In case anyone misses it:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2547082#Post2547082
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2547082#Post2547082
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
- Thread starter Gen2mildot
- Start date
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Very good response, I honestly don't understand why people are so bent out of shape. try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen.
bottom line is they couldn't agree on things so they parted ways, wtf who cares thats just business.
Sidenote i would copy your whole response not just the link because it is hard to find in the 10+ pages of garbage.
Very good response, I honestly don't understand why people are so bent out of shape. try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen.
bottom line is they couldn't agree on things so they parted ways, wtf who cares thats just business.
Sidenote i would copy your whole response not just the link because it is hard to find in the 10+ pages of garbage.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Before this, I bet I could produce a sob story that would allow me to purchase an NXS under MAP. But I agree that some people took it too far. I had ordered / already purchased a new Premier Heritage from Scott then they suspended him so I went with S&B. No bad blood from me I just wanted my scope so I can shoot my new APA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Team-Send-It!!!</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good response, I honestly don't understand why people are so bent out of shape. try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen.
bottom line is they couldn't agree on things so they parted ways, wtf who cares thats just business.
Sidenote i would copy your whole response not just the link because it is hard to find in the 10+ pages of garbage.</div></div>
Before this, I bet I could produce a sob story that would allow me to purchase an NXS under MAP. But I agree that some people took it too far. I had ordered / already purchased a new Premier Heritage from Scott then they suspended him so I went with S&B. No bad blood from me I just wanted my scope so I can shoot my new APA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Team-Send-It!!!</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good response, I honestly don't understand why people are so bent out of shape. try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen.
bottom line is they couldn't agree on things so they parted ways, wtf who cares thats just business.
Sidenote i would copy your whole response not just the link because it is hard to find in the 10+ pages of garbage.</div></div>
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
"try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen."
I was able to find someone to quote me under MAP...not going to fuck that dealer over though. I was quoted under MAP, but decided to head in a different direction.
"try and find a nxs for under map, not gonna happen."
I was able to find someone to quote me under MAP...not going to fuck that dealer over though. I was quoted under MAP, but decided to head in a different direction.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Looks like S&B is going to get all the benefits from this. I will also be getting one of theirs very soon. What a hell of a way to handle your business. Probably lose alot of sales over this. I won't sell the premiers I currently own because they are great scopes but I most likely won't buy more anytime soon.
PS, you can find NXS's under map.
Looks like S&B is going to get all the benefits from this. I will also be getting one of theirs very soon. What a hell of a way to handle your business. Probably lose alot of sales over this. I won't sell the premiers I currently own because they are great scopes but I most likely won't buy more anytime soon.
PS, you can find NXS's under map.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
You can find S&B under MAP I have 4 of them. However, I will not mention where I got them as I do not want to screw over the dealers (that's right I said dealers) and then not be able to get a deal again.
You can find S&B under MAP I have 4 of them. However, I will not mention where I got them as I do not want to screw over the dealers (that's right I said dealers) and then not be able to get a deal again.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
No one here is arguing the merits of MAP. For the most part, we understand what MAP does for a company, their products, and their dealers. We also understand that it stands for Minimum ADVERTISED Pricing.
As stated by Andrew Webber in his reply:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ATI</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In conjunction with Premier, we set Minimum Advertised Pricing that would support the business model. The MAP we set is certainly not excessive for a product of this quality and is in fact as low as we dared in order to keep the business healthy. From the beginning we received complaints that one or two Dealers were selling the product at a profit margin that was below that which was required by the majority to pay rent, hire employees and do the advertising required to stay in business.
In order to not lose the Dealers that buy the majority of the Premier products from us, we had to enforce the Minimum Advertised Price policy that we have in place. To That end, certain Dealers, in exchange for our very lowest pricing, were asked to sign a document that assured us that they were adhering to the policy. The signature at the bottom of the document was really meant to be an assurance that the Dealer understood the policy and would agree to do business with us under those terms. When the term of the agreement expired, we did not insist upon signing a renewal in that the subject was referenced in our regular Terms. Despite the fact that Liberty Optics signed the original document, and clearly understood their obligation, rumors persisted that the scopes were being sold at prices far below that which would sustain the production and business. Because our company does not respond to rumors, we took no action until we were presented with unsolicited evidence that the practice was taking place (our company does not have any relationship with the individual that purchased the scope). Upon presentation of the facts that Liberty Optics was not keeping their end of the agreement or at least the spirit of the agreement, we had no option but to suspend Liberty’s account for a three month period. Provisions were made to allow Liberty to satisfy any orders they had already taken. Apparently those offers have been refused.
Respectfully,
Andrew Webber
President, Armament Technology Incorporated
</div></div>
It seems that Andrew considers his MAP to include minimum SALES price. As far as we can tell, Liberty never advertised any price below MAP. I and many others do not feel that the have done anything wrong.
It is certainly the right of Premier and ATI to choose not to allow Liberty Optics or any company to sell their products... It is also the right' and appears to be the general consensus here, that we the consumers choose not to purchase products made by Premier or distributed by ATI.
No one here is arguing the merits of MAP. For the most part, we understand what MAP does for a company, their products, and their dealers. We also understand that it stands for Minimum ADVERTISED Pricing.
As stated by Andrew Webber in his reply:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ATI</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In conjunction with Premier, we set Minimum Advertised Pricing that would support the business model. The MAP we set is certainly not excessive for a product of this quality and is in fact as low as we dared in order to keep the business healthy. From the beginning we received complaints that one or two Dealers were selling the product at a profit margin that was below that which was required by the majority to pay rent, hire employees and do the advertising required to stay in business.
In order to not lose the Dealers that buy the majority of the Premier products from us, we had to enforce the Minimum Advertised Price policy that we have in place. To That end, certain Dealers, in exchange for our very lowest pricing, were asked to sign a document that assured us that they were adhering to the policy. The signature at the bottom of the document was really meant to be an assurance that the Dealer understood the policy and would agree to do business with us under those terms. When the term of the agreement expired, we did not insist upon signing a renewal in that the subject was referenced in our regular Terms. Despite the fact that Liberty Optics signed the original document, and clearly understood their obligation, rumors persisted that the scopes were being sold at prices far below that which would sustain the production and business. Because our company does not respond to rumors, we took no action until we were presented with unsolicited evidence that the practice was taking place (our company does not have any relationship with the individual that purchased the scope). Upon presentation of the facts that Liberty Optics was not keeping their end of the agreement or at least the spirit of the agreement, we had no option but to suspend Liberty’s account for a three month period. Provisions were made to allow Liberty to satisfy any orders they had already taken. Apparently those offers have been refused.
