Foffa Bikes appear to admit to price fixing with Wiggle in Bike Biz article

Whoops, just seen the last few posts.

I guess now we see whether Mark Sutton at Bike Biz is actually a cycling journalist (as his bio claims), or in reality he just prints press releases.

But then... BikeBiz represent the industry, and one can hardly expect a journalist for a publication on behalf of the industry to put the consumers first even in the face of illegal activity by some elements of the industry.

Would love to be a journalist this morning... I'd be on the phone to Wiggle and other Foffa retailers to ask them:

1. If they agreed to not discount Foffa Bikes
   
2. Whether they have ever discounted Foffa Bikes
   
3. Whether they have such agreements with other suppliers
   

"So why would an independent dealer be interested" in PRICE FIXING

Foffa paid for advertising space in Bikebiz (including their magazine).

Unmerge!

Moved to a new thread as the statement made by Dani Foffa appears to warrant a topic of it's own.

This topic: Foffa Bikes appear to have admitted to price fixing, Wiggle and Bike Biz are silent on the matter.

The other topic: Coprophilia (I think, at least it appears to be at that juvenile level whenever I look)

Foffa paid for advertising space in Bikebiz (including their magazine).

Then this would appear to speak volumes about the advertising policy of BikeBiz and whether they're able to keep their editorial and journalistic endeavours adequately detached from the advertising department.

It all stinks.

Feel free to retweet: https://twitter.com/lfgss/status/473768538420031489

I'd love to see a clear explanation from Dani Foffa, and Wiggle, as to whether there has been price fixing or not. And if not, quite what Dani meant.

I presume that Mark Sutton of BikeBiz has a recording of the interview and that he is a journalist of integrity to the point that the given quote wasn't a misquote or paraphrase but was indeed a direct quote from the interview.

sporting a chromoly steel frame, sealed BBs, triple wall rims and puncture resistant tyres.

This line has been spouted on here before so I suspect half cobbled together copy/pasta press release.

Mark Sutton a journalist of integrity,thats why the paragraph was removed from the article.
As for a clear explanation from Dani Foffa,hes probably self imploded and disappeared up his own arse.

I still have a suspicion that Foffa bikes are an invention of Tynan to troll forumengers and that he is the puppetmaster behind this whole charade

(long-time lurker, first-time poster etc.; not connected with Foffa or Bike Biz)

Then this would appear to speak volumes about the advertising policy of BikeBiz and whether they're able to keep their editorial and journalistic endeavours adequately detached from the advertising department.

It's a trade mag, entirely funded by advertising, and whose advertisers and readers are often the same people. I'd be sorely disappointed if C+, CW, road.cc etc. did the same, but trade mags don't usually have the same church/state separation between advertising and editorial. Most B2B titles take a similar tack. As a journalist I wouldn't do it... but then that's why I'd rather sandpaper my eyeballs than work on a trade mag.

What I suspect happened was that Foffa realised belatedly, thought "sh*t, I shouldn't have said that, Wiggle etc. will be furious with me", and phoned up BB to say "look, can you pull the quote, I didn't get that across as I intended".

Incidentally, here's how Apple manages price fixing. Legal, just:

Minimum Advertised Price is usually enforced through marketing subsidies offered by a manufacturer to its resellers. If a retailer keeps prices at or above the minimum advertised price, then a manufacturer like Apple will give them money to help advertise. If a store's price dips too low, on the other hand, the manufacturer can withdraw these advertising subsidies.

(from http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gizmos/2006/12/gadgets_for_sale_or_not.html)

Somehow I don't think Foffa could manage this...

So he admitted to something he didn't do?

At the Masterstrokers HQ,his financial backers have asked HIPPY to mass produce a batch of his WHAT A CUNT stickers, to replace the ones on their bikes

Currently the original article is available on google cache (saved, of course, in VB's attachment) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9YJYJqoC2ZkJ:http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/independent-dealer-is-key-to-foffa-bikes-future-says-founder/016458+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

At least the bike comes with hand built h plus son wheels. Oh, wait, sorry I'm getting mixed up again. Oops.

At least his customers can now have the most popular bespoke colours of bikes, so I guess he can still claim they are bespoke and custom.

I happen to know that when bike stores frequently and seriously dip below the RRP, they are dealt serious sanctions by distributors, to the extent that stock is pulled and distro links severed.

This is usually policed by other stores who are losing sales to discounters.

Love a free market, me...

Nope, the context for "they" is Wiggle.

Sorry, your emphasis pulled my eye away from the "they and".

Suppliers are not allowed to fix prices, the word "recommended" in "recommended retail price" is there as a result of significant legal battles in the 60s and 70s.

Effectively the law says that a supplier states their price and sells an item to a retailer, and a retailer can determine what price they will sell the item to a consumer.

A retailer is allow to set that price however they wish, including running loss leaders (selling something at a loss so that you become a customer and subsequently purchase higher margin items from them, from which they'll make an overall profit) or applying seasonal discounts and promotions, etc.

Dani Foffa has made a statement in the press that basically says "retailers are not allowed to discount" which effectively means that Foffa Bikes are denying the retailers the ability to discount via a supplier contract with Foffa. That is illegal.

That is illegal, as it means that without discounting at all, and being forced to sell at the same price as other retailers, means that the price is being fixed by Foffa Bikes.

Both UK and EU law prohibit this. Hence the word "recommended" in RRP... the retailer may suggest a price but cannot dictate it.

There are other laws in this area which don't apply... such as using a dominant market position to set prices. But those are irrelevant, even a non-dominant supplier is prohibited from setting prices like that.

I wonder if Wiggle are actually complicit in this price-fixing. For if they are, someone should ask whether this is something that they do for other suppliers, and whether this is indicative of wider behaviour in the bike industry to set (online) prices against the consumer interest (competitive pricing).

Hmmmmmmmmmm had similar happen to me this past week - supplier decided that as I discount their bikes they will no longer supply to me, this came after a local competitor complained. I sell both online and from a physical location - but to be perfectly honest, I do understand the competitors position and can sympathise - sneaky though !!

............................. now just waiting to see how Dani gets out of this one !!!

Certain that Tyson Sadlo ( Foffa PR ) is sweating blood trying to put together a smug X clever X grovelling X superior response in the guise of Mr. Foffa

I happen to know that when bike stores frequently and seriously dip below the RRP, they are dealt serious sanctions by distributors, to the extent that stock is pulled and distro links severed.

This is true, in various ways. While Foffa seems uniquely inept in blatantly admitting to anti-competitive practices, it's pretty obvious that other, seriously big, companies are in the same business, albeit more subtly. Certain very large (and notoriously litigious) US head-quartered companies seem to think it's fine to bring their domestic anti-competition contractual terms with them when they deal with EU based retailers.

The biggest issue I find in this isn't actually with Foffa. I understand why a supplier that creates the goods wants to fix prices, but they are only able to do so if the retailers agree to it.

The checks and balance in this is that Wiggle should realise that this is illegal, and that it isn't in their interest as they will be able to acquire more customers if they offer discounts and occasionally loss leaders.

But if Wiggle are agreeing to this, then what other suppliers do they have a similar agreement with?

And from that, just how bad is the bike marketplace from a consumer perspective?

Someone call Panorama.