say, guitars.

In my opinion - and again, let me emphasize this is my personal opinion, and I represent no one - due to the existence of catalog and online sales, the dwindling number of "mom and pop" stores, and the existence of companies like Best Buy getting into the MI business, the entire pricing structure developed in the 50s and 60s for setting a value on products is obsolete.

Now, at this point it would very cool if I proposed some great solution. Unfortunately, I don't have one, and some of the solutions would involve undoing government regulations. As I said in a recent EQ product roundup concerning the prices we published, "As usual with our roundups, all prices are list prices (translation: shop around, they’re fiction)." I think that pretty much sums it up :)

[Anderton]

BTW, in case I didn't make it clear, it's manufacturers who set the list price, not the dealers. Quoting list prices is neither deceptive nor lying as long as it is the price set by the manufacturer.

[thefyn]

Are there any underlying tax etc reasons for a manufacturer to list something as a certain price, then tell the taxman that they sold at X street price?

MSRP pricing can't only be a "well everyone is doing it" marketing ploy. It must have some financial bearing from company asset value? Basic example, If you have a warehouse full of guitars, shouldn't it trickle down for insurance etc etc etc.

[MDLMUSIC]

The old phrase "Caveat Emptor" is as true today as it was more than 2000 years ago when the Romans were saying it.

[thefyn]

The old phrase "Caveat Emptor" is as true today as it was more than 2000 years ago when the Romans were saying it.

I got burned when I first moved to the USA. I bought a Nady mic from Musicians Friend :facepalm: thinking it really was a $300 mic that was on sale for $100.

I learned the hard way, but it irks me when I still fall for it and click on a mega sale 2000 link.

So I didn't learn at all when I think about it.

[FlyingZ]

It has been this way for 30 years that I know of, just like car dealers. It exists so dealers can make a lot of money from the inexperienced.

[larryguitar]

I find the term 'false advertising' to be a gross overstatement in this context. Considering that most states include a legal definition of 'false advertising', I'd be worried about making the accusation against a company that has not come near meeting that definition.

[Anderton]

I got burned when I first moved to the USA. I bought a Nady mic from Musicians Friend :facepalm: thinking it really was a $300 mic that was on sale for $100.

It was a $300 mic on sale for $100. Be happy you didn't pay $300 for it...I'm sure somewhere, someone did :)

But remember the phrase that was invented right after caveat emptor: Never pay list price.

[Anderton]

Are there any underlying tax etc reasons for a manufacturer to list something as a certain price, then tell the taxman that they sold at X street price?

MSRP pricing can't only be a "well everyone is doing it" marketing ploy. It must have some financial bearing from company asset value? Basic example, If you have a warehouse full of guitars, shouldn't it trickle down for insurance etc etc etc.

It used to relevant, because deep discounting/internet price matching is a relatively new phenomenon. A company can't say "You must sell something for this price" because in theory, it's a free country and a store can sell a product for whatever price works for them--they can even sell at a loss, or above list price if they want.

When ADAT first came out, there was such demand that several stores were selling them for MORE than the suggested retail price. Why? Because people were willing to pay it, simple as that.

Anyway, in some cases the list price was the cost of buying something direct from a company. The dealers would discount by whatever amount they saw fit. But companies didn't want to undercut their dealers, so if there was no dealer in your area, and you bought direct, you generally paid more.

The list price also provided a means of comparison. Stores could announce in sales that something was "20% off list price." However, as time went on, discounts got deeper, and shipping across state lines became commonplace, the idea of a list price became less and less relevant.

Bottom line: Shop around, and buy for the lowest price you can find, commensurate with service and the ability of the dealer to stand behind their product. If 20 dealers are selling a product in the range of $170-$220, and another is selling the same product for $130, I'd steer clear of the latter. It might be a gray market model, be refurbished, or have some other issue.

[kwilson]

It was a $300 mic on sale for $100. Be happy you didn't pay $300 for it...I'm sure somewhere, someone did :)

But remember the phrase that was invented right after caveat emptor: Never pay list price.

And that's why MSRP prices are so high. Because you can still catch out some poor newbie who will pay full price not realising that discounts are the norm.

Recently I went into a local music store and asked the price of a product which they didn't have in stock. The price they gave me was the list price so I drove for an hour and a half to the big city to a store that was selling the same product for about 40% off and bought there. Maybe if I had told the local store that this other store was selling the same product for 40% less they would have tried to match the price but I think I was really pissed off that the first price they offered was the full list price. If I hadn't done my research I could have ended up paying way too much.

It seems that in any industry where you are paying large sums of money ($500+ ?) you can haggle a discount. Whitegoods, TV's , furniture, cars. If your paying full price your paying too much (especially in this economic climate). But the discounts you should be able to get with musical equipment seems to be a lot larger than with other products. Maybe it's just competition isn't as tough or maybe there are always new buyers of musical instruments who don't know how much they can haggle.

[thefyn]

It used to relevant, because deep discounting/internet price matching is a relatively new phenomenon. A company can't say "You must sell something for this price" because in theory, it's a free country and a store can sell a product for whatever price works for them--they can even sell at a loss, or above list price if they want.

Isn't that what Mesa Boogie do?

[thefyn]

I find the term 'false advertising' to be a gross overstatement in this context. Considering that most states include a legal definition of 'false advertising', I'd be worried about making the accusation against a company that has not come near meeting that definition.

What is the legal definition of false advertising?

As for legalities. Thats pretty funny. Asking for an explanation and you start rattling legal chains? haha.

You can rip people off bigtime on HC. Like the ZW deal that took a lot of members cash.

I can come here, take $50,000-$100,000 worth of HC forumites cash, and get away with it. Mr. Daniel Bauguess did it. Here is his pic:

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5776/2991/1600/746674/daniel%20.jpg

[Anderton]

Isn't that what Mesa Boogie do?

They can strongly suggest, they can cajole, and their dealers can take advantage of the fact that other dealers are selling for the same price and not give any discounts, but AFAIK it is illegal for a company to force a dealer to sell at a certain price and only that price. If a music store has a Mesa Boogie amp sitting in their store and they haven't been able to sell it, I really don't think Mesa can say "You cannot cut the price by 10% to get it off the floor." Any legal minds know a definitive answer?

Here's a good place to find definitions on list price: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:list+price&ei=h_InSrvdFKG6sgP6q7w2&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[Anderton]

What is the legal definition of false advertising?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising

Short form:

"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).

Proof Requirement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

Based on the above, quoting a list price and then listing a discounted price is not false advertising. A dealer fabricating a list price that's higher than the one set by the manufacturer in order to "look good" would be false advertising.

[Anderton]

I can come here, take $50,000-$100,000 worth of HC forumites cash, and get away with it. Mr. Daniel Bauguess did it.

Then he can be arrested and prosecuted, assuming he can be found. Someone who rips of an HC member is no different from someone who rips off someone using eBay, Craigslist, the classified section of your local paper, etc. and can be prosecuted in the same way.

[thefyn]

1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;

BLOWOUT SALE is the advert. The prices are the same more or less than other online music stores. In fact I bet I can prove it. In a months time, most of the "sale" products will be in their regular sections (not the blowout section) for the same price they are currently on sale for.:cop:

(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;

The average Joe on the internet may not know that they always have an eternal sale and no one has actually purchased this merch at MRSP


(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;

Blow out sale and 70% off are not exactly subtle.

(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and

(5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.[/i]


I certainly would not have purchased the Nady mic if I had known that was the regular everyday price and I wasnt actually buying something I could flip and not make a loss if I didnt like it a year down the road.

[thefyn]

Then he can be arrested and prosecuted, assuming he can be found. Someone who rips of an HC member is no different from someone who rips off someone using eBay, Craigslist, the classified section of your local paper, etc. and can be prosecuted in the same way.

Zakk himself hired a lawyer. Want to know what happened? Nothing.

[Anderton]

1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;

BLOWOUT SALE is the advert. The prices are the same more or less than other online music stores. In fact I bet I can prove it. In a months time, most of the "sale" products will be in their regular sections (not the blowout section) for the same price they are currently on sale for.:cop:

Blowout sale is not a technical term. If the company wants to blow out their stock on something, it's a blowout sale. Nothing false there unless you can show that the company really has no intention of blowing out their stock.

If a store says "Giant Sale!" are you going to start debating whether it's really a giant sale or not?

(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;

The average Joe on the internet may not know that they always have an eternal sale and no one has actually purchased this merch at MRSP


There is nothing deceptive about printing a list price and the price at which the store is selling the merchandise.

(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;

Blow out sale and 70% off are not exactly subtle.

(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and

(5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.[/i]


I certainly would not have purchased the Nady mic if I had known that was the regular everyday price and I wasnt actually buying something I could flip and not make a loss if I didnt like it a year down the road.

It is not the responsibility of a dealer to do price comparisons for potential customers.

Part of the shopping process is checking out prices from multiple vendors to get the best deal. These days, it also involves checking out customer opinions on service and such. For example, in my SSS forum, there was quite a discussion about Tiger Direct, and several people - not all by any means - had unsatisfactory experiences, whereas EVERYONE had positive experiences with New Egg. When I needed to buy a graphics card, I bought from New Egg even though it was a few dollars more.

[Anderton]

Zakk himself hired a lawyer. Want to know what happened? Nothing.

Why did nothing happen? If someone scammed a bunch of people, those people would be willing to state they were scammed, and the person can be found, what prevented him from being prosecuted?

[Anderton]

Okay, to address your original point and to satisfy my own curiosity, I did a little more research.

I used Google's shopping bot to do a price comparison on Dean SplitTail guitars. Lowest for sale price was $449.95, highest was $899.99, all for the same guitar. Most stores sold for something in between those two extremes.

MF was listed as selling the guitar for $599, and that is indeed what they had been selling it for. So, if they've lowered the price to $449.95, I think that qualifies as a sale - that's about 25% off their selling price at which they had previously sold the guitar, not the list price. In effect, they've matched the lowest price out there (only one dealer had the price listed at $449.95, and that was zZounds).

[Anderton]

In fact, now that I think about it...

If a company normally sells a product for $600, then drops the price by 25% to $450, and offers the lowest price on the web as determined by an impartial shopping bot, I think it's really difficult to make a case that anything even remotely shady or deceptive is going on. As far as I'm concerned, case closed.

[Richard King]

Are there any underlying tax etc reasons for a manufacturer to list something as a certain price, then tell the taxman that they sold at X street price?

MSRP pricing can't only be a "well everyone is doing it" marketing ploy. It must have some financial bearing from company asset value? Basic example, If you have a warehouse full of guitars, shouldn't it trickle down for insurance etc etc etc.

Hey Neighbor...