Respectfully,
Andrew Webber
President, Armament Technology Incorporated
</div></div>
It seems that Andrew considers his MAP to include minimum SALES price. As far as we can tell, Liberty never advertised any price below MAP. I and many others do not feel that the have done anything wrong.
It is certainly the right of Premier and ATI to choose not to allow Liberty Optics or any company to sell their products... It is also the right' and appears to be the general consensus here, that we the consumers choose not to purchase products made by Premier or distributed by ATI.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is certainly the right of Premier and ATI to choose not to allow Liberty Optics or any company to sell their products... It is also the right' and appears to be the general consensus here, that we the consumers choose not to purchase products made by Premier or distributed by ATI.</div></div>
+1. Exactly my understanding and intention.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is certainly the right of Premier and ATI to choose not to allow Liberty Optics or any company to sell their products... It is also the right' and appears to be the general consensus here, that we the consumers choose not to purchase products made by Premier or distributed by ATI.</div></div>
+1. Exactly my understanding and intention.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RegularGuy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this thread is needed why? </div></div>
Because they know they F'd up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RegularGuy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this thread is needed why? </div></div>
Because they know they F'd up.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME
is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME </div></div>
Finally, I chuckled.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME </div></div>
Finally, I chuckled.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rundm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like S&B is going to get all the benefits from this. I will also be getting one of theirs very soon. What a hell of a way to handle your business. Probably lose alot of sales over this. I won't sell the premiers I currently own because they are great scopes but I most likely won't buy more anytime soon.
PS, you can find NXS's under map. </div></div>
Yes you can because that is the minimum "advertised" price.
But that will be our little secret.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rundm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like S&B is going to get all the benefits from this. I will also be getting one of theirs very soon. What a hell of a way to handle your business. Probably lose alot of sales over this. I won't sell the premiers I currently own because they are great scopes but I most likely won't buy more anytime soon.
PS, you can find NXS's under map. </div></div>
Yes you can because that is the minimum "advertised" price.
But that will be our little secret.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
I've been quoted under MAP for NF scopes and S&B scopes before, but I didn't rat out the dealer who was offering me those prices. It seems from this thread that Premier is real keen to control the damage that they seem to have done to themselves.
I've been quoted under MAP for NF scopes and S&B scopes before, but I didn't rat out the dealer who was offering me those prices. It seems from this thread that Premier is real keen to control the damage that they seem to have done to themselves.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Market Garden</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems from this thread that Premier is real keen to control the damage that they seem to have done to themselves. </div></div>
Thats probably moot at this point. I'll never understand or agree with a MAP policy. Why can't you as the manufacturer charge the price that you want and then let the dealers you sell your product to price it however they want? If a dealer can't adapt to the times, then thats their problem. But whatever.
Say it all you want, Premier.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Market Garden</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems from this thread that Premier is real keen to control the damage that they seem to have done to themselves. </div></div>
Thats probably moot at this point. I'll never understand or agree with a MAP policy. Why can't you as the manufacturer charge the price that you want and then let the dealers you sell your product to price it however they want? If a dealer can't adapt to the times, then thats their problem. But whatever.
Say it all you want, Premier.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME </div></div>
Outstanding, this situation needs some levity.
Because this is such a clusterfuck, why not...
Holy freakin torch and pichfork!
Ding ding...the bandwagon is leaving, better jump on before its gone.
I have nothing but the highest respect for Scott and LO, i have and will continue to send people his way. But, he got busted, plain and simple. He used to post prices in PMs, why did he stop? Because he knew if they were seen, he would get busted. I dont agree with how this went down, pretty slimey, but Scot knew if ATI caught him, he would be busted...that's what happened.
People can bitch about MAP policies all they want, but they are what they are. I happen to remember a bunch of people going on a crusade against Night force for these very same policies...yet, I think theyare doing OK. Try to get a deal on a new NF...ya can't, they are the same price everywhere.
I am sad that Scott told them to kiss his ass, but respect him right to do so. premiers have features that you can't get on any other scope, that means that to someone looking for all those features, they are the only option. I wish LO was still the best place to get them, but, it is what it is.
The owner of premier may be a dick, I don't know and I don't care, I will never have to interact with him. He is smart enough to hire a kick ass customer relations rep...Paul...and I have personally never experienced anything less than exemplary service from them. The product and the service are what really matters and Premier delivers on both counts.
Scott, sorry you got busted, brother. Legal options may be on the table...don't know. If all these internet lawyers are right, there are options, but consult with an actual attourney and make that call. Best of luck to you, I will continue to be one of your customers.
OK, time to move on to the next dog pile...who is it this time...USO again?
For what its worth I will defend them to.
And...sorry if my statements offend anyone, but I still don't give a shit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this a thread to highlight ones own comment in another thread? if so, thats AWSOME </div></div>
Outstanding, this situation needs some levity.
Because this is such a clusterfuck, why not...
Holy freakin torch and pichfork!
Ding ding...the bandwagon is leaving, better jump on before its gone.
I have nothing but the highest respect for Scott and LO, i have and will continue to send people his way. But, he got busted, plain and simple. He used to post prices in PMs, why did he stop? Because he knew if they were seen, he would get busted. I dont agree with how this went down, pretty slimey, but Scot knew if ATI caught him, he would be busted...that's what happened.
People can bitch about MAP policies all they want, but they are what they are. I happen to remember a bunch of people going on a crusade against Night force for these very same policies...yet, I think theyare doing OK. Try to get a deal on a new NF...ya can't, they are the same price everywhere.
I am sad that Scott told them to kiss his ass, but respect him right to do so. premiers have features that you can't get on any other scope, that means that to someone looking for all those features, they are the only option. I wish LO was still the best place to get them, but, it is what it is.
The owner of premier may be a dick, I don't know and I don't care, I will never have to interact with him. He is smart enough to hire a kick ass customer relations rep...Paul...and I have personally never experienced anything less than exemplary service from them. The product and the service are what really matters and Premier delivers on both counts.
