This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the irony is, that the NBA from what i understand from reading the FTCs website would not be illegal here in the us
"Q: I own a small jewelry store and the manufacturer of TimeCo brand watches recently dropped me as a dealer. I’m sure it’s because my competitors complained that I sell below the suggested retail price. The explanation was the manufacturer’s policy: its products should not be sold below the suggested retail price, and dealers who do not comply are subject to termination. Is it legal for the manufacturer to dictate my prices?
A: The law allows a manufacturer to have a policy that its dealers should sell a product above a certain minimum price, and to terminate dealers that do not honor that policy. Manufacturers may choose to adopt this kind of policy because it encourages dealers to provide full customer service and prevents other dealers, who may not provide full service, from taking away customers and "free riding" on the services provided by other dealers. If TimeCo got you to agree to maintain the suggested retail price, it would be illegal. It also would be illegal if TimeCo agreed with your competitors to drop you as a dealer to help maintain a price to which they had agreed. However, a complaint from a competing retailer is not sufficient to prove such an agreement, because the manufacturer may have decided independently that its interests were better served by sticking with its policy. "
The whole "The collapse of the Agreement..." paragraph seems to be POV-pushing. It is also entirely unsourced and is selective with the facts. For example, stating that it strengthens large chains is one thing, but it does not state specifically that that strength comes from weakening smaller chains and independent stores. Similarly it states that prices have reduced. Personally, I don't see this. If you want to go out and buy a book then yes, you can buy whatever is on offer at the time and it will be cheap. If you want to go out and buy a particular book then if it is popular fiction or some other book that sells a reasonable number of copies it will be about the same in relative terms. If you want to buy technical or specialist book it will be a lot more expensive that it was previously. One of the motivations behind the net book agreement was that expensive technical books were subsidised to some extent by the more popular titles. The section at the moment addresses none of this, and reads as if it has been written by someone with an absolute belief in the free market: the Net Book Agreement was a terrible idea simply on ideological grounds. CrispMuncher ( talk) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, after seriouly messing the history of this page (sorry), I think that the article Fixed Book Price Agreement should be created alongside the current article. The NBA is the British flavour of the FBP, and much of the content here refers only to the British case. Please add Fixed Book Price Agreement to your whatchlist if you happen to be interested by this subject. Bokken | 木刀 09:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Propping up one thing at the expense of something else begs the following question;
Q: Is the thing that needs propping up worth propping up?
A [ | recent report] suggested that subsidies on fishing are actually counter productive. Why would subsidies on books (Charging extra for some to enable a reduced price on others) not have the same overall effect?
EG:
500 book-shops closed following the collapse of the agreement, resulting in 1,500 people losing their jobs.
10,000 other locations (super-markets etc) started selling books (when before they did not) and employed an additional 2,000 staff (one new staff member per 5 supermarkets) across the board. Net result, 500 new jobs.
I do not Know the answers. The picture is too "big" and the data too limited such that is is probably not possible to say if the agreement was good, bad, or indifferent. All one can do is look as other similar agreements where the data is better known, and infer from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernieDog ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Net Book Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Net Book Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the irony is, that the NBA from what i understand from reading the FTCs website would not be illegal here in the us
"Q: I own a small jewelry store and the manufacturer of TimeCo brand watches recently dropped me as a dealer. I’m sure it’s because my competitors complained that I sell below the suggested retail price. The explanation was the manufacturer’s policy: its products should not be sold below the suggested retail price, and dealers who do not comply are subject to termination. Is it legal for the manufacturer to dictate my prices?
A: The law allows a manufacturer to have a policy that its dealers should sell a product above a certain minimum price, and to terminate dealers that do not honor that policy. Manufacturers may choose to adopt this kind of policy because it encourages dealers to provide full customer service and prevents other dealers, who may not provide full service, from taking away customers and "free riding" on the services provided by other dealers. If TimeCo got you to agree to maintain the suggested retail price, it would be illegal. It also would be illegal if TimeCo agreed with your competitors to drop you as a dealer to help maintain a price to which they had agreed. However, a complaint from a competing retailer is not sufficient to prove such an agreement, because the manufacturer may have decided independently that its interests were better served by sticking with its policy. "
The whole "The collapse of the Agreement..." paragraph seems to be POV-pushing. It is also entirely unsourced and is selective with the facts. For example, stating that it strengthens large chains is one thing, but it does not state specifically that that strength comes from weakening smaller chains and independent stores. Similarly it states that prices have reduced. Personally, I don't see this. If you want to go out and buy a book then yes, you can buy whatever is on offer at the time and it will be cheap. If you want to go out and buy a particular book then if it is popular fiction or some other book that sells a reasonable number of copies it will be about the same in relative terms. If you want to buy technical or specialist book it will be a lot more expensive that it was previously. One of the motivations behind the net book agreement was that expensive technical books were subsidised to some extent by the more popular titles. The section at the moment addresses none of this, and reads as if it has been written by someone with an absolute belief in the free market: the Net Book Agreement was a terrible idea simply on ideological grounds. CrispMuncher ( talk) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, after seriouly messing the history of this page (sorry), I think that the article Fixed Book Price Agreement should be created alongside the current article. The NBA is the British flavour of the FBP, and much of the content here refers only to the British case. Please add Fixed Book Price Agreement to your whatchlist if you happen to be interested by this subject. Bokken | 木刀 09:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Propping up one thing at the expense of something else begs the following question;
Q: Is the thing that needs propping up worth propping up?
A [ | recent report] suggested that subsidies on fishing are actually counter productive. Why would subsidies on books (Charging extra for some to enable a reduced price on others) not have the same overall effect?
EG:
500 book-shops closed following the collapse of the agreement, resulting in 1,500 people losing their jobs.
10,000 other locations (super-markets etc) started selling books (when before they did not) and employed an additional 2,000 staff (one new staff member per 5 supermarkets) across the board. Net result, 500 new jobs.
I do not Know the answers. The picture is too "big" and the data too limited such that is is probably not possible to say if the agreement was good, bad, or indifferent. All one can do is look as other similar agreements where the data is better known, and infer from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernieDog ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Net Book Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Net Book Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)