When I was in the business companies typically had a "List Price" and a "Pro Net" price. The list was an inflated price, normally about double (or more) dealer cost. "Dealer Cost" also could be all over the place depending on quantity purchased and if payment was made early or within certain terms. Pro Net was what they typically sold an item for. The term "Pro Net" let the customer think that he was getting some kind of "professional discount", when, in fact, it was the price that just about anyone coming in off the street would be quoted. Of course, Pro Net could also be discounted by the seller if he needed to move a product or someone came in VERY prepared with quotes from other dealers. Now the List price is pretty much the same situation (MSRP), but, "Pro Net" has been pretty much replaced with "MAP" or "Minimum Advertised Price". Neither of these pricing schemes have anything to do with taxes though. As for insurance, I suspect that depends on how the policy is written. If I were a manufacturer and had a warehouse full of guitars I would certainly try to get dealer cost for each guitar if the warehouse blew up one night.

[thefyn]

Okay, to address your original point and to satisfy my own curiosity, I did a little more research.

I used Google's shopping bot to do a price comparison on Dean SplitTail guitars. Lowest for sale price was $449.95, highest was $899.99, all for the same guitar. Most stores sold for something in between those two extremes.

MF was listed as selling the guitar for $599, and that is indeed what they had been selling it for. So, if they've lowered the price to $449.95, I think that qualifies as a sale - that's about 25% off their selling price at which they had previously sold the guitar, not the list price. In effect, they've matched the lowest price out there (only one dealer had the price listed at $449.95, and that was zZounds).

This reinforces my point that the MSRP: $1,375.00 Savings: $925.75(67%) claim is way off due to even the HIGHEST price you can actually buy it for online is still almost half their MSRP which they trick people into believing the guitar is originally priced at.

So even if you are buying it from the most expensive store. It is still much much cheaper than the farcical misleading MSRP and the wonderful "Save 67% in our blowout sale" headline that misleads the buyer.

MF is using "percentages off" to reel in customers from an obviously inflated MSRP from the manufacturer.

Your search for the highest priced guitar, proved the MSRP is not only false, but grossly inflated.

[Anderton]

This reinforces my point that the MSRP: $1,375.00 Savings: $925.75(67%) claim is way off due to even the HIGHEST price you can actually buy it for online is still almost half their MSRP which they trick people into believing the guitar is originally priced at.

So even if you are buying it from the most expensive store. It is still much much cheaper than the farcical misleading MSRP and the wonderful "Save 67% in our blowout sale" headline that misleads the buyer.

MF is using "percentages off" to reel in customers from an obviously inflated MSRP from the manufacturer.

Your search for the highest priced guitar, proved the MSRP is not only false, but grossly inflated.

I'll say it once more since you still don't seem to understand: MSRP is set by the manufacturer. If you have a problem with that, complain to the manufacturer, not to any company that 1) accurately quotes that price, and 2) sells for a lower price than list price.

If you want to start a crusade to abolish list prices, be my guest. Until that day happens, companies will quote list prices, and sell for less.

[thefyn]

I'll say it once more since you still don't seem to understand: MSRP is set by the manufacturer. If you have a problem with that, complain to the manufacturer, not to any company that 1) accurately quotes that price, and 2) sells for a lower price than list price.

If you want to start a crusade to abolish list prices, be my guest. Until that day happens, companies will quote list prices, and sell for less.

I covered/acknowledged that in my second post.

In the "Blow out" sale. This guitar was listed as the one with the DEEPEST discount. So this was the deal of the deals within the deal.

Turns out, it is the same price as it's competitors. How can that not be misleading?

The constant MF sales are often priced exactly the same as its competitors. So I feel misled.

Yet again, like a mug, I click on the HUGE MF SALE banner within HC and hardly ever get a genuine sale.

[slight-return]

Turns out, it is the same price as it's competitors. How can that not be misleading?

If they made no material (mis)representations about their competitor's prices

[larryguitar]

I covered/acknowledged that in my second post.

In the "Blow out" sale. This guitar was listed as the one with the DEEPEST discount. So this was the deal of the deals within the deal.

Turns out, it is the same price as it's competitors. How can that not be misleading?

The constant MF sales are often priced exactly the same as its competitors. So I feel misled.

Yet again, like a mug, I click on the HUGE MF SALE banner within HC and hardly ever get a genuine sale.

The fact that another place is ALSO discounting an item doesn't matter one tiny little whit; there has to be some reference for pricing, and MSRP, even though not 'accurate', is CONSISTENT.

You're also neglecting the obvious fact that just because an item is 70% off now, it was almost certainly sold at SOME discount prior to this sale. It's the whole 'intermediate discounts may have been taken' thing.

Would you prefer that MF give you the percentage off the previous selling price, which could change weekly? What consistent marker would you use instead of MSRP?

[thefyn]

The fact that another place is ALSO discounting an item doesn't matter one tiny little whit; there has to be some reference for pricing, and MSRP, even though not 'accurate', is CONSISTENT.

You're also neglecting the obvious fact that just because an item is 70% off now, it was almost certainly sold at SOME discount prior to this sale. It's the whole 'intermediate discounts may have been taken' thing.

Would you prefer that MF give you the percentage off the previous selling price, which could change weekly? What consistent marker would you use instead of MSRP?

I already mentioned Mesa Boogie as a stand up company when it comes to MSRP. The BS should be weeded out by a watchdog firm that PROTECTS THE CONSUMER. Be it an individual in MF or external.

The problem isn't simply the con at the manufacturers side. You know it is not a fair reflection of the MSRP when they tag on that inflated price. My problem is MF not only perpetuate the MSRP without question, it is that they ZOOM IN on the % off the MSRP to draw you in via the banner advertising.

The daily deals are real sales. The perpetual sale is a gimmic that worked on me when I first came to the states. And it galls me every time I see that "whatever..is it a day? Chrismas or something sale?" banner.

We are in between national holidays etc so now we get a blowout sale. Yep.

[slight-return]

What consistent marker would you use instead of MSRP?

I already mentioned Mesa Boogie as a stand up company when it comes to MSRP.


That's not a marker, rather an example of a manufacturer whose pricing methods you approve of


when I first came to the states.

this may be one of the central problems here. Style of commerce can vary quite a bit from culture to culture (and even industry to industry)

[larryguitar]

So who's paying this 'watchdog'? What criteria do they use?

You do get the whole 'free market' thing, right? As in, don't like it, don't buy it?

[thefyn]

So who's paying this 'watchdog'? What criteria do they use?

You do get the whole 'free market' thing, right? As in, don't like it, don't buy it?

Sorry, that does NOT fly. Everyone on here has admitted the MSRP is inflated. Basically MF are embracing this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_van

And highlighting a white van MSRP to make it appear like a fantastic deal.

Here is some more info on WIKI:

Suggested pricing methods may conflict with competition theory, as it allows prices to be set higher than would otherwise be the case, potentially negatively impacting consumers. However, resale price maintenance goes further than this and is illegal in many regions.

Suggested prices can also be manipulated to be unreasonably high, allowing retailers to use deceptive advertising by showing the excessive price and then their actual selling price, implying to customers that they are getting a bargain[citation needed].


It is obvious that MF crossed the line a long time ago with this one. And it is rampant.

[thefyn]

So who's paying this 'watchdog'? What criteria do they use?

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

You, me, them.

[Anderton]

Turns out, it is the same price as it's competitors. How can that not be misleading?

For starters, your statement is inaccurate. Based on the Google search I did, it was the same price as ONE, and only ONE, competitor. All the other competitors had higher prices.

Furthermore, there's no law saying that ONE competitor can't match price, or do their own sale.

[Anderton]

Sorry, that does NOT fly. Everyone on here has admitted the MSRP is inflated. Basically MF are embracing this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_van

And highlighting a white van MSRP to make it appear like a fantastic deal.

Wrong again. That Wiki entry refers to "white van" sales, which in the article you cited, stated that the actual price of the speakers could be as low as 3% of the MSRP. I don't think that companies are buying that SplitTail guitar for $40 or so. There's a big difference between people setting up shop in a parking lot and selling out of a van compared to an established retailer.

What's more, how do YOU define grossly inflated/manipulation/ etc.? I cited a store that was selling the identical guitar for $899. Compared to a list price of $1,375, that's 65% of the list price - hardly in the 3% range cited in the Wiki entry you mentioned, and very much in line with typical (not blowout sale) reductions off list price.

As has been pointed out here, MSRP sets a standard reference. If you have a problem with that, complain to the manufacturer.

[thefyn]

For starters, your statement is inaccurate. Based on the Google search I did, it was the same price as ONE, and only ONE, competitor. All the other competitors had higher prices.

Furthermore, there's no law saying that ONE competitor can't match price, or do their own sale.


Google search had pro guitar shop as the same price.

And Sam Ash $459.00. You do know the MF one is scratch and dent right?

And this, is the guitar that had the most % off out of all of the deals.

[thefyn]

Wrong again. That Wiki entry refers to "white van" sales, which in the article you cited, stated that the actual price of the speakers could be as low as 3% of the MSRP. I don't think that companies are buying that SplitTail guitar for $40 or so. There's a big difference between people setting up shop in a parking lot and selling out of a van compared to an established retailer.

What's more, how do YOU define grossly inflated/manipulation/ etc.? I cited a store that was selling the identical guitar for $899. Compared to a list price of $1,375, that's 65% of the list price - hardly in the 3% range cited in the Wiki entry you mentioned, and very much in line with typical (not blowout sale) reductions off list price.

As has been pointed out here, MSRP sets a standard reference. If you have a problem with that, complain to the manufacturer.

The MF BLOWOUT banner said up to 96% off.

It is hard to answer that and stay fashionable. Unless you want to quibble the white van 1%. ;)

[larryguitar]

So you don't like it, and want the government to stop it. This will make shopping easier for you-mmkkay.

:facepalm:

[thefyn]

So you don't like it, and want the government to stop it. This will make shopping easier for you-mmkkay.

:facepalm:

Government??? :facepalm:

No I would like the mods to take some action against misleading advertising on HC.

Sorry but I don't see Bill Lawrence banners flashing BLOWOUT SALE!!! up to 96% off!!!!!!

And when you get there the 96% off is a pickup screw reduced from $3 to 12c then his pricing for his pickups is the same as MF selling his own pickup.

Because he would be called out on his BS and lambasted.

Just because it is the norm for MF to advertise this way, and what it states is technically true/legal, does not mean it is right/good for the general public.

[larryguitar]

Government??? :facepalm:

No I would like the mods to take some action against misleading advertising on HC.

Sorry but I don't see Bill Lawrence banners flashing BLOWOUT SALE!!! up to 96% off!!!!!!

And when you get there the 96% off is a pickup screw reduced from $3 to 12c then his pricing for his pickups is the same as MF selling his own pickup.

Because he would be called out on his BS and lambasted.

Just because it is the norm for MF to advertise this way, and what it states is technically true/legal, does not mean it is right/good for the general public.

I thought you were talking 'watchdogs'?

Never mind. You just don't like it. Ought to look up the slander laws, though....

[thefyn]

I thought you were talking 'watchdogs'?

What do you think a mod is?