Scott, sorry you got busted, brother. Legal options may be on the table...don't know. If all these internet lawyers are right, there are options, but consult with an actual attourney and make that call. Best of luck to you, I will continue to be one of your customers.
OK, time to move on to the next dog pile...who is it this time...USO again?
For what its worth I will defend them to.
And...sorry if my statements offend anyone, but I still don't give a shit.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Very good questions turk. I would like to hear what pr say about these. But we will probably never know.
Very good questions turk. I would like to hear what pr say about these. But we will probably never know.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RegularGuy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this thread is needed why? </div></div>
Because they know they F'd up. </div></div>
Killshot!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RegularGuy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this thread is needed why? </div></div>
Because they know they F'd up. </div></div>
Killshot!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
I have a Premier scope and love it, if a company selling their product breaks contract and the head company finds out, they have every right to suspend the account.
I have a Premier scope and love it, if a company selling their product breaks contract and the head company finds out, they have every right to suspend the account.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
USUALLY in this country some of us served with more than lip service or at a tiny profit, beleive in some sort of process when one party thinks another has run afoul of some agreement/rule/law.
Acting like Angry Dad and high handing this is bogus.
I bought two loopies with the GenII before Chris took over premier. Things changed after that.
So just how long does a patent run these days?
USUALLY in this country some of us served with more than lip service or at a tiny profit, beleive in some sort of process when one party thinks another has run afoul of some agreement/rule/law.
Acting like Angry Dad and high handing this is bogus.
I bought two loopies with the GenII before Chris took over premier. Things changed after that.
So just how long does a patent run these days?
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
This is one of the best/funniest posts i have read!! I was seriously laughing out loud thinking how the fuck do they respond to that,,, "uhhhhh sorrrry, guess it was growing pains"
epic post turk!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
</div></div>
This is one of the best/funniest posts i have read!! I was seriously laughing out loud thinking how the fuck do they respond to that,,, "uhhhhh sorrrry, guess it was growing pains"
epic post turk!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
</div></div>
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
People like Scott mainly because most on the Hide knows he gives you the best deal.
Premier was nice enough to ONLY suspend his account.
Scott feared loss of business having to explain to customers why he is unable to fill their orders for Premier scopes and unable to give them the best discounts anymore. So he made Premier and ATI look bad.
ATI caught him "undercover" (which should be expected for enforcing MAP pricing) and Scott lied trying to defend his income/reputation of his business.
As a customer of course we like Scott. As a business with MAP pricing enforced I would see the issue. Premier's reaction is lenient and expected.
Premier in their response seems the most professional and reasonable.
Scott, well played, but for someone with such a esteemed reputation on the Hide I would have figured you would have taken the high road instead of going after Premier and ATI like this. Though it seems like the loss of income on Premier Scopes may be offset by the new customers who hate paying MAP/retail pricing and businesses enforcing of it by this hate thread. I think this was a poor choice for your reputation and character. <span style="font-weight: bold">Sounds like Scott's reputation is based on price rather than his character.</span>
Point is it is not right for Scott to end up being the sole source for Premier Optics because people know he is the cheapest. He is cheating his competition to grow his business. Premier needs to keep things even and fair between retailers so they have a larger exposure to the market.
Sounds like Scott has ruined his business with one manufacturer and likely others. Despite how much people want to support him it does nothing if he can't stock product because manufacturers are not happy with his pricing. <span style="font-weight: bold">You cheat Scott by not paying MAP, Scott cheats the his competition by charging less than MAP.</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline">If you really supported Scott you would pay full price. If Scott really deserves the reputation claimed here he would not cheat his competition with pricing, but win with service!</span>
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will not do business with Scott at Liberty Optics.</span></span>
I would consider a Premier optic if I ever found the need and was in the budget for one just like any other scope in that category.
If Premier needs to lower their MAP, they will!
People like Scott mainly because most on the Hide knows he gives you the best deal.
Premier was nice enough to ONLY suspend his account.
Scott feared loss of business having to explain to customers why he is unable to fill their orders for Premier scopes and unable to give them the best discounts anymore. So he made Premier and ATI look bad.
ATI caught him "undercover" (which should be expected for enforcing MAP pricing) and Scott lied trying to defend his income/reputation of his business.
As a customer of course we like Scott. As a business with MAP pricing enforced I would see the issue. Premier's reaction is lenient and expected.
Premier in their response seems the most professional and reasonable.
Scott, well played, but for someone with such a esteemed reputation on the Hide I would have figured you would have taken the high road instead of going after Premier and ATI like this. Though it seems like the loss of income on Premier Scopes may be offset by the new customers who hate paying MAP/retail pricing and businesses enforcing of it by this hate thread. I think this was a poor choice for your reputation and character. <span style="font-weight: bold">Sounds like Scott's reputation is based on price rather than his character.</span>
Point is it is not right for Scott to end up being the sole source for Premier Optics because people know he is the cheapest. He is cheating his competition to grow his business. Premier needs to keep things even and fair between retailers so they have a larger exposure to the market.
Sounds like Scott has ruined his business with one manufacturer and likely others. Despite how much people want to support him it does nothing if he can't stock product because manufacturers are not happy with his pricing. <span style="font-weight: bold">You cheat Scott by not paying MAP, Scott cheats the his competition by charging less than MAP.</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline">If you really supported Scott you would pay full price. If Scott really deserves the reputation claimed here he would not cheat his competition with pricing, but win with service!</span>
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will not do business with Scott at Liberty Optics.</span></span>
I would consider a Premier optic if I ever found the need and was in the budget for one just like any other scope in that category.
If Premier needs to lower their MAP, they will!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
</div></div>
Seeing as you OBVIOUSLY missed this in the other thread, I'll add my question here as well.
Can you please confirm that the PR Heritage scopes are in fact made in Nunya?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In case anyone misses it!
To whom it may concern at Premier reticles,
1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??
2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??
3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??
3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??
4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??
5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?
6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??
7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??
8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??
9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??
10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?
For years you've been trying to lay it to the American Public!
Like I said an explanation/apology w/ no substance!
</div></div>
Seeing as you OBVIOUSLY missed this in the other thread, I'll add my question here as well.
