Best Buy's Mac Sale Over

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/27/bestbuys-mac-sale-over-prematurely/)

With early hints (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/27/apples-black-friday-sales-begin-around-the-world/) at only modest sales at Apple stores, it comes as a surprise that Best Buy's Mac sale appears to be over. The retailer's site no longer (http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-462641-10483609) shows the $100-$150 discounts on new Macs.

At this time MacMall sales (http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-462641-10373210) (chart (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/26/black-friday-discounts-on-macs/)) remain in effect. Official U.S. Apple Black Friday sales should be published later tonight but it appears (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/27/apples-black-friday-sales-begin-around-the-world/) that modest ($100) discounts will only extend to the iMac and MacBook.

Update: The sale was only intended until Wednesday night.

Article Link: BestBuy's Mac Sale Over? (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/27/bestbuys-mac-sale-over-prematurely/)

[840quadra]

Well so much for planning on taking advantage of this on Friday. But, I don't believe the item I was after was going to be on sale anyway. Curious to hear about the sales totals though.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165206282&type=profile

[caffeinejoe]

Wow!! That was quick. Looks like it will have to be the Apple store for me.

[mkrishnan]

On a scale of one to evil, how evil am I that I kind of want Best Buy to go out of business? I mean, slowly, so that all the people who work for them can be absorbed back into the economy, and all, but ultimately disappear forever? :o

[Mac Brown]

Interesting. I wonder if BB is gearing up for bigger discount on Macs tomorrow.

Would rather have the money go directly to Apple anyway. Hopefully we'll see some competitive discounts.

[Mykbibby]

Wow!! That was quick. Looks like it will have to be the Apple store for me.

That's the reason Apple pulled it... :rolleyes:

[darwinian]

The BB sale plus no tax in NH saved me about 250 bucks on a new MBP. Minus the 7 for filling up my friend's gas tank, and dinner for $30, I saved 213 bucks, which is better than nothing! My understanding of this sale, from our local ad in MA, was that it was to end yesterday.

Interesting. I wonder if BB is gearing up for bigger discount on Macs tomorrow.

Would rather have the money go directly to Apple anyway. Hopefully we'll see some competitive discounts.

I don't think they'd do that, because they know they'd get a huge backlash from annoyed customers.

[xamkil83]

I thought the discounts would at least continue through "Black Friday". They are not listing any new prices on the mac line for "Black Friday" which is really disappointing. For once I had planed to buy a new MBP somewhere other than the Apple Store, not any more.

[skucera]

Did anyone actually look at the print ad? It was clearly a "4 days only" sale, from Sunday through Wednesday. Why am I the only one not surprised the sale is over when it was supposed to end?

[Robb315]

The flyer that came out with the sale on Sunday said it was only a pre-thanksgiving sale for four days only anyhow.

skucera beat me to the punch.

[arn]

Did anyone actually look at the print ad? It was clearly a "4 days only" sale, from Sunday through Wednesday. Why am I the only one not surprised the sale is over when it was supposed to end?

you are correct. my mistake.

arn

[Mac Brown]

Would love to see Apple offer some Mac Mall price matching now that BB's sale is over. Anyone talked to a sales rep about it?

[Shasterball]

Hmmm, that was quick. With Bestbuy hurting so much, I would have thought it would last till Friday....

[swb1192]

i was going to wait until friday to buy my new macbook, but i'm glad i bought it yesterday!

maybe they will do another sale on black friday? i guess we'll find out...

[seashellz]

credit is near frozen-stores cant buy new stock=less sales=less liquidity=no credit=etc Maybe they owed APPLE money. too late to unprint flyers which are usually planned/done 2 weeks before

I heard when SONY got wind of CC closing 155 stores-they ground everything to a dead halt-called delivery trucks back, stopped warehouse stock pick n pull.
BB may have little of no credit-just whats in the warehouse-and whoever will still sell to them. Now SONY is stuck with possible excess inventory

But suddenly banks dont want to lend because they fear bankruptcy-like CC going totally down the hole-which also is why they are canceling thousands of low balance credit cards-they are afraid people will max and run. Other people find themselves with 30-40% interest!
Still other people get mail telling them their $50,000 credit card limit has been cut to $10,000.
Until Helicopter Ben prints up another billion or so-for the underclasses-all we are doing is paying off the big banks debt for them

[sgntscrawn]

That's the reason Apple pulled it... :rolleyes:

Err... Best Buy finished the sale, not Apple. If you're suggesting Apple has a hand in how much Best Buy is allowed to sell their products for, then that would be a breach of any anti-competitive trading laws in any country that I know of.