[thefyn]

Never mind. You just don't like it. Ought to look up the slander laws, though....

Look, I know you seem to have fun trying to scare me for ASKING A QUESTION, but this is my point after my initial question was answered.




Deceptive Advertising

Under both federal and state law, an ad is unlawful if it tends to mislead or deceive, even if it doesn't actually fool anyone. If your ad is deceptive, you'll face legal problems whether you intended to mislead the customer or not. What counts is the overall impression created by the ad -- not the technical truthfulness of the individual parts.

(direct quote from consumer protection laws)

[Anderton]

And the mods' basis for taking action would be...that presenting a list price, presenting a sale price, and calculating the percentage off is deceptive?

Or that "up to 96% off" doesn't really mean "up to"?

Your opinion that the ad is deceptive doesn't necessarily make it deceptive. So far, no one else who's weighed in on this topic agrees with you.

If you really believe you have a legitimate complaint, then file a complaint with the appropriate consumer agencies and see what happens.

[larryguitar]

Look, I know you seem to have fun trying to scare me for ASKING A QUESTION, but this is my point after my initial question was answered.




Deceptive Advertising

Under both federal and state law, an ad is unlawful if it tends to mislead or deceive, even if it doesn't actually fool anyone. If your ad is deceptive, you'll face legal problems whether you intended to mislead the customer or not. What counts is the overall impression created by the ad -- not the technical truthfulness of the individual parts.

(direct quote from consumer protection laws)

Last try-claiming someone has committed 'false advertising', something defined and controlled by statute, when you are unable to prove they did so, is an accusation that could damage someone/a corporation's reputation. Doing so on a public forum means it's what's known as 'libel' (the written or published form of slander), another term defined by statute.

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

In other words, I can call you an idiot. That's an opinion, and not a legally defined term. I can call you a whiner-same.

But I cannot-AND DO NOT- call you a rapist. Or call you a murderer, or thief. Doing so would be libel, and it's what you've done to Musician's Friend.

Regardless of your opinion, I do not 'enjoy' trying to make you aware of the risks you take; it was done as a courtesy. I realize now that it was a misplaced concern, and you aren't doing it through ignorance or innocence, but through sheer obstinacy.

That said, I have nothing more to offer.

[thefyn]

Or that "up to 96% off" doesn't really mean "up to"?

Your opinion that the ad is deceptive doesn't necessarily make it deceptive. So far, no one else who's weighed in on this topic agrees with you.

I remind you of the "misleading advertising" consumer law:

"What counts is the overall impression created by the ad -- not the technical truthfulness of the individual parts."

And a lot of people have mentioned it is misleading on this thread.

[thefyn]

MDLMUSIC
The old phrase "Caveat Emptor" is as true today as it was more than 2000 years ago when the Romans were saying it.



FlyingZ
It has been this way for 30 years that I know of, just like car dealers. It exists so dealers can make a lot of money from the inexperienced.



kwilson
And that's why MSRP prices are so high. Because you can still catch out some poor newbie who will pay full price not realising that discounts are the norm.


Richard King (explains how it is tweaked to play the game)
When I was in the business companies typically had a "List Price" and a "Pro Net" price. The list was an inflated price, normally about double (or more) dealer cost.



So you are ignoring a lot of people who's general opinion is this style of advertising is to capture the inexperienced musician.

[roy.g.biv]

1) It's a buyer's responsibility to make sure they're getting a good deal. When one has the sort of ubiquitous access to the internet that allows one to post to one forum 14,000 times or more, one can do a brief search. This link below is incredibly educational.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=buy+dean+split+tail

2) They're not breaking the law.

[thefyn]

1) It's a buyer's responsibility to make sure they're getting a good deal. When one has the sort of ubiquitous access to the internet that allows one to post to one forum 14,000 times or more, one can do a brief search. This link below is incredibly educational.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=buy+dean+split+tail



I mentioned in the first post that I searched the price elsewhere. I suggest you read the words. It is incredibly educational.

This thread is me being lured onto the advert by larger than life claims even while being web savvy. Because most know the advertising is BS, MF go even further into smoke and mirrors mode to lure musicians with up to 96% off banners. Only to find most of the prices being the internet going rate.

Front End Audio have a 5% off banner. That is more like it, because I would say that is around how much the average real sale is at MF. Give or take. So why not print that?

[boxofrocks]

BTW, in case I didn't make it clear, it's manufacturers who set the list price, not the dealers. Quoting list prices is neither deceptive nor lying as long as it is the price set by the manufacturer.
Just because it may be legal, does not make it ethical.

[Anderton]

Just because it may be legal, does not make it ethical.

That's true in a great many situations, but I don't believe it applies here. If you're saying that every dealer who quotes a list price is unethical, then take it up with the Better Business Bureau or the FTC.

As to the infamous "96% off," see below.

[Anderton]

Front End Audio have a 5% off banner. That is more like it, because I would say that is around how much the average real sale is at MF. Give or take. So why not print that?

Because that wouldn't be true. I just did some searches on the MF site of some random products that are in my studio.

NI Maschine: 10% off ($599 vs. $669)
Fender American Strat: 25% off
IK Amplitube Fender: 13% off
Shure SM57: 41% off

So the discounts are all over the place, even for very common items. I'm not about to check the prices on everything, but unless you can show me otherwise, I think your guess of 5% being the average discount is wrong.

Then I decided to see what's on clearance...

Barrington Beginner Trumpet DVD: 97% off
TASCAM upgrade to GigaStudio Solo: 97% off
Audio-Technica MS4000S mic: 90% off
Sonic Reality Sonic Refills for Reason, Volume 6: 90% off
Line 6 GearBox: 76%
XL V63M Condenser Studio Microphone: 80% off
Mackie Quad Comp/Gate 4-Channel Digital Compressor/Gate: 80% off

From this we learn that newer, desirable products sell for much closer to list price than older products the company wants to get rid of at just about any cost in order to free up shelf space.

However, I will grant you that MF did not tell the truth when they said discounts were up to 96% They are actually up to 97%.

So...where's the deception?

* There were indeed products discounted up to 96%. Well, 97% actually. And I'd be willing to wager that the products being sold at 97% off, or even 80% off, are selling for below the cost to the dealer. To me, that qualifies as a blow-out.
* It's hard to make a case that list prices are uniformly over-inflated if products are often discounted in the 10-25% range. You undermine your own argument about inflated list prices by citing a company that sells for only 5% off. Since when is 5% over selling price over-inflated?
* In case you don't understand one reason why list prices exist, a company like MF, Sweetwater, Music123, etc. is a large operation with economies of scale. A mom and pop store might decide to sell something at list price because they'll replace something that day if there's a problem and you bring it in. You might consider it worth paying an extra 10-25% for that level of service. Or you might not. But having a yardstick - the MSRP - against which you can compare prices helps make you a more informed shopper.

Do some research and you'll find that you don't have facts to back up your argument. You'll find that out soon enough if you complain to the FTC or the Better Business Bureau, which are the appropriate agencies to deal with complaints such as yours. Don't take my word for it, or the word of others on this forum: Find out what the authorities who deal with this every day of their lives say, then let us know what you find.

[Anderton]

And one last thing...if a company is selling products at up to 96% off, you can bet their ads will say "With prices up to 96% off!!" instead of "With prices at up to, y'know, a whole lot off but we're not going to tell you exactly how much!!"

[amplayer]

Since musiciansfriend bought and took over HC, I think HC has only gotten better. Even though musiciansfriend owns it, they have never intruded, and I still routinely see advertisements for musiciansfriend competitors like Sweetwater. musiciansfriend has been first class RE Harmony Central IMHO.

I think all of us who value HC and SSS should give a collective "THANK YOU VERY MUCH" to musiciansfriend!

[Anderton]

BTW I should also add that MF would be very nervous if they knew I was here defending them; they believe (as do I) in total editorial separation between HC and MF. However, I should point out that if this thread had started about Sweetwater or AudioMIDI.com or other retailers who quote list prices and sell at a discount, I would have taken the same stance. This is about a global retailing issue, not just MF, despite the person who started this thread zeroing in on just one company.

[FlyingZ]

BTW I should also add that MF would be very nervous if they knew I was here defending them; they believe (as do I) in total editorial separation between HC and MF. However, I should point out that if this thread had started about Sweetwater or AudioMIDI.com or other retailers who quote list prices and sell at a discount, I would have taken the same stance. This is about a global retailing issue, not just MF, despite the person who started this thread zeroing in on just one company.

Exactly, it's the industry standard. Griping about any one business is just sillyness.

[thefyn]

And one last thing...if a company is selling products at up to 96% off, you can bet their ads will say "With prices up to 96% off!!" instead of "With prices at up to, y'know, a whole lot off but we're not going to tell you exactly how much!!"


I remind you of the "misleading advertising" consumer law:

"What counts is the overall impression created by the ad -- not the technical truthfulness of the individual parts."

[thefyn]

Exactly, it's the industry standard. Griping about any one business is just sillyness.

If it is standard, why is MF the only one claiming such HUGE discounts on their banners on HC?

I would like HC to be the place where I don't have to put up with bullshit advertising. We all know it is bullshit. Why are we trying to be high school debaters about the whole thing?

It is misleading.

[Anderton]

I remind you of the "misleading advertising" consumer law:

"What counts is the overall impression created by the ad -- not the technical truthfulness of the individual parts."

The overall impression of the ad is that things are for sale at up to 96% off. I grant you that some items were 97% off, but it seems really strange to complain that something was being discounted for MORE than was advertised.

The ad didn't say everything was discounted by that much. It said UP TO.

When a dealer sells something for BELOW WHAT THEY PAID FOR IT, I don't see how anyone rational would not consider that as "blowing out" a product.

Your "overall impression" of the ad does not seem to match the impressions others in this thread got from the ad.

Finally, I still haven't heard back on the results of your filing a complaint with regulatory agencies. If you don't stand behind or believe in your complaint enough to take action, then I think that pretty much summarizes the validity of your complaint.

[Anderton]

If it is standard, why is MF the only one claiming such HUGE discounts on their banners on HC?

If you did the math and looked at the clearance items, you would see they are claiming those huge discounts BECAUSE ITEMS ARE BEING SOLD AT THOSE HUGE DISCOUNTS.

It is misleading.

You have yet to show what's misleading, other than vague references to "inflated list prices" where it has already been shown that a) most discounts on most sites, not just MF, are relatively modest compared to list prices (in the 10-25% range for current products), b) some companies do sell for closer to list prices, and c) manufacturers set the list price, not dealers, so blaming dealers for quoting those prices is simply absurd.

As you haven't shown anywhere that products WEREN'T being sold for 96% off, nor have you researched enough to find out that the items being blown out did not have excessively inflated list prices (for example, I think no one would consider an instructional DVD-ROM's list price of $30 as being "inflated"), your argument about these huge fictional list prices being the norm is specious.