Can you please confirm that the PR Heritage scopes are in fact made in Nunya?
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
The way to avoid the whole MAP and price-matching issue is what the big retailers do... They have their OWN MODEL version so they can charge less and not get other retailers pissed because they don't have to price-match it since its technically a different model!
Liberty Optics could have easily asked for a Hide Specific model version that he could sell exclusively!
The way to avoid the whole MAP and price-matching issue is what the big retailers do... They have their OWN MODEL version so they can charge less and not get other retailers pissed because they don't have to price-match it since its technically a different model!
Liberty Optics could have easily asked for a Hide Specific model version that he could sell exclusively!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will not do business with Scott at Liberty Optics.</span></span></div></div>
That’s certainly your right but it would also be your loss! And a big one IMHO.
I've been scanning through these PR v. LO threads, frankly hoping the whole issue would die and we could all get back to talkin' guns, glass, and gear but I felt that comment warranted a response. I’ve done business with many of the ‘Hide vendors, almost all good experiences by the way, but my dealings with Scott stand out.
I bought a Seekins bottom metal for my SPS Tac from LO. I ordered from Scott because he had them coming in stock right after Shot (no one else did) and at a fair price. No, I did not call him and ask for a “Hide price” price, I just ordered off the web site when the item showed in stock.
I ordered late in the week. He must have shipped on a Saturday because I received the product two days before I expected it; and here’s the kicker: a day after I received it Scott emails asking if everything was okay with my purchase.
As good as my dealings have been with other ‘Hide vendors I can honestly say that Scott is the only one who has ever sent a follow-up email to see if everything was okay, and this was right after Shot when everyone was buried trying to get caught back up!
No it’s not just about price: Scott genuinely cares about his customers!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will not do business with Scott at Liberty Optics.</span></span></div></div>
That’s certainly your right but it would also be your loss! And a big one IMHO.
I've been scanning through these PR v. LO threads, frankly hoping the whole issue would die and we could all get back to talkin' guns, glass, and gear but I felt that comment warranted a response. I’ve done business with many of the ‘Hide vendors, almost all good experiences by the way, but my dealings with Scott stand out.
I bought a Seekins bottom metal for my SPS Tac from LO. I ordered from Scott because he had them coming in stock right after Shot (no one else did) and at a fair price. No, I did not call him and ask for a “Hide price” price, I just ordered off the web site when the item showed in stock.
I ordered late in the week. He must have shipped on a Saturday because I received the product two days before I expected it; and here’s the kicker: a day after I received it Scott emails asking if everything was okay with my purchase.
As good as my dealings have been with other ‘Hide vendors I can honestly say that Scott is the only one who has ever sent a follow-up email to see if everything was okay, and this was right after Shot when everyone was buried trying to get caught back up!
No it’s not just about price: Scott genuinely cares about his customers!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mohonri</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ATI caught him "undercover" (which should be expected for enforcing MAP pricing) </div></div>
Not true - Scott never advertised pricing below the minimum advertised price. The "undercover" purchase only determined that he'd sell them for lower than the prices he advertises, which he has every legal right to do.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mohonri</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ATI caught him "undercover" (which should be expected for enforcing MAP pricing) </div></div>
Not true - Scott never advertised pricing below the minimum advertised price. The "undercover" purchase only determined that he'd sell them for lower than the prices he advertises, which he has every legal right to do.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
A whole lotta speculation here.
But I'd bet and my own speculation is that the dealers' agreement is to neither advertise NOR sell under the "Minimum Advertised Price."
IF the agreement covered only advertisement of price but allowed "secret" discounts, I'd fire the attorney who wrote it and sue for malpractice.
You might call it "price fixing", but that term really only applies to collusion between those who should be competitors. What PR and its North American distributor did falls under "freedom of contract."
Guess which one is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Nope, it's not "price fixing" or "restraint of trade." As stated in that awful movie (it doesn't deserve to be called a film) set in post-petroleum Australia, "Bust a deal, face the wheel!"
Me, I won't boycott either one. They made their choices and get to live with them.
A whole lotta speculation here.
But I'd bet and my own speculation is that the dealers' agreement is to neither advertise NOR sell under the "Minimum Advertised Price."
IF the agreement covered only advertisement of price but allowed "secret" discounts, I'd fire the attorney who wrote it and sue for malpractice.
You might call it "price fixing", but that term really only applies to collusion between those who should be competitors. What PR and its North American distributor did falls under "freedom of contract."
Guess which one is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Nope, it's not "price fixing" or "restraint of trade." As stated in that awful movie (it doesn't deserve to be called a film) set in post-petroleum Australia, "Bust a deal, face the wheel!"
Me, I won't boycott either one. They made their choices and get to live with them.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Have read this (and the other) thread(s) with interest..
This has no bearing on me being from the UK and I use S&B & Swaros on my rifles BUT... I am from a retail background and whilst ATIs actions seem a little underhand and not 'consumer' friendly, I can see their point...
I have a very good friend who is still in the electrical retail game (he gave me my first civilian job 25 years ago!) for a BIG uk national retailer and he doesn't have it easy..
His store with all it's overheads... staff, heat, light, display stock etc... is very busy and full of people... 80% of those people though, only go into his store to look at the goods, touch them, play with them, get detailed information from knowlegable sales staff.... Then they jump in their cars, go home and surf the net to buy the TV, Fridge, Coffee machine etc... at the lowest cost they can find..
Most of the time, the cheapest internet retailers are those with NO staff costs, heating perhaps a small warehouse and home office. They don't need to employ intelligent sales sstaff as they never have to answer any questions etc... and, quite interestingly, the cheapest internet or phone based retailers tend NOT to be official so, from a consumer's point of view, perhaps not the best place to buy from should things go wrong! but we are all good at crossing our fingers!
So, the upshot is... my buddy and his staff and storefront offering are doing all the work, and more importantly, spending all the money whilst the low budget internet operator gets his pockets lined...
Now, this isn't illegal. From a legal standpoint, a retailer can sell his wares at whatever price he likes... It is, on the surface a little unfair but sadly, that's the world we live in... if blame for the smaller retailer going out of business should be leveled anywhere, it should be at the inventors of the internet and of course, good old Mr Sears!
