I just spotted this on the Rittenhouse site:

http://www.scifihobby.com/dealers/MAPP-Program.pdf

I support this. It does NOT keep me from selling their products at whatever price I want.

What it does is keep the panicking dealers from listing it so cheaply it destroys any confidence in the product. Especially that .99 start auctions.

There is something called "Perceived Value." When people see an item for sale below cost, that influences how they think about that product. And it's even worse with auctions that start too low, because people see them early in the term but only remember "It was for sale for $20."

I also feel obliged to mention that Uncle Allan at Inkworks brought this up at least a decade ago and he was laughed at by most of the other manufacturers. Allan was always a little ahead of his time.

Ed

Well they say they are not trying to fix prices or manipulate the market and then go on to tell everybody what they can and can't sell it for in the market.

As I read it this only applies to sealed product. It does not stop someone from opening boxes and then selling the contents for any price they want, whether that be .99 or whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:
Well they say they are not trying to fix prices or manipulate the market and then go on to tell everybody what they can and can't sell it for in the market.

Except they aren't really. You can't advertise it at below cost. What you do one on one is your own business.
And, sorry, even if it were insisting you SELL it at a certain price, is it unreasonable to say, hey, don't sell it for less you paid?
Yeah, alot of people say I blow out the product to get the incentives, but it's not healthy.

Wouldn't a lot of this be solved by putting all the incentives in the packs and letting sets stand on their own merits? Maybe cases would then sell for $1000 shortly after release instead of $400 and dealers can make their cut that way. It's seems like the incentives are becoming more and more while the good pack inserted cards are becoming less and less. It shows little faith in their own product to me. Just my two cents.

The multi-case incentives and archive box exclusive cards are part of dealer compensation. Without those guaranteed perks many dealers would cut their orders or try to pass entirely on certain products. Manufacturers want their outlets to commit to the whole product line, dogs included, so dealers have to get something to make up for those dogs or they will do the unthinkable, lose money.

As collectors, we need dealers. I personally am thankful for the small number of dealers I do business who I know I can trust. They need to make a profit or they will close up, that's just a fact of life.

Having said that, there are people who think they are smart and abuse the system. In the end it hurts other dealers, which turns around and bites the hobby. I don't see anything wrong with this policy change. It just means they can't advertise when they want to go below SRP (below their own cost actually) for a certain time after the release date. It will be up to RA to enforce it though and that will be their problem.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

my worry is it won't affect the Big Four Distributors...but it may definitely hurt the small guys myself included.

Right now,
Upper Deck does this..... & Never tells you anything really about a release until the week off release. RA gives us lots of Info & Backs it Up!

Topps, well the less said the better in my opinion.

by the way, the Lowest price that can be advertised is now $725 a case....... cost plus 15%..... subtract the 13% for paypal & ebay fees... = @ cost.

Will People break the Rules....
Of Course they will........
it's in RA's court as to how to handle it now.

I speculate a bit about the implementation. Is a "starting bid" of 0.99 (not a Buy-It-Now price) an advertisement to sell at that price, or is it an auction starting price that might minimize listing fees? Clause (b) might mean that you'd have to use a Reserve price.

Probably it wouldn't often cause difficulties during the first 45 days of a release, when a lot of people are watching auctions.

I wonder about the statement that the policy applies to "the customers they [dealers and distributors] ship to." I assume the policy could only be enforced against the dealers and distributors.

Yes, I conclude that the policy is based on how a dealer could make a profit enough on incentives to discount the base material. I thought about pre-sellers who list before manufacturer's pricing is finalized, but I don't see much of that any more.

quote:

Originally posted by allender:
I wonder about the statement that the policy applies to "the customers they [dealers and distributors] ship to." I assume the policy could only be enforced against the dealers and distributors.

The statement says it in the reverse, "the distributors, dealers and the customers they ship to", which is why I said it's RA's problem to enforce.

Can they identify where product came from along the food chain? Probably based on box or case numbers, if they can get them, but are they going to cut off a dealer who sells to someone you violates the MAPP policy? Are they going to cut off a distributor who sells to a dealer that violates the MAPP policy? Product can change hands enough times to the point that you need a breadcrumb trail to find the source.

So it is a good idea to rein in those discounting too much and too soon, but the follow through is the hard part. If they say it, they have to be able to do it.

I do see Rittenhouse's point. And I see the dealers' point.

But this all stems from the fact that the majority boxes simply aren't worth their asking price and dealers can't shift them. If Rittenhouse are so concerned about perceived value, maybe they should make sure we get more good hits in a box than three $5 walk-ons' autographs. Or in the sets where the signers roster isn't as long as a Star Trek or a Game of Thrones, more than just one autograph and one costume in a box. Then we might perceive their value as higher.

It's an extreme example, because there's no way a configuration like it can be done for every license, but no-one's concerned about the perceived value of Breygent's Bates Motel boxes, are they?