You have stated over and over that a particular banner ad was misleading. Fine. Put your money where your mouth is, file some complaints, and see if anyone agrees with you. I'll be waiting. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, you're just blowing smoke to try and defend a position that was indefensible in the first place.

[fatfat]

I agree with thefyn, conceptually, but unfortunately I don't think complaining about it takes it anywhere because it is widespread. It doesn't make it right... it's just the way it is. There are a lot of things in life like this. "Tough luck", so they say...

But I don't think defending it by saying "well everyone does it" makes it any more acceptable either. Some of you guys seem to be playing the devil's advocate on this, and are just blowing smoke up his ass.

Now that we have the Internet, it makes it much easier to compare prices, shop around, and do research. I imagine the case might be stronger if people didn't have the access they do these days.


If you did the math and looked at the clearance items, you would see they are claiming those huge discounts BECAUSE ITEMS ARE BEING SOLD AT THOSE HUGE DISCOUNTS.



You have yet to show what's misleading, other than vague references to "inflated list prices" where it has already been shown that a) most discounts on most sites, not just MF, are relatively modest compared to list prices (in the 10-25% range for current products), b) some companies do sell for closer to list prices, and c) manufacturers set the list price, not dealers, so blaming dealers for quoting those prices is simply absurd.

As you haven't shown anywhere that products WEREN'T being sold for 96% off, nor have you researched enough to find out that the items being blown out did not have excessively inflated list prices (for example, I think no one would consider an instructional DVD-ROM's list price of $30 as being "inflated"), your argument about these huge fictional list prices being the norm is specious.

You have stated over and over that a particular banner ad was misleading. Fine. Put your money where your mouth is, file some complaints, and see if anyone agrees with you. I'll be waiting. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, you're just blowing smoke to try and defend a position that was indefensible in the first place.

Maybe I'm just :deadhorse: here, but I think he's saying it's misleading because listing percentages off is, in itself, vague, due to the reasons you pointed out. People might generally equate 96% with more savings,or a better deal, vs. a sale where there's 20% off. I understand the fact that there are some things that are 96% (or 97%) off. But it's like when GC advertises every other weekend that they are having the greatest sale ever when it's the same old bullshit.

[Anderton]

Well, I of all people understand that the current MSRP/MAP/street price thing is unwieldy at best. I come up against this all the time when writing reviews - which price do I quote?!? Strictly speaking, quoting any one of them is unrealistic - few people pay list price, MAP (like MSRP) may or may not have something to do with what a product actually sells for, and "street price" varies from store to store and even from week to week.

As a result, I've decided to continue to use list price as a standard, but also frequently mention in reviews that it's possible to find substantial discounts off list price. The main problem we're dealing with here is that while people agree that list prices are pretty much not "real-world," no one has come up with an alternative yardstick by which to measure prices. I suppose that the ultimate solution is to simply say in a review "Google the product and the price to see what it costs," but people want to have at least a ballpark idea when they check out a product - is it something in the "affordable" range or not? MSRP is at least standardized and provides a yardstick, which the other prices don't. MAP might be an option, but not all companies have MAP prices.

[zombioki]

Complaining about this is like complaining about one of the largest economical and cultural events in America. Black Friday. I'm sure some of you have gotten a great deal on something that day, but all those cheap items are there for are to lure you in to looking around. First off, that guitar is lame, so why do you care? It's discounted because it's lame and no one wants to buy it. You know, The music industry sort of screwed itself when it took off. GC used to just list the list price and gave you the "deal" on it. If you want I'm sure all online stores would be more than happy to forget discounting at all and you could pay full msrp. That pos guitar could be yours for $1300 and let's see if you are feeling ripped off at that point... MAP simply protects the dealers. It's for places that price match. If a place is advertising below MAP they can have their distribution rights pulled. You are whining about a guitar that is probably at or below cost. Even on high end fenders and gibsons places like mf and gc aren't making their bread and butter. Just like McDonalds, they don't make most thier money on the food, it's made on the drink you pay $1.25 for and costs them $.03. The money is in the accessories.

[zombioki]

Even then. Think about the psychology behind it. You as a manufacture make a guitar that will have a street price of $199. If a customer looks at the msrp and sees $199, they will think to themselves, "hmm, even the manufacturer knowing what went into this guitar, thinks this piece of crap is only worth this much."

[Agreed]

Big stores claim pricematching in order to draw customers in away from internet businesses and smaller stores... MAP protects places that pricematch... Places that pricematch get special protection to ensure that they only have to pricematch down to a certain level.. It's all coming together now, we're eating a crap sandwich and it's all about the benjamins :mad:

Who knew?

Mr. Anderton, I tend to go with street or MAP when reviewing gear and software. I know that our readers are probably sophisticated enough to understand that MSRP is never representative of the actual price at market of an item but by going with MSRP it can make items appear to be in certain product brackets that don't reflect reality, whereas street/MAP tends to be much more realistic and lets people know where things lie in relation to one another, which I think is an important consideration.

[thefyn]

Complaining about this is like complaining about one of the largest economical and cultural events in America. Black Friday. I'm sure some of you have gotten a great deal on something that day, but all those cheap items are there for are to lure you in to looking around. First off, that guitar is lame, so why do you care? It's discounted because it's lame and no one wants to buy it. You know, The music industry sort of screwed itself when it took off. GC used to just list the list price and gave you the "deal" on it. If you want I'm sure all online stores would be more than happy to forget discounting at all and you could pay full msrp. That pos guitar could be yours for $1300 and let's see if you are feeling ripped off at that point... MAP simply protects the dealers. It's for places that price match. If a place is advertising below MAP they can have their distribution rights pulled. You are whining about a guitar that is probably at or below cost. Even on high end fenders and gibsons places like mf and gc aren't making their bread and butter. Just like McDonalds, they don't make most thier money on the food, it's made on the drink you pay $1.25 for and costs them $.03. The money is in the accessories.

I picked that one because out of all of the guitars in the BLOWOUT SALE sections, that one had the most % off. It was the biggest deal out of all of the other deals.

but...it was the same price that their competitor was selling it for! And the MF one was a scratch and dent!

The laws state, the overall impression of the advertisement is what counts, not the factual accuracy of the claims.

It's not really a blow out sale is it? We all know it fellas. We know their "sale" has been going on for 15 years. The uninformed consumer may not know. I didn't the first month I came to America.

The advertising is getting sketchy on HC. Apparently, Master of Puppets was recorded with a Randall. :cop: Because that is the impression you get via the music playing in the background of the Randall Kirk Hammet video on the front of HC.

[JohnnyWishbone]

Outfits like Musician's Friend, Harmony Central and Guitar Center seem to prey on the Uninformed and Easily Manipulated.



Johnny

[Anderton]

Outfits like Musician's Friend, Harmony Central and Guitar Center seem to prey on the Uninformed and Easily Manipulated.

Johnny

If HC wants to keep people uninformed, then why does this thread exist?

If HC wants to keep people uninformed, why is HC continuing to maintain a forum thread so that knowledgeable people can explain the intricacies of MAP, MSRP, discounting, dealer pricing, etc.?

If HC wants to keep people uninformed, how come there has been absolutely ZERO censorship or editing of this thread? Why has it not been closed or deleted?

If HC wants to keep people uninformed, then why, as a representative of HC, did I bother to actually research prices, list prices, discounts, and comparative prices - for more than one web site - and present them here?

Remember, TheFyn is upset because he feels advertising items as being "up to 96% off" and part of a "blow out" sale create an overall impression that would be deceptive to people in general, not just the clueless.

I have no stake in what MF, or audiomidi.com, or Sweetwater, or Sam Ash, or your local Chrysler dealership for that matter does or does not do. I am not a distributor or retailer, I am an author, editor, musician, and in this context, forum moderator. I come to threads like this with an open mind and do actual research to find out facts and figures, if for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity, and confirm (or contradict, depending on the results of the research) that what I've thought to be correct is indeed correct.

Anyone who has followed my career for any length of time knows that I correct myself immediately and publicly if I make a misstatement in anything I write. My duty is to be accurate, not try to convince people I'm right when I'm not. The only way you can maintain credibility is to admit when you're wrong. However, nothing factual has been presented here that shows my statements to be wrong.

I presented the facts and figures I found, and these showed discounts were not only up to 96%, but actually up to 97% off. Furthermore, I think any rational person would consider selling an item for less than its cost to the dealer as a blowout.

Why do you believe that advertising items as being "up to 96% off" and actually selling items for up to 97% off should be considered deceptive?

Why would selling items for below the cost at which they were brought for originally not be considered a "blowout?"

And if you don't consider that a blowout, could you please define what you think would qualify as a "blowout"? What would a company need to do to justify using that term?

There has been no censorship of this thread whatsoever. Everyone is free to say what they want. I have presented facts and figures to back up what I've said. Others here seem to think that just saying opinions over and over again makes them true, regardless of whether those opinions have a factual basis or not.

And finally, if TheFyn remains certain that deceptive practices have occurred that break the law, then why hasn't he reported this to the authorities and reported back on their response here, as I have urged him to do?

Until you (or TheFyn) answers the questions in red - and I mean actually answer those questions with facts, not sidestep the issue by saying the same opinion over and over - with all due respect, I simply cannot take what you say seriously.

[zombioki]

Outfits like Musician's Friend, Harmony Central and Guitar Center seem to prey on the Uninformed and Easily Manipulated.



Johnny

How do they prey on anyone? As was mentioned earlier, it's a free market system, don't like it, don't buy it. Sad thing is, if they didn't exist you'd all be complaining about how high prices are now. The prices are as low as they are below MSRP because the RETAILERS have driven them that low. The same people you whine and complain about. They've given up higher prices fighting to get your dollar. Who benefits? You! And saying Harmony Central is part of it? I didn't even realize there are ads. I've grown to tune that sort of thing out. Know why? Because ad space pays to keep sites I like running. So you deal with it. The core system of harmony central is simply a user based exchange of information. I believe the mods will be the first to tell you along with 99.9% of other members that information gets through that is innaccurate. Because the system relies on input from people. Like you. "The uninformed and easily manipulated." Please. Easily manipulated? Like you are the first to realize this is happening from a corporation. Get in line. Stay tuned next week! Johnny will discuss how Kennedy was actually shot from the Grassy Knoll!

[Anderton]

Outfits like Musician's Friend, Harmony Central and Guitar Center seem to prey on the Uninformed and Easily Manipulated.

Johnny

One more question, specifically for Johnny Wishbone:

Can you provide one example of Harmony Central preying on the uninformed and easily manipulated?

[Anderton]

The prices are as low as they are below MSRP because the RETAILERS have driven them that low.

This is an excellent point. If you look at the relationship of street prices to MSRP over several decades, you'll see that the trend has been an ever-widening gap, as the sales model for goods went from smaller/low volume stores to larger/high volume stores.

Shopping engine-driven, internet-based comparison shopping has continued to widen that gap even further.