It's hardly surprising therefore that a distributor would want to protect his supply chain and if one or two retailers, be they internet based or not are undercutting all others BELOW the level the others can afford to go........................
Now... looking at this from a slightly different perspective, If I was a distributor trying to expand my territories and I kept hearing the name of one or two retailers who were discounting my products to the point that made prospect accounts shy away from stocking my products, I would be looking very hard to see if there was any way I could stop it.. Without physical examples of a product that expensive in the highstreet, expansion potential is seriously limited and without the highstreet retailers support for the product (because they don't think they will sell any due to not being able to match someone elses price) You have lost before you start!
Business is business and economics is economics and, whilst being able to call one outlet and get your gear at a very nice prices is great..... don't underestimate how much damage that can actually do not only to a distributor's business but also to the manufacturer.....
As a consumer, short term gains can lead to quite significant long term losses.
Have read this (and the other) thread(s) with interest..
This has no bearing on me being from the UK and I use S&B & Swaros on my rifles BUT... I am from a retail background and whilst ATIs actions seem a little underhand and not 'consumer' friendly, I can see their point...
I have a very good friend who is still in the electrical retail game (he gave me my first civilian job 25 years ago!) for a BIG uk national retailer and he doesn't have it easy..
His store with all it's overheads... staff, heat, light, display stock etc... is very busy and full of people... 80% of those people though, only go into his store to look at the goods, touch them, play with them, get detailed information from knowlegable sales staff.... Then they jump in their cars, go home and surf the net to buy the TV, Fridge, Coffee machine etc... at the lowest cost they can find..
Most of the time, the cheapest internet retailers are those with NO staff costs, heating perhaps a small warehouse and home office. They don't need to employ intelligent sales sstaff as they never have to answer any questions etc... and, quite interestingly, the cheapest internet or phone based retailers tend NOT to be official so, from a consumer's point of view, perhaps not the best place to buy from should things go wrong! but we are all good at crossing our fingers!
So, the upshot is... my buddy and his staff and storefront offering are doing all the work, and more importantly, spending all the money whilst the low budget internet operator gets his pockets lined...
Now, this isn't illegal. From a legal standpoint, a retailer can sell his wares at whatever price he likes... It is, on the surface a little unfair but sadly, that's the world we live in... if blame for the smaller retailer going out of business should be leveled anywhere, it should be at the inventors of the internet and of course, good old Mr Sears!
It's hardly surprising therefore that a distributor would want to protect his supply chain and if one or two retailers, be they internet based or not are undercutting all others BELOW the level the others can afford to go........................
Now... looking at this from a slightly different perspective, If I was a distributor trying to expand my territories and I kept hearing the name of one or two retailers who were discounting my products to the point that made prospect accounts shy away from stocking my products, I would be looking very hard to see if there was any way I could stop it.. Without physical examples of a product that expensive in the highstreet, expansion potential is seriously limited and without the highstreet retailers support for the product (because they don't think they will sell any due to not being able to match someone elses price) You have lost before you start!
Business is business and economics is economics and, whilst being able to call one outlet and get your gear at a very nice prices is great..... don't underestimate how much damage that can actually do not only to a distributor's business but also to the manufacturer.....
As a consumer, short term gains can lead to quite significant long term losses.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vipa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have read this (and the other) thread(s) with interest..
This has no bearing on me being from the UK and I use S&B & Swaros on my rifles BUT... I am from a retail background and whilst ATIs actions seem a little underhand and not 'consumer' friendly, I can see their point...
I have a very good friend who is still in the electrical retail game (he gave me my first civilian job 25 years ago!) for a BIG uk national retailer and he doesn't have it easy..
His store with all it's overheads... staff, heat, light, display stock etc... is very busy and full of people... 80% of those people though, only go into his store to look at the goods, touch them, play with them, get detailed information from knowlegable sales staff.... Then they jump in their cars, go home and surf the net to buy the TV, Fridge, Coffee machine etc... at the lowest cost they can find..
Most of the time, the cheapest internet retailers are those with NO staff costs, heating perhaps a small warehouse and home office. They don't need to employ intelligent sales sstaff as they never have to answer any questions etc...
So, the upshot is... my buddy and his staff and storefront offering are doing all the work whilst the low budget internet operator gets his pockets lined...
Now, this isn't illegal. From a legal standpoint, a retailer can sell his wares at whatever price he likes... It is, on the surface a little unfair but sadly, that's the world we live in... if blame for the smaller retailer going out of business should be leveled anywhere, it should be at the inventors of the internet..
It's hardly surprising therefore that a distributor would want to protect his supply chain and if one or two retailers, be they internet based or not are undercutting all others BELOW the level the others can afford to go........................
Now... looking at this from a slightly different perspective, If I was a distributor trying to expand my territories and I kept hearing the name of one or two retailers who were discounting to the point that made prospect accounts shy away from my products, I would be looking very hard to see if there was any way I could do it..
Business is business and economics is economics and, whilst being able to call one outlet and get your gear at a very nice prices is great..... don't underestimate how much damage that can actually do not only to a distributor's business but also to the manufacturer.....
As a consumer, short term gains can lead to quite significant long term losses. </div></div>
True
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vipa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have read this (and the other) thread(s) with interest..
This has no bearing on me being from the UK and I use S&B & Swaros on my rifles BUT... I am from a retail background and whilst ATIs actions seem a little underhand and not 'consumer' friendly, I can see their point...
I have a very good friend who is still in the electrical retail game (he gave me my first civilian job 25 years ago!) for a BIG uk national retailer and he doesn't have it easy..
His store with all it's overheads... staff, heat, light, display stock etc... is very busy and full of people... 80% of those people though, only go into his store to look at the goods, touch them, play with them, get detailed information from knowlegable sales staff.... Then they jump in their cars, go home and surf the net to buy the TV, Fridge, Coffee machine etc... at the lowest cost they can find..
Most of the time, the cheapest internet retailers are those with NO staff costs, heating perhaps a small warehouse and home office. They don't need to employ intelligent sales sstaff as they never have to answer any questions etc...
So, the upshot is... my buddy and his staff and storefront offering are doing all the work whilst the low budget internet operator gets his pockets lined...
Now, this isn't illegal. From a legal standpoint, a retailer can sell his wares at whatever price he likes... It is, on the surface a little unfair but sadly, that's the world we live in... if blame for the smaller retailer going out of business should be leveled anywhere, it should be at the inventors of the internet..
