Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
  #1
pentax 16-50mm $969 at b&h
Posted By: Adam, 04-11-2013, 09:29 AM

BH has just posted a great online deal for the 16-50mm!

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video




Views: 1,361
04-11-2013, 09:50 AM   #2
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,702
I just don't understand how B&H can display such prices that are not compliant with the Pentax MAP policy. It's one thing to "show the price in cart" or only make it available on the phone or in person, it's another thing to actually present the price so prominently and in the open on the main product page of the vendor's website.
04-11-2013, 10:15 AM   #3
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,984
Original Poster
If Pentax approved the deal, then BH can post it.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

04-11-2013, 10:32 AM   #4
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by seventysixersfan Quote
I just don't understand how B&H can display such prices that are not compliant with the Pentax MAP policy. It's one thing to "show the price in cart" or only make it available on the phone or in person, it's another thing to actually present the price so prominently and in the open on the main product page of the vendor's website.
Don't like discounted lens prices? MAP Police? Your view of this is quite different from the norm it seems.......

04-11-2013, 10:50 AM   #5
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,626
shows up for me at $969
04-11-2013, 11:22 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 800
If only it were $799.99 again....
04-11-2013, 11:54 AM   #7
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
Don't like discounted lens prices? MAP Police? Your view of this is quite different from the norm it seems......
No, my intent wasn't to complain about the fact that the price is less; it's just that I was confused about MAP (and dislike it a lot) and wondered why some companies must follow it and others don't abide by it. I agree with Adam that B&H, as one of the biggest authorized vendors of Pentax, must have gotten permission to do it.
04-11-2013, 12:08 PM   #8
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by seventysixersfan Quote
No, my intent wasn't to complain about the fact that the price is less; it's just that I was confused about MAP (and dislike it a lot) and wondered why some companies must follow it and others don't abide by it. I agree with Adam that B&H, as one of the biggest authorized vendors of Pentax, must have gotten permission to do it.
Yeah - I will admit that it is kind of strange in a way.

04-11-2013, 12:13 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by seventysixersfan Quote
No, my intent wasn't to complain about the fact that the price is less; it's just that I was confused about MAP (and dislike it a lot) and wondered why some companies must follow it and others don't abide by it. I agree with Adam that B&H, as one of the biggest authorized vendors of Pentax, must have gotten permission to do it.
MAP is killing sales so they have to do something. These Command Economy decisions are just unsustainable.
04-11-2013, 01:47 PM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
If Pentax approved the deal, then BH can post it.
If B&H asked Pentax to approve the deal, then it's an illegal collusion for price-fixing.
04-11-2013, 01:49 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
If B&H asked Pentax to approve the deal, then it's an illegal collusion for price-fixing.
Excellent point. Lawyers argue these things and are usually the only ones that win. The changes in what constitutes such things a few years ago doesn't make sense but it is the law now. If they gave a blanket amnesty from MAP to ADs that would be different, based on our discussions here and my reads back when MAP was disastrously announced..
04-11-2013, 04:19 PM   #12
Marketplace Reseller
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,120
No it is not.

Under U.S. law, only horizontal price fixing, i.e. collusion among competitors within the same market segment is per se illegal. So if B++H, Adorama, and a bunch of other competitors got together to set the price, then it would be illegal. What is happening here is a vertical interaction between supplier and distributor, a classic vertical MRP agreement. Under the Leegin v. PSKs decision MRPs are not illegal per se but are subjected to a rule of reason test.


see: Rule of reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
If B&H asked Pentax to approve the deal, then it's an illegal collusion for price-fixing.
04-11-2013, 04:21 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
No it is not.

Under U.S. law, only horizontal price fixing, i.e. collusion among competitors within the same market segment is per se illegal. So if B++H, Adorama, and a bunch of other competitors got together to set the price, then it would be illegal. What is happening here is a vertical interaction between supplier and distributor, a classic vertical MRP agreement. Under the Leegin v. PSKs decision MRPs are not illegal per se but are subjected to a rule of reason test.


see: Rule of reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My reading of the original ruling doesn't square with that. Basically, making a broad rule as the supplier that everyone has to follow MAP and then selectively allowing people to not follow it is one of the specific conditions that was enumerated initially that would obviate the MAP and bar the supplier from enforcing it with others. Essentially the Court stated that selective enforcement of MAP is one mechanism that would eliminate the right of the supplier from setting any MAP. As I said earlier, the ruling in question is bad law IMHO and out of step with a long tradition on this issue but so far it stands. I also think that lawyers make their living through just such disagreements about what poor law, and rulings, say.
04-11-2013, 08:58 PM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
No it is not.

Under U.S. law, only horizontal price fixing, i.e. collusion among competitors within the same market segment is per se illegal. So if B++H, Adorama, and a bunch of other competitors got together to set the price, then it would be illegal. What is happening here is a vertical interaction between supplier and distributor, a classic vertical MRP agreement. Under the Leegin v. PSKs decision MRPs are not illegal per se but are subjected to a rule of reason test.


see: Rule of reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think you're right. I think I was right before 2007.
04-12-2013, 12:53 PM   #15
Marketplace Reseller
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,120
Eh, it's the Supreme Court's most recent word on the subject, so I don't know if you could really call it "bad law." A departure yes, but also currently binding precedent.

Also, we don't know if Pentax is actually selectively enforcing it or not - other retailers could simply not be reducing their price despite the opportunity. A quick search shows several on-line retailers with similar prices on new stock of this lens, but it's unclear whether they are Pentax-authorized dealers or not. Adorama is still lat the old price. Pentax's very small position in the market also weighs against enforcement here, since their policy has no effect on the numerous other comparable lenses on the market (whether they are pentax-compatible or not). Likewise, neither sua sponte governmental nor citizen enforcement would be likely in this case since the stakes are so small. If it were Canon or Nikon, who knows? Maybe it would be a different story.

QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
My reading of the original ruling doesn't square with that. Basically, making a broad rule as the supplier that everyone has to follow MAP and then selectively allowing people to not follow it is one of the specific conditions that was enumerated initially that would obviate the MAP and bar the supplier from enforcing it with others. Essentially the Court stated that selective enforcement of MAP is one mechanism that would eliminate the right of the supplier from setting any MAP. As I said earlier, the ruling in question is bad law IMHO and out of step with a long tradition on this issue but so far it stands. I also think that lawyers make their living through just such disagreements about what poor law, and rulings, say.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
16-50mm, pentax, pentax 16-50mm, pentax deals
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Q adapter in stock at B&H LaurenOE Pentax Q 37 12-18-2012 06:09 AM
Pentax K-5 now $879 at B&H magmotif Pentax Price Watch 5 07-22-2012 06:30 PM
pentax K-5 now $919 at B&H Adam Pentax Price Watch 25 06-20-2012 10:16 PM
Pentax K-5: $959 at B&H! Adam Pentax Price Watch 28 06-07-2012 05:36 PM
16-50mm in stock at B&H Duh_Vinci Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 08-09-2007 02:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top