[Anderton]

Mr. Anderton, I tend to go with street or MAP when reviewing gear and software. I know that our readers are probably sophisticated enough to understand that MSRP is never representative of the actual price at market of an item but by going with MSRP it can make items appear to be in certain product brackets that don't reflect reality, whereas street/MAP tends to be much more realistic and lets people know where things lie in relation to one another, which I think is an important consideration.

I noticed that Keyboard magazine now gives two prices for product reviews: MSRP and "street," so you're probably on to something. This is also what I do for the reviews in the Harmony Central Confidential newsletter. And maybe that's what EQ should do, which leads me to two questions where you might be able to give some advice:

* How do you make the choice between giving MAP or street price for a given product?

* MAP is standardized, so that should be a firm figure. But how do you determine what is a representative street price?

Thank you for your constructive comments!

[ermghoti II]

Can you provide one example of Harmony Central preying on the uninformed and easily manipulated?

The plane-on-a-conveyor-belt thread comes to mind.

[thefyn]

One more question, specifically for Johnny Wishbone:

Can you provide one example of Harmony Central preying on the uninformed and easily manipulated?

I already mentioned one.

Kirk Hammet
Randall
Master Of Puppets playing in the background.

The uniformed would surmise that Kirk used Randalls on Master of Puppets. One of the most sought after tones in metal.

[thefyn]

Know why? Because ad space pays to keep sites I like running. So you deal with it. The core system of harmony central is simply a user based exchange of information. I believe the mods will be the first to tell you along with 99.9% of other members that information gets through that is innaccurate. Because the system relies on input from people. Like you. "The uninformed and easily manipulated." Please. Easily manipulated? Like you are the first to realize this is happening from a corporation. Get in line. Stay tuned next week! Johnny will discuss how Kennedy was actually shot from the Grassy Knoll!

This is a wonderful. It is basically you stating everyone should accept it.

[thefyn]

This is an excellent point. If you look at the relationship of street prices to MSRP over several decades, you'll see that the trend has been an ever-widening gap, as the sales model for goods went from smaller/low volume stores to larger/high volume stores.

Shopping engine-driven, internet-based comparison shopping has continued to widen that gap even further.

The same person completely contradicted himself when he posted this:



Even then. Think about the psychology behind it. You as a manufacture make a guitar that will have a street price of $199. If a customer looks at the msrp and sees $199, they will think to themselves, "hmm, even the manufacturer knowing what went into this guitar, thinks this piece of crap is only worth this much."

If you are going to agree with "excellent posts", at least team up with someone with a more cohesive argument. If you read between his lines, he is proving me right. He is basically stating net savvy musicians know about these marketing techniques, and if you don't: tough.

[Anderton]

The plane-on-a-conveyor-belt thread comes to mind.

Link? I don't know what you're referring to.

[Anderton]

I already mentioned one.

Kirk Hammet
Randall
Master Of Puppets playing in the background.

The uniformed would surmise that Kirk used Randalls on Master of Puppets. One of the most sought after tones in metal.

Can you not tell the difference between Harmony Central and an ad from a company that advertises on Harmony Central?

Apparently not. I'm sure (or at least I hope) people don't think that your rantings are representative of Harmony Central just because you're posting here.

Complain to Randall. If Kirk Hammett doesn't have a problem with being represented that way, that's HIS decision, not YOURS. For all I know he's able to get that exact sound with Randall amps.

[JohnnyWishbone]

I'm an Artist. I go on feelings, and Impressions. Not facts, citations, and Data. That's just how I feel. The impressions I get. Stuff like that Is just as important as Real Stuff.


Thanks



Johnny

[JohnnyWishbone]

Outfits like Musician's Friend, Harmony Central and Guitar Center seem to prey on the Uninformed and Easily Manipulated.



Johnny




Probably should have Emphasized this Bit. No hard Feelings!



Johnny

[thefyn]

Can you not tell the difference between Harmony Central and an ad from a company that advertises on Harmony Central?

Apparently not. I'm sure (or at least I hope) people don't think that your rantings are representative of Harmony Central just because you're posting here.

Complain to Randall. If Kirk Hammett doesn't have a problem with being represented that way, that's HIS decision, not YOURS. For all I know he's able to get that exact sound with Randall amps.

Ranting?

You seem to be making up stuff to undermine my argument. Where did I rant?

As for the average HCer:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=2341470

They seem to all know it is BS marketing click tool rather than a true sale.

From manipulated MSRP's from the manufacturer, to the BS item that is 96% off that draws people to the "sale" which is just basic price matching therefore the same price as its competitors.

That is called business as usual. NOT a blowout sale.

And you are being high school debate devils advocate to accept it, rather than deride it for what it is.

[Surrealistic]

I'm an Artist. I go on feelings, and Impressions. Not facts, citations, and Data ... Stuff like that Is just as important as Real StuffWow. I mean ... no ... wow is all I can say.

[thefyn]

Wow. I mean ... no ... wow is all I can say.

Hehe. You are Surrealistic, you should translate what he is saying for us.

[Anderton]

If you are going to agree with "excellent posts", at least team up with someone with a more cohesive argument. If you read between his lines, he is proving me right. He is basically stating net savvy musicians know about these marketing techniques, and if you don't: tough.

Okay, I see the problem: You don't read very carefully. That's cool. I said "excellent POINT" (specifically, the part I quoted about retailers widening the gap between MSRP and street price over time, which has nothing to do with whether people are savvy enough to realize that things don't always sell at list price) and referenced his POINT. You are saying I said "excellent POST." I didn't.

But it seems you have a tendency to read things into posts, ads, whatever that aren't there. I get it: That's your mindset. I'm okay with that now that I understand where you're coming from. It's the same kind of mindset that sees conspiracies where none exist, although to be fair, sometimes conspiracies DO exist so it's not a bad idea to be on the lookout for them. It's only when everything is seen through a "conspiracy filter" that things get dicey.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked you to answer. But if you answer only one, it's the one about why you don't contact the authorities in charge of consumer fraud. Until you do, I can only assume that even you don't really believe there is something fraudulent going on, otherwise you would pursue this subject with people who could back you up, prove you right, and even collect damages on your behalf if what you're seeing is indeed true.

I don't know you, and I'm sure that if we had a beer together, we'd have plenty of things in common to talk about, and probably lots of things we agree on. But sometimes you just have to recognize when you're overreacting, and move on.

[Anderton]

Rant: "To speak or disclaim extravagantly." As you don't engage in a reasoned debate (I answer your questions, but you don't answer the most important ones of mine), in my opinion, that is ranting rather than discussing. Others may disagree with how they interpret that word.

[ermghoti II]

Link? I don't know what you're referring to.

Oops. It's a laffy joek. There's a 100+ page thread of people failing basic logic 101 here. (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=1107256&pp=20) I was poking fun at the OP for being the only person on earth confused by marketing puffery. He'll cheer up when he finds out he may have already won 10 million dollars.

[Anderton]

I'm an Artist. I go on feelings, and Impressions. Not facts, citations, and Data. That's just how I feel. The impressions I get. Stuff like that Is just as important as Real Stuff.

Okay, but surely something must have occurred to cause that feeling. What did Harmony Central do to give you the sense that it preys on the misinformed and easily manipulated?

[Agreed]

I noticed that Keyboard magazine now gives two prices for product reviews: MSRP and "street," so you're probably on to something. This is also what I do for the reviews in the Harmony Central Confidential newsletter. And maybe that's what EQ should do, which leads me to two questions where you might be able to give some advice:

* How do you make the choice between giving MAP or street price for a given product?

* MAP is standardized, so that should be a firm figure. But how do you determine what is a representative street price?

Thank you for your constructive comments!

MAP and street price are usually identical, due to the influence of big chains and online stores. For all intents and purposes these days, you can consider MAP street. There are still some instances where that's not the case, I'm sure, and in those cases I'd want the flexibility to pick, but in all instances of bigger products that I've reviewed so far MAP and street don't differ, and in the cases of products from small makers (where MSRP is rarely a consideration, since they're often making and selling them on their own first and foremost with secondary consideration given to dealers) all there IS is street price.

This could be me being cynical but over time I have come to the conclusion that MSRP exists primarily to give retailers the opportunity to claim enormous discounts. For example, this Dean starter acoustic-electric (http://bass-guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dean-Playmate-EAB-AcousticElectric-Bass?sku=519943#new) - they can advertise a savings of 51%. Would anyone pay anything close to $347 for such an instrument? Goodness, no.

MSRP used to be a more significant number than it is today. In some cases it retains its significance but those cases tend to be more infamous than interesting - take Waves' plugin packs, which they now offer payment plans for, at full MSRP last I checked. So manufacturers the majority of the time get to pretend MSRP doesn't matter, except when they stand to make a fair sum :) And the relationship between MSRP and price differs: This Dean 12-string (http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dean-Boca-12String-Electric-Guitar?sku=519862#new) has an MSRP of $599, while this Godin archtop (http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Godin-5th-Avenue-Series-Archtop-Acoustic-Guitar?sku=518494#new) has an MSRP of $625. If we as reviewers relied on MSRP to price our products under review, people might get the mistaken idea that the guitars are in the same price bracket, perhaps of the same quality, etc.; when really that Dean sells for $350 (A 41% discount!!!!) all day long and the Godin sells for $519 (a measly 16% discount). Which just goes to show that MSRP is used differently by different manufacturers and is often artificially inflated, resulting in inconclusive and perhaps worse, mal-conclusive inferences about product quality and relationships.

I'm not at all anti-manufacturer but these are the patterns I've observed, and I think in service to my readers it's better to err on the side of reality even though it is tougher to pin down.

Thanks for hearing me out, I look forward to hearing your response!

[Anderton]

Where did I rant?

Repeating the same opinion over and over, avoiding my questions, and not having the conviction to take your case up with the authorities border on extravagance. The way I read the dictionary, you're ranting. You're welcome to disagree, and I figured you would - because by making this minor choice of words an issue, you can avoid dealing with the substantive questions that await answers which so far, are not forthcoming.

As for the average HCer:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=2341470

They seem to all know it is BS marketing click tool rather than a true sale.

Well, an average HCer just qualified it as a "laffy joke" thread. I'll take his word for it.

From manipulated MSRP's from the manufacturer, to the BS item that is 96% off that draws people to the "sale" which is just basic price matching therefore the same price as its competitors.

You say "BS item." There were multiple items, at least one of which was discounted 97%. You are misstating facts by referring to "BS item" in the singular. Also, you have yet to show an example of where the items that had such deep discounts were price-matched; you instead chose an item that wasn't as deeply-discounted, and I quote facts and figures from several sites that did NOT price-match that level of discount. You say the price is matching that of its competitors, but in truth, it matches a small number of competitors. The majority of dealers an impartial shopping bot brought up sold the same item for a higher price. That is indisputable.

That is called business as usual. NOT a blowout sale.