It's hardly surprising therefore that a distributor would want to protect his supply chain and if one or two retailers, be they internet based or not are undercutting all others BELOW the level the others can afford to go........................
Now... looking at this from a slightly different perspective, If I was a distributor trying to expand my territories and I kept hearing the name of one or two retailers who were discounting to the point that made prospect accounts shy away from my products, I would be looking very hard to see if there was any way I could do it..
Business is business and economics is economics and, whilst being able to call one outlet and get your gear at a very nice prices is great..... don't underestimate how much damage that can actually do not only to a distributor's business but also to the manufacturer.....
As a consumer, short term gains can lead to quite significant long term losses. </div></div>
True
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
David, if I am reading your response correctly, I think we are both reading from the same page...
Most of the posts of support for LO and derisory towards ATI have been from <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">consumers</span></span> who have no concept of the bigger picture. Most consumers feel that they got a great deal because they got a big discount... Fantastic, so this week you have a few more dollars in your pocket... is price alone the only indication of a good deal?
You can only buy goods if there are people selling them and the process of undercutting the next guy only serves to force people to stop selling that product... without controls in place, the marketplace would be decimated quickly and, once all the competition has gone, the retailer left can charge what the heck he likes..
MAP is just one of those controls and only works to protect EVERYONE if EVERYONE plays ball.. It IS NOT the same as price fixing...
David, if I am reading your response correctly, I think we are both reading from the same page...
Most of the posts of support for LO and derisory towards ATI have been from <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">consumers</span></span> who have no concept of the bigger picture. Most consumers feel that they got a great deal because they got a big discount... Fantastic, so this week you have a few more dollars in your pocket... is price alone the only indication of a good deal?
You can only buy goods if there are people selling them and the process of undercutting the next guy only serves to force people to stop selling that product... without controls in place, the marketplace would be decimated quickly and, once all the competition has gone, the retailer left can charge what the heck he likes..
MAP is just one of those controls and only works to protect EVERYONE if EVERYONE plays ball.. It IS NOT the same as price fixing...
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
I was just wondering if premier would have done the same if Scott had sold the scopes way above the map price.
I was just wondering if premier would have done the same if Scott had sold the scopes way above the map price.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
But that wouldn't have harmed the ditributor, the manufacturer or the consumer. The only person such a foolhardy move would hurt is Scott as he wouldn't have sold any scopes...
One retailer overpricing does not force others out of buisiness.
But that wouldn't have harmed the ditributor, the manufacturer or the consumer. The only person such a foolhardy move would hurt is Scott as he wouldn't have sold any scopes...
One retailer overpricing does not force others out of buisiness.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
</div></div>
I'm assuming this relationship is Positive...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
I'm assuming this relationship is Positive...
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Vipa, you are exactly right. The fact that all major manufacturers in this business have some kind of MAP policy and some way to enforce it should really give people something to think about. According to those so violently opposed to MAP (who also usually have no business experience of their own), MAP should be <span style="font-weight: bold">hurting</span> companies and decrease their overall sales. So an entire industry is missing out on making more money because they haven't figured out something that a bunch of people with no business experience have discovered single-handedly? Really?
Vipa, you are exactly right. The fact that all major manufacturers in this business have some kind of MAP policy and some way to enforce it should really give people something to think about. According to those so violently opposed to MAP (who also usually have no business experience of their own), MAP should be <span style="font-weight: bold">hurting</span> companies and decrease their overall sales. So an entire industry is missing out on making more money because they haven't figured out something that a bunch of people with no business experience have discovered single-handedly? Really?
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Can anyone elaborate on what happened between Premier and Leupold? It's been mentioned a few times but I haven't been able to find it with the search. Also how was the hide involved?
Can anyone elaborate on what happened between Premier and Leupold? It's been mentioned a few times but I haven't been able to find it with the search. Also how was the hide involved?
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
</div></div>
Pretty condesending, but not surprised coming from the source! We all know what MAP is "rocket scientist! There is no evidence that Scott ADVERTISED below MAP; he simply SOLD below MAP! This is about honesty and integrity, but then again I can't blame you for not understanding that; you just didn't have good examples of that around you during your short internship here!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
Pretty condesending, but not surprised coming from the source! We all know what MAP is "rocket scientist! There is no evidence that Scott ADVERTISED below MAP; he simply SOLD below MAP! This is about honesty and integrity, but then again I can't blame you for not understanding that; you just didn't have good examples of that around you during your short internship here!
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Gentleman I believe there is a misunderstanding. MAP is used in a retail environment to keep people from advertising a low price on a product, not a floor on the selling price. An individual entering into a MAP agreement is bound to not advertise a price below a set price. They have the right to sell a piece of merchandise for whatever price they want.
Common terminology used to get around MAP agreements is "Price is too low to advertise" or "Call for price".
If this entered into a suite based on MAP CSTactical would win. The only leg that Pre. has to stand on is a clause generally at the end of the contract that the first party has the right to withdraw any and all agreements for any reason they see fit with out notice.
Gentleman I believe there is a misunderstanding. MAP is used in a retail environment to keep people from advertising a low price on a product, not a floor on the selling price. An individual entering into a MAP agreement is bound to not advertise a price below a set price. They have the right to sell a piece of merchandise for whatever price they want.
Common terminology used to get around MAP agreements is "Price is too low to advertise" or "Call for price".
If this entered into a suite based on MAP CSTactical would win. The only leg that Pre. has to stand on is a clause generally at the end of the contract that the first party has the right to withdraw any and all agreements for any reason they see fit with out notice.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
A retailer buys a product from a company to sell. He should be able to sell that product at any price he wants. his loss/his gain.
Scott runs an internet based company w/lower overhead. Why should he be punished for not having a storefront?
If all the companies could only sell at MAP...where would be the competion and why would a comany chose one company over another.
Internet sales are the way of the future. Lower overhead, delivered to your door, lower price. Scott has good customer service even though it is not face to face.
A retailer buys a product from a company to sell. He should be able to sell that product at any price he wants. his loss/his gain.
Scott runs an internet based company w/lower overhead. Why should he be punished for not having a storefront?