Apple can only recommend prices and exert some sort of control by having a high cost price for retailers.

[dacreativeguy]

who cares. They didn't even have the best prices anyway. Amazon seems to be the best deal around right now for the newest Macs with rebates, no shipping costs, and no tax. BB was at least $100 higher for the Macbook I just bought from Amazon.

[retroneo]

Err... Best Buy finished the sale, not Apple. If you're suggesting Apple has a hand in how much Best Buy is allowed to sell their products for, then that would be a breach of any anti-competitive trading laws in any country that I know of.

Apple can only recommend prices and exert some sort of control by having a high cost price for retailers.

While resale price maintenance is illegal in many countries, this behaviour is common and openly practiced in the USA. Apple calls it the 'minimum advertised price' (MAP) Guidelines.

Such practices would lead to a very high profile conviction, and lengthy jail terms here.

Australia has criminal charges with lengthy jail terms for this practice. MAP Guidelines are taken most seriously here with high profile prosecutions, imprisonment and massive fines of small business owners and large company directors alike.

[YMark]

While price fixing is illegal in many countries, this behaviour is common and openly practiced in the USA.

Very true. Oakley sunglasses come to mind.

[McShizzel]

Wow that was fast.

[matticus008]

While price fixing is illegal in many countries, this behaviour is common and openly practiced in the USA.
No, it's not.
Apple calls it the 'minimum advertised price' (MAP) Guidelines.
Which affects you only if you're participating in an authorized reseller program and receiving a sales and marketing allowance from Apple. Participation in such a program is not mandatory.

Australia has criminal charges with lengthy jail terms for this practice. MAP Guidelines are taken most seriously here with high profile prosecutions, imprisonment and massive fines of small business owners and large company directors alike.
The MAP Guidelines are in effect in Australia. No convictions.

What you're describing isn't price fixing, but rather low retailer margins. The wholesale price of Apple products is discounted less than 10% over retail price, which is why retailers don't vary more than $50-100 from the Apple store price.

Merchants are not prohibited from greater discounts by any price fixing scheme--you could buy Apple computers as a reseller and then slap a $250 discount on them if you wanted. The only consequence would be that you would never make a profit.

If you buy milk at $3.25 wholesale, and your supplier sells it retail at $3.50, you're going to have to price your milk somewhere between the two for profit. That's the market at work, not price fixing.

[retroneo]

Which affects you only if you're participating in an authorized reseller program and receiving a sales and marketing allowance from Apple. Participation in such a program is not mandatory.

This is precisely the kind of agreement I'm referring to and it is not allowed here. Apple does not use MAP guidelines here. Suggesting they do is a big accusation.

For more information:

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=801189&nodeId=4783021f23be781f6396709e69b16a48&fn=Resale%20price%20maintenance.pdf

It's in plain English and straight from the regulator. They call it resale price maintenance. From the doc, it's one of their "largest areas of litigation."

[synth3tik]

On a scale of one to evil, how evil am I that I kind of want Best Buy to go out of business? I mean, slowly, so that all the people who work for them can be absorbed back into the economy, and all, but ultimately disappear forever? :o


I give that an evil rating of -4. Best Buy deserves to parish. All they are is a bunch of scam artists IMO.

[SWLinPHX]

I thought the discounts would at least continue through "Black Friday". They are not listing any new prices on the mac line for "Black Friday" which is really disappointing. For once I had planed to buy a new MBP somewhere other than the Apple Store, not any more.

What about MacMall? The MacBook Pro is discounted $250 off the regular retail price and $150 less than they just had it for (that I just bought this month!). The final $100 off is a rebate, but the POS price is still substantially reduced. Of course they have no tax and free shipping too, not to mention a lot of freebies (like cases and printers) along with a computer purchase.

I just bought the one they are discounting from them this month (haven't even used it yet). I wonder if I call them as a long-time customer for years in good standing they will refund the difference to me.

[matticus008]

This is precisely the kind of agreement I'm referring to and it is not allowed here.
No, you're not. No one is establishing a minimum mandated price.

The PDF you supplied states quite explicitly that businesses can set their own prices, and that suppliers are permitted to recommend prices.