You have yet to answer my question as to what would qualify as a blowout sale. My understanding (after all, there's no dictionary definition), which I think is entirely reasonable, is "selling items at or below cost (i.e., at a loss) in order to clear them out of inventory." If you actually presented a definition of what you think a blowout sale is, then we would have a basis for discussion. Until then, I'm just saying "I think it's a blowout sale because I think it matches this reasonable definition" and you're replying with "No, it's not" but without giving any further insight into what would qualify as a blowout sale to your way of thinking.

And you are being high school debate devils advocate to accept it, rather than deride it for what it is.

I have asked sincere questions to try to better understand your viewpoint, because frankly, it makes no sense to me. Perhaps you actually believe there was only one item being blown out at 96%. Maybe you didn't read my posts that factually refuted some of your claims. If you can't answer questions to clarify your position, then that doesn't make for much of a debate.

Several months ago Office Depot advertised 16GB memory sticks for $9.95, which was their cost. They also advertised several items that were free after you sent in a mail-in rebate. OF COURSE they were hoping to get me into the store, and hoping that while I was there, I would buy something like those outrageously high-profit ink jet cartridges.

Maybe to you that's deceptive, and if so, then the only option is to "agree to disagree" and move on, because I DON'T consider advertising loss leaders to be deceptive. Here's why: The 16GB memory stick WAS sold for $9.95. The free items WERE free. Now, had I gone in there and they said "Well actually, the 16GB stick is really $29.95 because you didn't read the fine print on page 42 that your birthday had to be prior to 1867 to qualify for the discount," that would be deceptive. Of if you had to pay a "handling charge" that wasn't mentioned in the ad for the "free" item...to me, that would also qualify as deceptive.

I am really, really trying to understand the reasoning behind your opinions. But I'm not getting answers to basic questions that would help me understand your reasoning.

[Anderton]

Thanks for hearing me out, I look forward to hearing your response!

That is EXACTLY the type of reasoned, educational response, citing facts and figures, I had hoped to get from others. And frankly, you have made a totally compelling argument that MAP prices are better to quote than street or MSRP prices. I plan to do this starting with the next issue of EQ, because we've been trying to figure out a fair solution, and I think you've hit on it. I may do MSRP and MAP for a while to transition over.

While I agree that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that some manufacturers set artifically high prices for the reasons you give, I also think in some cases it may be a case of "legacy pricing" where companies reflexively divide the list price by a certain amount to derive the cost to the dealer "because it's always been done that way" (e.g., the old-school "4X cost = list price, 1/2 list price = dealer cost").

In any event, as I said waaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, if someone has a problem with how a MANUFACTURER sets the list price which a retailer then quotes accurately, the appropriate place to complain is to the MANUFACTURER, not the retailer.

And for the record, there ARE instances where a high differential between list price and the actual selling price reflect market conditions - e.g., an overstock situation, or a product coming out that demolishes the market a previous item had. For example, the GigaStudio upgrade used to sell for close to, or even at, list price when GigaStudio 3 came out. But when TASCAM dropped support for the product, those upgrades became close to worthless to new owners, which in my opinion is probably why MF was blowing them out.

[Agreed]

Oh, definitely - this stuff is really complex, and there are so many players that trying to attribute a universal set of motivations is impossible and frankly ill-advised. Godin obviously intends their MSRP to mean something different than Dean does, to continue that illustration. To my view that makes it even more important that we don't rely on MSRP in our reviewing, though, because in that case it's unfair to Godin. The way that pricing works and the relationship between retailers and manufacturers has changed significantly and while I think it is trending more like Dean<->retailer, the Godin<->retailer relationships are still out there. Reporting street/MAP I think balances all of the interests involved most fairly.

I agree that there are genuine sale situations out there, but inflated MSRPs definitely allow retailers to advertise extremely high daily "sale" prices that effectively aren't. Caveat emptor, but in our case we've got a lot of people to think about, know what I mean? Best to go with the fairest and most truthful option.

Thanks for listening :thu:

[thefyn]

Okay, I see the problem: You don't read very carefully.

But it seems you have a tendency to read things into posts, ads, whatever that aren't there. I get it: That's your mindset. I'm okay with that now that I understand where you're coming from. It's the same kind of mindset that sees conspiracies where none exist, although to be fair, sometimes conspiracies DO exist so it's not a bad idea to be on the lookout for them. It's only when everything is seen through a "conspiracy filter" that things get dicey.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked you to answer. But if you answer only one, it's the one about why you don't contact the authorities in charge of consumer fraud. Until you do, I can only assume that even you don't really believe there is something fraudulent going on, otherwise you would pursue this subject with people who could back you up, prove you right, and even collect damages on your behalf if what you're seeing is indeed true.

I don't know you, and I'm sure that if we had a beer together, we'd have plenty of things in common to talk about, and probably lots of things we agree on. But sometimes you just have to recognize when you're overreacting, and move on.

I did contact the authorities in charge. You. This thread. It is a request to ask HC to drop MF's tricky tactics listed by Agreed.

Asking every manufacturer that inflates its MSRP prices to deep discount is useless and you know it. There are 100's if not 1000's of manufacturers that MF use. So your suggestion is a blatant cop out. Maybe if I was ranting like you claimed I would already be on the phone to all of them as you have me pegged as a blithering imbecile with deep conspiracy theories.

The reality: I spend most of my online day here. I don't like being fooled by the new and interesting ways MF seems to always get my clicks, leaving me scratching my head asking "what sale?". Enough with the BS on HC is all I ask.

[Anderton]

And one more thing: Although I disagree with TheFan's opinions and methods of attempting to debate a point, I am VERY glad he started this thread because ultimately, Agreed presented a solution to a problem I've been wrestling with for the past month or so. :thu:

[thefyn]

Well, an average HCer just qualified it as a "laffy joke" thread. I'll take his word for it.

Wasn't his ref to the conveyor belt aircraft thread as a laffy joke thread?


You say "BS item." There were multiple items, at least one of which was discounted 97%. You are misstating facts by referring to "BS item" in the singular. Also, you have yet to show an example of where the items that had such deep discounts were price-matched; you instead chose an item that wasn't as deeply-discounted, and I quote facts and figures from several sites that did NOT price-match that level of discount. You say the price is matching that of its competitors, but in truth, it matches a small number of competitors. The majority of dealers an impartial shopping bot brought up sold the same item for a higher price. That is indisputable.


You know what scratch and dent means correct? And how many competitors do MF have? Their main competitors were on par price wise. Even with a scratch and dent thrown into the mix. BS item is a ref to the MSRP which is BS. The whole sale % is based off a bogus figure. That is indisputable.



You have yet to answer my question as to what would qualify as a blowout sale. My understanding (after all, there's no dictionary definition), which I think is entirely reasonable, is "selling items at or below cost (i.e., at a loss) in order to clear them out of inventory." If you actually presented a definition of what you think a blowout sale is, then we would have a basis for discussion. Until then, I'm just saying "I think it's a blowout sale because I think it matches this reasonable definition" and you're replying with "No, it's not" but without giving any further insight into what would qualify as a blowout sale to your way of thinking.

My definition of a blow out sale is at the very least, a sale.

Something is on sale.

The fact:

Their main competitors had the same ballpark price.

[slight-return]

My definition of a blow out sale is at the very least, a sale.

Something is on sale.

The fact:

Their main competitors had the same ballpark price.


Advertising law can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general, "sale" (in 'special offer' advertisement, as opposed to the legally broader sense of type of transaction [as in something is sold] ) mean that the merchant has, previously offered the item at a higher price
it's not a competitive analysis (unless those comparative statements were made in the advertisement)

just for example LA county has a little FAQ about the legalities there
http://dca.lacounty.gov/tsFalseAdvertising.htm
(and cover the "what if I find it at a lower price question" - that "sale" isn't a competitive analysis in LA county)

Now from jurisdiction to jurisdiction the parameters are going to vary

Alaska has some interesting ones [9 AAC 05.020]
because of the seasonal nature there ...like you can only have items on sale abt 1/2 the time they are offered for sale


and this can be important..Unless the price reduction is permanent in order to clear inventory (there, the term "blowout" might be used to declare of that sort of sale)

(I believe other places like CA require that the item have been at a higher price within...grain of salt, but I think it's 120 days)

If musicians friend (not a competitor) has not offered the item at a higher price - then there may very well be a case on (reduced price) "sale" itself


One thing to consider is that ADVERTISEMENT in general is designed to put the advertiser's products in an attractive light
So we need to concentrate on if the advertisement was implicitly deceptive (as I doubt we are going to show explicit deception as the factuals are exposed in the advert and subject to verification) - and this is probably going to come down to caselaw at which point you'd want to consult your licensed legal professional

One note, fyn, while I realize you have had an unpleasant experience - I fear that your perspective may not be a good litmus test b/c you come from a different culture

[Anderton]

I did contact the authorities in charge. You. This thread.

At reputable publications, there is a wall between sales and editorial. Editorial does not influence content in advertising, and in return, advertisers do not influence editorial content. Editorial CAN make a case for rejecting advertising if it promotes something that's clearly illegal or morally reprehensible, but I remain unconvinced that the practice of a retailer quoting a list price supplied by a manufacturer, quoting a sale price, and saying "Hey! Look at that discount!" is illegal. That is why I have urged you to go to the consumer authorities. If they say the specific instances you cite are indeed illegal, then I would be convinced.

I do not place, control, or create the ads you see on HC, other than the videos promoting certain aspects of HC's editorial content (the newsletter, show coverage, etc.) I take full responsibility for the content in those ads, and no others.

It is a request to ask HC to drop MF's tricky tactics listed by Agreed.

Agreed did not list any "tricky tactics" specifically on the part of MF. He listed "tricky tactics" on the part of some manufacturers that may help retailers seem to offer greater discounts than is justified, but also pointed out that some retailers do sell close to list price, or even at list price, and that the overall situation is a complex one that does not lend itself to a simple solution.

Asking every manufacturer that inflates its MSRP prices to deep discount is useless and you know it. There are 100's if not 1000's of manufacturers that MF use. So your suggestion is a blatant cop out.

No it is not. I think you would agree that a discount of 0-25% compared to list price is not unreasonble, especially if some stores are selling for close to MSRP. So, it is not ALL manufacturers who use "tricky tactics." If you simply target the ones who you feel are most egregious by writing them, and/or starting threads that encourage others to write those manufacturers, you will get more tangible results than "blaming the messenger."

Furthermore, I think MF carries something like 60,000 products (don't quote me on that, but I think it's at least in the ballpark). I presume they don't have the time or resources to sift through each one of those and make a value judgement as to whether a list price is inflated or not. I just don't see where it would be humanly possible. And I don't know if it would be legal for them to make these kind of value judgements. After all, it is the "manufacturer's SUGGESTED list price." Obviously a lot of stores don't take that suggestion. Are retailers taking advantage of the fictitious list price? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the individual case. There are plenty of examples I cited where clearly, the company IS taking a bath on a product where they misjudged demand, and the sale prices are dramatically low compared to NON-outrageous list prices (e.g., the GigaStudio upgrade). My head explodes just thinking about sorting through all those things and trying to decide which manufacturer's MSRP is for real and which one isn't.