If all the companies could only sell at MAP...where would be the competion and why would a comany chose one company over another.
Internet sales are the way of the future. Lower overhead, delivered to your door, lower price. Scott has good customer service even though it is not face to face.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree!
1
1kHIT
Guest
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Being an FFL dealer myself, I've never agreed with the concept of MAP. Mainly because, too often, the manufacturer tries to make this a "Minimum Selling Price" issue, as it appears to have happened here. The bottom line is this: once a dealer pays for the product he/she intends to sell, they should be able to sell it at whatever price they want. Be it a profit, or a loss. Many times, I'll sell an item close to or at cost, because I know I'll also get related business, with a higher margin.
This whole idea that "it protects everybody" is complete nonsense. And the reason is because it leaves out the most important person in the entire equations: THE CUSTOMER!!! It is the same reason tariffs don't work either. For example: let's say you have a pair of sunglasses that cost you $5 to buy. They are made over seas for only $2.50, but they sell here for $5.00 Now we have an American mfr who can make the same sunglasses for $5.50, and needs to sell them at $6.00 to even make a profit (although not near what the overseas mfr makes), so we pass a tariff to 'protect the local guy'. We add a $5.00 tariff to the overseas sunglasses making their price $7.50, while the local ones should only now be $6.00. Right? Wrong! In nearly every single instance where this was instituted, the local product, in my example the sunglasses had their price raised to $6.95. Now, this might seem good to the mfg, as HE can now sell his sunglasses without the fear of 'underpricing', but the end result is: THE CUSTOMER'S GLASSES HE WAS BUYING JUST WENT UP FROM $5.00 TO $6.95.
This is a rough example, but the concept is the same. Just because one vendor can run an efficient operation with better overhead controls does NOT mean he should be punished because 'another vendor has high bills he needs to pay'. The end should be: who can deliver the same product to the CUSTOMER at the best value. Liberty Optics has the newer business model, and thus should be rewarded (via sales and profits), NOT penalized because he is more efficient that store-based vendors who have 'large bills to pay'. I agree with the majority here, and will NOT be buying ATI or Premier products in the future.
Being an FFL dealer myself, I've never agreed with the concept of MAP. Mainly because, too often, the manufacturer tries to make this a "Minimum Selling Price" issue, as it appears to have happened here. The bottom line is this: once a dealer pays for the product he/she intends to sell, they should be able to sell it at whatever price they want. Be it a profit, or a loss. Many times, I'll sell an item close to or at cost, because I know I'll also get related business, with a higher margin.
This whole idea that "it protects everybody" is complete nonsense. And the reason is because it leaves out the most important person in the entire equations: THE CUSTOMER!!! It is the same reason tariffs don't work either. For example: let's say you have a pair of sunglasses that cost you $5 to buy. They are made over seas for only $2.50, but they sell here for $5.00 Now we have an American mfr who can make the same sunglasses for $5.50, and needs to sell them at $6.00 to even make a profit (although not near what the overseas mfr makes), so we pass a tariff to 'protect the local guy'. We add a $5.00 tariff to the overseas sunglasses making their price $7.50, while the local ones should only now be $6.00. Right? Wrong! In nearly every single instance where this was instituted, the local product, in my example the sunglasses had their price raised to $6.95. Now, this might seem good to the mfg, as HE can now sell his sunglasses without the fear of 'underpricing', but the end result is: THE CUSTOMER'S GLASSES HE WAS BUYING JUST WENT UP FROM $5.00 TO $6.95.
This is a rough example, but the concept is the same. Just because one vendor can run an efficient operation with better overhead controls does NOT mean he should be punished because 'another vendor has high bills he needs to pay'. The end should be: who can deliver the same product to the CUSTOMER at the best value. Liberty Optics has the newer business model, and thus should be rewarded (via sales and profits), NOT penalized because he is more efficient that store-based vendors who have 'large bills to pay'. I agree with the majority here, and will NOT be buying ATI or Premier products in the future.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree! </div></div>
Also agree. Just don't like the way it was handled.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument of whether MAP is good or bad is not the problem here. The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.) Premier does have the legal right to not sell their scopes to anyone they choose, but like any course of action there are ramifications. The problem I have with premier is not their MAP pricing but how they think they can control the actual selling price after some bargaining. This country was built of free markets. Liberty Optics can choose whether they want to sell for a 10% mark up or 80% mark up. So please do not make this an argument of is MAP good or bad because this has nothing to do with MAP. It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree! </div></div>
Also agree. Just don't like the way it was handled.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Well said 1KHit, very well said. Here's another thought to ponder. How many dealers out there carry Premier scopes? How many of them are site sponsers? Guess we'll never know, but could it be that there's a rat right under our noses that whined and set this all up, all due to the fact that Scott was willing to sell for less and provide first class customer service too boot?
Scott certainly has a different business model and has taken it his own way. To his credit it works well. Here you have basically a husband & wife team that have become players in the higher end optics market who have figured out how to do it through alot of hard work, taking less profit for themselves, and still dole out straigt forward advice, honest opinions, and follow up customer service after the fact. All that, and still can keep overhead low.
Why punish a guy who has figured it out? Seems to me some bigger retailer, who through his own decisions has higher overhead, less customer service and and unwillingness to adapt suddenly felt threatened. The market with the internet has changed the game, adapt or go away.
The reason many of us are so loyal to Scott - no matter what you buy, be it a mid level optic or something "top shelf", he makes every customer feel as if they are the most important customer at that moment.
I have no dog in this fight. I do however support the little guy and hope Scott comes out of this on the other end better than before.
Just my opinion, you may disagree.
Well said 1KHit, very well said. Here's another thought to ponder. How many dealers out there carry Premier scopes? How many of them are site sponsers? Guess we'll never know, but could it be that there's a rat right under our noses that whined and set this all up, all due to the fact that Scott was willing to sell for less and provide first class customer service too boot?
Scott certainly has a different business model and has taken it his own way. To his credit it works well. Here you have basically a husband & wife team that have become players in the higher end optics market who have figured out how to do it through alot of hard work, taking less profit for themselves, and still dole out straigt forward advice, honest opinions, and follow up customer service after the fact. All that, and still can keep overhead low.