Nothing is stopping any merchant from setting their prices below the MAP level except profitability. Any retailer can sell any Apple product for any price they wish--even below cost, to a certain extent. Turning directly to the statute in question, if a retailer continually dumps products below wholesale (loss leading), the supplier is explicitly permitted to reduce or terminate supplies. Any Australian (or anywhere else) merchant is free to sell Apple products at cost or above however they so please.

Please indicate where a mandated minimum price is occurring. Hint: there isn't one.
Apple does not use MAP guidelines here. Suggesting they do is a big accusation.
Yes, they do, and no, it is no accusation. Apple uses MAP guidelines in every market where they sell goods--if the label "Authorized Reseller" exists, MAP guidelines are in use. MAP is not MMRP, which is price maintenance.
It's in plain English and straight from the regulator. They call it resale price maintenance.
Yes, it is, and reading it would be helpful for you.

[gkarris]

i was going to wait until friday to buy my new macbook, but i'm glad i bought it yesterday!

maybe they will do another sale on black friday? i guess we'll find out...

Don't think so. When I was at BB earlier this week I thought it was part of their pre-Thanksgiving sale.

Their black Friday specials don't include Macs...

[sgntscrawn]

Okay, lets just get this straight. Price fixing involves a supplier mandating a price that a retailer must sell a product at. In other words Supplier A tells retailer B that product X must be sold at $500, otherwise they'll stop supplying it.

That conduct is illegal in here Australia, as a breach of the Trade Practices Act, and I'm sure it'd be illegal everywhere else.

All Apple does is sell its products to retailers at a price not much less than the retailers sell it at, as some here have already alluded to. In other words, Supplier A sells product X to Retailer B for $450. Supplier A recommends a retail price (amazingly called the "recommended retail price" or "rrp" :p) of $500. To hammer the point home, Supplier A sells product X for $500 on their own website.

The effect, totally legal and legitimate, is that most retailers would sell the product at the recommended price of $500 and rarely discount it. Of course, like others have already said, there is nothing stopping a retailer from discounting it, even to the point of being below cost - as a loss leader, for example.

To suggest otherwise is not only plainly wrong, but tends towards defamation as it suggests Apple conducts criminal activity in its pricing structures, which it doesn't.

[mkrishnan]

I give that an evil rating of -4. Best Buy deserves to parish. All they are is a bunch of scam artists IMO.

Haha, thanks. :o

And people wonder why sales of music CDs plummeted so far, so fast, to electronic pirating, when small record stores that charged $10-13 for CDs were simultaneously replaced by Best Buy and Tower (rest not in peace) that charged $15-19.

And if Best Buy takes Monster Cables down with it, all the better. ;)

[darwinian]

I give that an evil rating of -4. Best Buy deserves to parish. All they are is a bunch of scam artists IMO.

So I hear this kind of thing about BB all the time; we all do. But my experience with them is that they're fine. They often don't have the best price, so for larger purchases I go online. They have a lot of morons working for them (and I do mean a lot), but that's the hit or miss world of retail. But they are convenient and offer great financing. Additionally, I think they've made their financing policies very clear, and in practice with clear, informative statements, they go above and beyond most CC companies to make sure you are NOT late on payments or paying finance charges.

[sin1nce]

HEY: TO THE GUY THAT SAID HE WANTED BEST BUY TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS.. If you get your facts straight Best Buy Currently sells 175% more apple products than Apple Retail Stores. May Be you didn't get informed that Apple is currently Laying Employees off... ;)

[Digitalclips]

I found out the hard way. I went down to Sarasota's Best Buy yesterday to buy a MacBook and then came home and ordered from Apple when I saw the price there. Mind you I am not sure I could have waited even if they had still had the sale on. The Mac sales guy (yes one guy) was talking away to a man and his son for the 20 minutes I was browsing around. I saw several folks give up waiting and leave after making shrugs and facial grimaces. The Best Buy guy was oblivious as he showed off his knowledge on Macs but also his total lack of sales ability.

[mkrishnan]

HEY: TO THE GUY THAT SAID HE WANTED BEST BUY TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS.. If you get your facts straight Best Buy Currently sells 175% more apple products than Apple Retail Stores. May Be you didn't get informed that Apple is currently Laying Employees off... ;)

Source for either of these claims?

[RainMeister]

Okay, lets just get this straight. Price fixing involves a supplier mandating a price that a retailer must sell a product at. In other words Supplier A tells retailer B that product X must be sold at $500, otherwise they'll stop supplying it.