The best way to create change is to go to the source of the problem. If a politician lies in a press conference, you don't blame the newspaper for printing the lie; the newspaper's job is to report, except on the editorial page. You vote the sucker out. You go to the source. And I think you will have to admit that the GigaStudio example I gave above is not at all deceptive or misleading, but simply a result of market realities that are causing MF to take a bath on their existing stock...but which would be a really cool deal for a GigaStudio owner who wants to upgrade and get a few more useful years of life out of the program. That's just one example of the difficulties of applying a "one-size-fits-all" solution.

I think you would have had far better results if you had come into this thread with an understanding of the constraints under which retailers work, targeted a few companies that you feel are particularly egregious in their MSRP policies, and urged a letter-writing campaign to those companies. You have the advantage that this is an extremely competitive industry and companies are very sensitive to PR. Even five letters to a company would get some serious internal discussions going.

However, you might also find out that some wood buyer really blew it and the wood ended up costing three times as much as projected, the company set a really high list price to cover it, found they couldn't sell anything at that price, then sold the remaining stock for cheap to a retailer (and fired the wood buyer LOL). That's a distinct possibility too, but finding out the truth of the matter would be extremely time-consuming. So the high list price MAY be the result of trying to sneak something past the consumer, or it MAY have been caused by a legit Epic Fail. Retailers simply cannot police all that stuff, which is why Federal agencies and Better Business Bureaus were created to be impartial judges of these kinds of situations.

Maybe if I was ranting like you claimed I would already be on the phone to all of them as you have me pegged as a blithering imbecile with deep conspiracy theories.

For the record, I definitely DO NOT consider you an imbecile (I do think you have purposely evaded several important issues, and misrepresented what I and others have said, but that doesn't make you an imbecile - that makes you a future potential politician :)). In a previous post, I even thanked you for bringing up this issue, because it clarified several related things for me. If I felt you were an imbecile I would not be attempting to engage in a dialog. I would just ignore the thread. Any animosity you sense is my deep frustration in not being able to get answers out of you that would further the discussion, like what you think would qualify as a "blow out" sale. Do you agree with my definition that it's selling items at or below cost to reduce inventory? Do you think that it needs to be below cost, or that in a sale, a certain percentage of items would need to be below a certain price threshold? This is what I'm not getting. I'm asking what I think are reasonable questions, and I will admit that not getting any answers is extremely frustrating, especially when the questions remain unanswered after numerous requests. If that frustration shows too much, then I certainly apologize. I usually try to hide any frustrations out of courtesy, and usually succeed. Perhaps in this case, I did not.

The reality: I spend most of my online day here. I don't like being fooled by the new and interesting ways MF seems to always get my clicks, leaving me scratching my head asking "what sale?". Enough with the BS on HC is all I ask.

To which I say again, go to the source that presents the price they want retailers to quote.

You say you consider me an authority in charge. I hope you now understand that in the realm of advertising in media, I am not an authority in charge. However, I am an authority in charge of editorial. That is something I DO have control over. I promise you this:

* A place where I do have authority, EQ magazine, will now list MAP in addition to MSRP in reviews going forward, and possibly phase out MSRP altogether, directly as a result of this thread that you started, along with Agreed's knowledgeable, specific, and helpful response. (HC already does MSRP and street price in the newsletter reviews.)

* I will continue my ongoing practice of mentioning in print and online that list prices are mostly fictitious, and people should shop around for the best deal. Anyone who thinks I have not tried to educate people about this is not familiar with my work.

* I will engage with as many manufacturers as possible at the upcoming NAMM show and discuss what's been brought up in this thread, and recommend that they bring their MSRP prices more in line with reality because failing to do so is creating negative PR they don't want, as well as putting retailers in a very difficult position.

* I will write an editorial addressing this subject in my Sound, Studio, and Stage forum, and solicit comments.

Those are things that are within my power to do, and I will do them. Although I think I understand where you're coming from, where I disagree totally is where you assign responsibility. The sheer volume of products that a large-volume retailer carries precludes being able to examine every instance of MSRP and making a value judgement about whether it's bogus or not. I'm sure you must understand that. Furthermore, all retailers compete with other retailers who face the same constraints, are given the same list prices, and quote sale prices compared to that price. It's not fair to say one retailer should follow certain guidelines when other competitors don't. The only solution is to fix the problem at the source so that there's a level playing field for ALL retailers. This would also level the playing field for manufacturers.

If you won't go to the manufacturers, I will. But it would help a whole lot if people including you also expressed your opinions TO THEM so I'm not just one voice in the wilderness.

I realize at this point if you haven't answered my questions by now, you probably never will. I am nonetheless taking action based on your request, even though i don't understand your take on issues like how you want blow out sale to be defined, or how you can differentiate between legitimate and bogus deep discounts. I may not be taking the action you wanted, but in my professional opinion, it is a correct and practical course of action that will be more likely to get results where they count rather than be a band-aid on the situation, where the underlying problems are never addressed.

Cool?

[thefyn]

One thing to consider is that ADVERTISEMENT in general is designed to put the advertiser's products in an attractive light
So we need to concentrate on if the advertisement was implicitly deceptive (as I doubt we are going to show explicit deception as the factuals are exposed in the advert and subject to verification) - and this is probably going to come down to caselaw at which point you'd want to consult your licensed legal professional

One note, fyn, while I realize you have had an unpleasant experience - I fear that your perspective may not be a good litmus test b/c you come from a different culture

Yep I fell for it when I first came to the USA.

As for the above, the law states it is the overall impression of the advert is the factor for it to be misleading. Not the adverts technical validity.

[slight-return]

Yep I fell for it when I first came to the USA.

that's why it probably isn't a good not a litmus test




As for the above, the law states it is the overall impression of the advert is the factor for it to be misleading. Not the adverts technical validity.


[Note : It's best when we say "the law" , that we cite specific code and caselaw when possible ]

we need to address not just just "overall impression" but "misleading"
as (even good faith) advertising itself deals with "overall impression" (this was addressed in my last post differentiating between implicit and explicit deception)
so even with "overall impression" we are left with the question is it attractive or actually deceptive

and this may be the sticking point (and there may not be a brightline) and, again, that's where caselaw is probably going to be extremely important

[Anderton]

For those who don't want to wade through my verbiage :), what I mean by fixing the problem at the source is this: If MSRP are all legit/realistic, or eliminated entirely, then the retailer doesn't even factor into the picture, and the problem is fixed by definition.

[slight-return]

If I may offer a practical step
Fyn, you could contact Musicians Friend's legal dept with your concerns to see what their legal position on the situation is

[zombioki]

The laws state, the overall impression of the advertisement is what counts, not the factual accuracy of the claims.

You are correct here. It is the impression made on the general public.

It's not really a blow out sale is it? We all know it fellas. We know their "sale" has been going on for 15 years. The uninformed
consumer may not know. I didn't the first month I came to America.

Here you are incorrect. By saying, "we all know it fellas," you just completely undermined your argument. By saying this, you admitted to the fact that it is NOT misleading to the general audience.

The advertising is getting sketchy on HC. Apparently, Master of Puppets was recorded with a Randall. :cop: Because that is the impression you get via the music playing in the background of the Randall Kirk Hammet video on the front of HC.

This is just a dumb statement in general.

[Anderton]

You know what scratch and dent means correct?

Yes, but they mentioned that it was, so there was no attempt to claim it was new.

And how many competitors do MF have? Their main competitors were on par price wise. Even with a scratch and dent thrown into the mix.

I went to Google again and found the following for today's prices (these are all the results that showed up in the bot, I'm not leaving out anything). Decide for yourself whether they're all on a par.

American Musical $499.98
Guitar Plaza.com $899.99
zZounds $499.95
Musicians Friend $599 (I guess it really was a sale, the price went back up to the previous price!)
Gearhounds Guitars and Music $899
Same Day Music $499
Music123 $521.13
eBay $899.95
Amazon $539.99

BS item is a ref to the MSRP which is BS. The whole sale % is based ]
off a bogus figure. That is indisputable.

Just because some or even many list prices are bogus doesn't mean all list prices are bogus. As Agreed pointed out, try buying Waves plug-ins for significantly less than list price (and if you succeed, let me know - I need to upgrade to version 6). However, I have stated many times in print that list prices are fictitious and people should shop around. That seems like the most helpful advice to offer. You can never go wrong by doing comparison shopping, I think that's pretty obvious.

My definition of a blow out sale is at the very least, a sale.

Something is on sale.

Before the sale, MF was selling the Split Tail for $599. During the sale, they sold it for $499. Now it's back up to $599. Sure seems like a sale to me.

The fact: Their main competitors had the same ballpark price.

See the figures quoted above. I suppose you could split hairs over what a "main" competitor is, but let's face it, with a limited number of high-volume retailers slugging it out, they're going to level out around the same basic price to remain competitive.

[zombioki]

The same person completely contradicted himself when he posted this:



If you are going to agree with "excellent posts", at least team up with someone with a more cohesive argument. If you read between his lines, he is proving me right. He is basically stating net savvy musicians know about these marketing techniques, and if you don't: tough.

You've underminded your argument in almost every other post. It is the job of a marketer to understand the sociological psychology of selling. Do you realize how much marketing research is done to uderstand why you choose brand x of cereal versus brand y? This statement doesn't undermine my argument. It just strengthens it. You are complainig about retailers when youshould be complaining about manufacturers marketing teams. How about you try to read between the lines. It's common sense not Internet savvy musicians that tells you this.

[Anderton]

By saying, "we all know it fellas," you just completely undermined your argument. By saying this, you admitted to the fact that it is NOT misleading to the general audience.

To be fair to the Fyn, his whole point is that he gets it now, but he didn't the first time he went to buy something. Whether failing to educate oneself about how to make an intelligent purchasing decision is the responsibility of the individual, the retailer, the manufacturer, or some other entity is something that is not really relevant to this particular discussion, as the initial assumption (right or wrong) is that it is not the individual's responsibility.

But as far as I'm concerned, I've listened, I've debated, I've presented facts and figures, I've corrected errors, and I've laid out a concrete, four-step course of action in post #97 that I will pursue to help resolve this issue at the source. I've done more than enough. I need to get back to other things.

[zombioki]

My point by that post is the law he is discussing. The law states it cannot be misleading to the general audience. He is saying it is misleading to a general audience and henceforth, false advertising. But by saying the we all know it is a bunk sale, then that in turn confirms, he knows that the general audience is not mislead. That was all I was saying.

[Anderton]

My point by that post is the law he is discussing. The law states it cannot be misleading to the general audience. He is saying it is misleading to a general audience and henceforth, false advertising. But by saying the we all know it is a bunk sale, then that in turn confirms, he knows that the general audience is not mislead. That was all I was saying.