Why punish a guy who has figured it out? Seems to me some bigger retailer, who through his own decisions has higher overhead, less customer service and and unwillingness to adapt suddenly felt threatened. The market with the internet has changed the game, adapt or go away.
The reason many of us are so loyal to Scott - no matter what you buy, be it a mid level optic or something "top shelf", he makes every customer feel as if they are the most important customer at that moment.
I have no dog in this fight. I do however support the little guy and hope Scott comes out of this on the other end better than before.
Just my opinion, you may disagree.
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cuban Croc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(...) It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree! </div></div>
Also agree. Just don't like the way it was handled. </div></div>
As I see it it's about what they call "spirit of MAP". That basically seems to be MSP, they just don't call it that. So it doesn't matter if MAP was technically broken or not, they will say that LO giving an individual discount contradicts the "spirit" of MAP.
The "unveiling" of the "offending invoice" at that NRA show “shocked and embarrassed" the manufacturers staff?
Really? The only thing shocking and embarassing I can see about that invoice is the dishonorable behavior by Mr. Terry L. Dean.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cuban Croc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(...) It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>
Agree! </div></div>
Also agree. Just don't like the way it was handled. </div></div>
As I see it it's about what they call "spirit of MAP". That basically seems to be MSP, they just don't call it that. So it doesn't matter if MAP was technically broken or not, they will say that LO giving an individual discount contradicts the "spirit" of MAP.
The "unveiling" of the "offending invoice" at that NRA show “shocked and embarrassed" the manufacturers staff?
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
Some of this I agree with, but some I don't. Its overall tone makes me wonder what agenda you have.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??</div></div>Sounds like their bad on this one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??</div></div>Likewise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??</div></div>And what exactly is the issue with this? Did you have your heart set on getting high-end scopes for half price forever?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??</div></div>
If this is the case (and for other reasons) I'd agree Premier should have considered what Scott has done for them more.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??</div></div>And you've taken all your S&Bs apart to verify that the parts are made only in Germany or Austria?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?</div></div>Nobody returns a Barska. They just throw them away if they're dumb enough to buy one in the first place. But how do you know what any company's return rate is? And if it is so high, why are they still in business?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??</div></div>Who cares? Go file a FOIA request.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??</div></div>Again, more scuttlebutt. As long as a company respects Federal laws and regulations related to this subject, they can claim what they want. Premier has stated (sometimes poorly) that some components come from elsewhere. It's naive to think that all the components in a Swaro rangefinder, or a Zeiss or S&B scope are all made in Germany or Austria.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??</div></div>While not something I would do timing-wise, what does this have to do with anything external to the company?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??</div></div>I've read good arguments on both sides of this issue. It should have been handled differently by both parties.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?</div></div>Whether or not either company compensates the other for patent use, Premier does mark the elevation turret with "MTC-U.S. Optics, U.S.Pat #7,415,791"
Some of this I agree with, but some I don't. Its overall tone makes me wonder what agenda you have.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1) Do you remember when you didn't want to repair a Leupold sent in for repair that had your reticle, supposedly because the reticle that you manufactured wasn't available anymore. What happened when the "Hide" got involved??</div></div>Sounds like their bad on this one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2) Do you remember when people that paid retail on preorders recieved their scopes after everyone who got them at discounted prices??</div></div>Likewise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) Do you remember when your scope was originally projected to cost 1500,1700,2000,2200,2500,2700....dollars??</div></div>And what exactly is the issue with this? Did you have your heart set on getting high-end scopes for half price forever?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) Do you remember when Scott took you on to help out your cashflow; to free up some of your funds??</div></div>
If this is the case (and for other reasons) I'd agree Premier should have considered what Scott has done for them more.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4) Where do you get off thinking that a scope that has parts made in NUNYA (Taiwan) should have the same percieved value as a Schmidt & Bender??</div></div>And you've taken all your S&Bs apart to verify that the parts are made only in Germany or Austria?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5) Can anyother manufacturer claim your return rate for failures or malfunctions; including Barska or whomever?</div></div>Nobody returns a Barska. They just throw them away if they're dumb enough to buy one in the first place. But how do you know what any company's return rate is? And if it is so high, why are they still in business?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6) Whatever happened to your supposed USMC contract??</div></div>Who cares? Go file a FOIA request.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">7) Whatever happened to your Made in the USA claims??</div></div>Again, more scuttlebutt. As long as a company respects Federal laws and regulations related to this subject, they can claim what they want. Premier has stated (sometimes poorly) that some components come from elsewhere. It's naive to think that all the components in a Swaro rangefinder, or a Zeiss or S&B scope are all made in Germany or Austria.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">8) Do you think those employees that you fired the day before Christmas had a good one??</div></div>While not something I would do timing-wise, what does this have to do with anything external to the company?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9) You knew for years the prices Scott was selling your scopes because you needed the revenue, now he is expendable??</div></div>I've read good arguments on both sides of this issue. It should have been handled differently by both parties.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">10) Do you pay anything to USO for their MTC design and is their patent on your product while you demand them to pay for your reticle and display your patent?</div></div>Whether or not either company compensates the other for patent use, Premier does mark the elevation turret with "MTC-U.S. Optics, U.S.Pat #7,415,791"
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
</div></div>
Understanding of MAP significance? Sure - it's pretty significant, as we can observe. So?.. And while we're at it - repeat after me, slowly: "MAP is not MSP".
<span style="font-style: italic">From the dictionary: significance - the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.)</div></div>
The dealer contract stated MAP, so Premier has the right to enforce MAP. The contract didn't state MSP (and it would be illegal in general to establish MSP by Sherman Anti-Trust Act, enforced by FTC), so Premier can't legally enforce MSP.
Now that was a simple exercise in logic, wasn't it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
Understanding of MAP significance? Sure - it's pretty significant, as we can observe. So?.. And while we're at it - repeat after me, slowly: "MAP is not MSP".
<span style="font-style: italic">From the dictionary: significance - the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument is whether Premier has the legal right enforce MSP or MAP( thats what people are not understanding.)</div></div>
The dealer contract stated MAP, so Premier has the right to enforce MAP. The contract didn't state MSP (and it would be illegal in general to establish MSP by Sherman Anti-Trust Act, enforced by FTC), so Premier can't legally enforce MSP.
Now that was a simple exercise in logic, wasn't it?
Similar threads
- Locked