That conduct is illegal in here Australia, as a breach of the Trade Practices Act, and I'm sure it'd be illegal everywhere else.

Your presumption is incorrect, at least here in the United States.

The Sherman antitrust act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1911 in the Dr. Miles Medical case, held that an AGREEMENT among the mfr and dealers to establish minimum prices led to the "destruction of competition and the fixing of prices, are injurious to the public interest and void."

However, under the Colgate doctrine (named for the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case), a mfr may unilaterally set minimum resale prices, and if a dealer refused to comply, the mfr can simply terminate such dealers without running afoul of the law. In other words, so long as there is no AGREEMENT among the mfr and resellers on a minimum resale price scheme, there is no violation of the Sherman Act.

Many mfrs of products that are relatively unique, exclusive and non-fungible have enforced minimum resale prices under the Colgate doctrine. Most are mfrs of high-end, designer brand goods.

In the case of Apple, they have succeeded in developing products that in the eyes of many consumers are non-fungible. The iPod is an example where most consumers will not settle for an alternative mp3 player. This gives Apple power to dictate to dealers what prices they may sell the iPod at or they risk being cut off as an authorized reseller.

BTW, the Dr. Miles case was overturned this year in the Leegin case, so that even if there is an agreement between the mfr and dealer, it is not presumptively illegal; i.e., the court will consider whether it is in violation of the Sherman Act on a case-by-case basis.

[matticus008]

Your presumption is incorrect, at least here in the United States.
In fact, his presumption is not incorrect, but simply incomplete. Either an agreement or a mandate is unlawful.

A firm may decline to sell to a particular reseller for any reason, including selling prices below what the manufacturing firm would like, but it cannot use any means to require a reseller to obey its suggested pricing. That includes more than agreements alone, as s. 1 of the Sherman Act deals with any contract or combination (agreement or practice).

However, under the Colgate doctrine (named for the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case), a mfr may unilaterally set minimum resale prices, and if a dealer refused to comply, the mfr can simply terminate such dealers without running afoul of the law.
That is the extent of the Colgate doctrine as it relates to price maintenance. Anything beyond simple (reactive) termination becomes problematic. See e.g. Parke-Davis and Bausch & Lomb.

The retailer must comply with the pricing guidelines "as a product of free choice" and not as a result of a precondition, mandate, or threat.

[RainMeister]

A firm may decline to sell to a particular reseller for any reason, including selling prices below what the manufacturing firm would like, but it cannot use any means to require a reseller to obey its suggested pricing.

That is the extent of the Colgate doctrine as it relates to price maintenance. Anything beyond simple (reactive) termination becomes problematic. See e.g. Parke-Davis and Bausch & Lomb.

The retailer must comply with the pricing guidelines "as a product of free choice" and not as a result of a precondition, mandate, or threat.

This is where the courts/academia and the real world diverge. A threat need not be explicit to achieve the goal of resale price maintenance. A few well-publicized reseller terminations on the basis of their selling below mfr suggested retail price is all that will be necessary to send a message through the rest of the mfr's authorized dealer network that they had better tow the line. Whether that act is intended to be pro-active or reactive is something that only the mfr will know. It's a foolish distinction that the courts have created, and an impossible one to try and enforce with any predictability as to the outcome.

[matticus008]

This is where the courts/academia and the real world diverge. A threat need not be explicit to achieve the goal of resale price maintenance.
True, but the effect is not the principal focus, so it's irrelevant.
A few well-publicized reseller terminations on the basis of their selling below mfr suggested retail price is all that will be necessary to send a message
And?
Whether that act is intended to be pro-active or reactive is something that only the mfr will know.
No, it's not. It's quite readily apparent. If a company says "you will be cut off if you don't sell your stock above MSRP", it's an a priori threat. If the company terminates a posteriori, saying "you didn't generate enough profit per unit for us to resupply you in the future", it's the market at work.
It's a foolish distinction that the courts have created, and an impossible one to try and enforce with any predictability as to the outcome.
On the contrary, it's a critical distinction necessary to protect the application of market forces. Just as the manufacturer is entitled to solid returns and to optimize their distribution chain to get the profit they want, the downstream seller must be free to make their own judgments and decisions on the inventory it possesses. Limiting, as you suggest, price maintenance cases solely to contract neglects both consumers and resellers as well as permits economic duress beyond the rights of a manufacturer.

A precondition or mandate removes the choice of the reseller. A consequential termination does not. The removal of choice is actionable. The application of market forces is not.