Got it. Makes sense.

[JohnnyWishbone]

The Content here is Really pretty good. It's the Corporate packaging that Has the reek of Manipulative Hucksterism. The Front page And The Pro Review Forum at the Top of the List all give off a certain smell That offends me. Think I'll just Bookmark the Forums I like and Skip all the Corporate Nonsense Alltogether when I visit.



Thanks




Johnny

[Anderton]

The Pro Reviews are the ONLY review format, online or in print, that allows end users to speak their minds - critique, praise, or comment on a product. No other review medium gives as much power to the end user, or allows them to shape the tone of the review. Or for that matter, ask direct questions to a manufacturer.

I came up with the Pro Review format specifically to overcome the page count limitations and credibility issues involved with print reviews. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that...whatever.

[Agreed]

I tried to do only forum-based reviewing when I first started writing, but it was difficult to get anyone on-board with real content. I did manage for awhile but eventually realized I was going to have to be associated with a publication, print or digital, before I could really do anything. I still keep my blog where I try to help people and interact with them one-on-one about my reviews, but it seems the majority of people really just go for the traditional review content and that's what they're interested in.

The neat thing about the Pro Reviews is that you've got the clout to get good products without the kind of skepticism that a low man on the totem pole like I was would face. I'd love to have a shot at doing some HC pro reviews, it was basically my idea for how reviews should work that I never was able to get to take off. I agree that it's very odd that someone would dislike the Pro Reviews, they're transparent and out-in-the-open, right? Not like there's someone going back behind posters and cleaning up their content for a positive spin, it's every man and product for himself and it keeps the reviewer and the manufacturer honest in an important way. FrugalGuitarist is an independent publication so we're not beholden to ad revenue from big guys to keep us afloat, which keeps us at a healthy distance from content providers, but even so there's something special about a genuinely interactive review format that I wish we had the power to do. Maybe as we continue to grow.

[thefyn]

My point by that post is the law he is discussing. The law states it cannot be misleading to the general audience. He is saying it is misleading to a general audience and henceforth, false advertising. But by saying the we all know it is a bunk sale, then that in turn confirms, he knows that the general audience is not mislead. That was all I was saying.

new sale...same items...

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dean-Splitail-Electric-Guitar?sku=520053

Apparently this time it "was" $600 with an MSRP of $1,375.00. haha.

No MF. It wasn't $600. This thread was proof.

This time it is an anniversary sale.:facepalm:

[slight-return]

new sale...same items...

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dean-Splitail-Electric-Guitar?sku=520053

Apparently this time it "was" $600 with an MSRP of $1,375.00. haha.

No MF. It wasn't $600. This thread was proof.

This time it is an anniversary sale.:facepalm:

Depending on the state - they may have had to offer the "was" price within a certain time period (say, 180 days just as an example), but that period could include another sale

We get it, you really really do not like their advertising - if you feel that they have acted illegally , I suggest yout
1) contacting MF legal and asking for clarification on their position with regard to this matter
2) contact the BBB which should also be able to steer you to filing legal complaint
3) contact your legal counsel and look into fling suit, possibly a class action

[Anderton]

new sale...same items...

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dean-Splitail-Electric-Guitar?sku=520053

Apparently this time it "was" $600 with an MSRP of $1,375.00. haha.

No MF. It wasn't $600. This thread was proof.

Actually when you created the thread, it was selling for $599. Not $600, but close enough. You can check my post where I researched the price on various sites.

BUT - there's a FAR more important issue at play here. As promised earlier in this thread, while at Summer NAMM I discussed the issue of MAP/street/list pricing with several companies. Few were willing to talk about it because there was some sort of legal action involving NAMM trying to get some kind of consensus on pricing, and apparently, it's not legal for companies to get together and try to determine uniform pricing policies as that falls under the "price-fixing" category (I know, that doesn't make sense. I'm just reporting). Frankly it's all pretty complicated and far too detailed and mind-numbing to go into here, but the lesson I took away from it is that any attempt to mandate some kind of pricing consistency is going to run afoul of the existing government trade laws.

So, I need to correct myself, because I was wrong: I said if you had a problem with these pricing disparities, you should complain to the manufacturers, not the companies quoting the prices established by the manufacturers. As it turns out, it seems you need to complain to the government about laws that make it difficult, if not actionable, for companies to "conspire" about how to set and define pricing.

Here's a link with some of the gory details: http://www.mmrmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=2DAFD28A855742EA88BC7F7A55D859C7

As I doubt you'll want to wade through all of it (you might have more important things to do, like watch paint dry), here are three paragraphs that pretty much sum things up:

This agreement, some of the confusing wording, and the fact that other organizations and manufacturers are still under investigation, will no doubt contribute to a continuing concern about what is legal and illegal. As one NAMM member not-so-joked before a meeting after the NAMM anti-trust statement was read, "MAP is legal; you just can't talk about it."

So how does one stay out of trouble?

"Whenever competitors are getting a room and start talking about prices, that should generally be off limits," Feinstein says. As to a couple of retailers in a bar casually talking business and the numbers that are inevitably a part of it, even that is "dangerous. There are just not a lot of good reasons to talk about pricing, and it's risky. It's good to be conservative for a while – who wants to take a chance on violating the agreement?"

So, the idea that any company, including MF, could exert influence on companies about their pricing policies - including things like inflated list prices or definitions of other pricing options - is unrealistic, as they would almost certainly end up in trouble with the law (as did NAMM) if they took any initiative along these lines.

Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger :)

[thefyn]

But it was not "was". It was a sale price back then.

The eternal sale.

[slight-return]

But it was not "was". It was a sale price back then.

The eternal sale.

"a sale price back then", would be another sale, Craig's post seems to indicate there was an offering at the "was" price at some point

again, if you feel there is illegal activity or there is legal question - follow the suggested steps above

As this is sticking in your craw, I would strongly suggest contacting MF legal for clarification on their position (they may, for instance, be able to provide you with historical information on the "was" price offering)

[bill.spanburgh]

This will probably get me banned, but I don't care.

It seems that some people have such sorry dismal lives that they have to go looking for things to that they can use to reinforce their own personal victim hood. If they couldn't present themselves as victims they'd have no life of self esteem at all. It a shame that the sort that I describe here almost never seek the professional help they need.

[thefyn]

This will probably get me banned, but I don't care.

It seems that some people have such sorry dismal lives that they have to go looking for things to that they can use to reinforce their own personal victim hood. If they couldn't present themselves as victims they'd have no life of self esteem at all. It a shame that the sort that I describe here almost never seek the professional help they need.

But I was a victim.

I already got ripped off with the eternal sale when I moved to the USA and believed the inflated MSRP, the "was" price, and thought the sale was simply too good to miss.

Lets face it. If the sale was legit and not fixed from almost every angle from the manufacturers bogus MSRP to the sellers hanging their hat on it to offer massive "cuts", everyone would be buying everything and flipping it on ebay for more than you bought it.

[Nijyo]

I guess I don't really care enough? :idk: For me its "does it do what I want, at a price I wanted to pay?"

Who cares what the original price was. If you're a newbie you don't know what you're buying, anyway, regardless of the sale, msrp, clearance, whatever. You could get ripped off buying something that was literally at cost if you didn't know what you were looking for.

That's why you ask friends, guitar teacher, look around on the web for forum threads, etc.

[thefyn]

Sometimes. Just sometimes. You gotta just sit back, and admire your glorious self.

http://www.hagens-berman.com/guitarcenter;jsessionid=accPBExyNWG9


Date Filed: September 22, 2009
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: California

Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit against Guitar Center and the National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) claiming the two conspired to fix retail pricing on fretted instruments.

Fretted instruments include banjos, acoustic and electric guitars, violins and more. The fret refers to the raised portion on the neck of the stringed instrument. On most modern instruments, frets are simply metal strips inserted into the neck to help expand music range and capability.

The suit claims NAMM organized meetings and programs where competing retailers, including Guitar Center, were encouraged to discuss and agree to strategies for price fixing along with other anti-competitive agreements with manufacturers.

The suit seeks to represent anyone who purchased a fretted musical instrument from Guitar Center between Jan. 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2007. If you purchased an instrument, you can participate in this lawsuit here.

[Anderton]

[Courtesy of Jeff Da Weasel from a thread on the same subject in a different forum]

Here's a perspective courtesy of Music Trades Magazine that may give you some insight...

===

MONTHS AFTER THE FTC CAME UP EMPTY-HANDED in its investigation into alleged industry price fixing, a civil suit has been filed making similar allegations. Guitar Center, Fender Musical Instruments, and NAMM stand accused in a class action suit of working in concert to "artificially inflate" the price of guitars and deprive consumers of choice. David Giambusso, a Brooklyn resident who bought an instrument from Guitar Center in September 2007, says he paid too much, and the suit seeks $5 million in damages for him and everyone else who purchased a fretted instrument or accessory between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. Giambusso is represented by Mark Tamblyn of Wexler & Wallace. A lead attorney for the full class of plaintiffs has yet to be announced.

Although Guitar Center, Fender, and NAMM are the only parties named in the suit, the complaint alleges that other "unnamed" enterprises were likely to have participated in the conspiracy. Lawyers say they will uncover these other parties through the discovery process and take appropriate action.

In an error-filled complaint, filed in Sacramento, California on September 11, 2009, attorneys paint a picture of three immensely powerful entities--NAMM, Guitar Center, and Fender--working closely together to force up prices and exclude low-priced products from the marketplace. Fender, as the "largest guitar company" in the United States, is said to have used its market clout in unspecified ways to prevent potential competitors from "competing effectively against the defendants." Guitar Center, by virtue of its size and national reach, is said to have achieved near "monopoly power," which it has used to keep lower-priced products out of the marketplace. NAMM, which includes most of the industry's suppliers and retailers as members, stands accused of urging its membership to raise prices to fatten the bottom lines at Fender and Guitar Center. To bolster this claim, the complaint cites the recently concluded FTC investigation, which expressed concern that certain NAMM-sponsored meetings could encourage price fixing.

As proof of this alleged conspiracy, lawyers cite average selling prices from The Music Trades Industry Census. However, the numbers cited bear no relation to the actual published data. The complaint states, "According to The Music Trades Annual Census of the Music Industry, published in 2009, in 2006 the average price of a guitar was $309, by 2007 the average price was $350, and by 2008 the average price was $372." The actual numbers published in The Music Trades show no such increases. We reported that the average selling price of a guitar in 2006 was $372; it increased to $389 in 2007 and then retreated to $375 in 2008.

In other notable errors, the complaint references 80,000-square-foot Guitar Center stores stocking 4,500 SKUs, when the company reports store sizes of between 15,000 and 25,000 square feet, and an average 11,000 SKU count. The complaint also claims that Best Buy is opening 91,250-square-foot music stores, when the actual size is approximately 2,000 square feet.