Where can I get the Cheapest price on the new Leupold rangefinder.

I doubt you will find allot of retail price fluctuation on these. Of course, I guess that depends on what you consider “allot.â€

I don't know if it applies to rangefinders, but Leupold has forced dealers into "price fixing" -- that is, they can't sell a scope for less than a given amount lest they no longer want to be an authorized Leupold dealer.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
I don't know if it applies to rangefinders, but Leupold has forced dealers into "price fixing" -- that is, they can't sell a scope for less than a given amount lest they no longer want to be an authorized Leupold dealer.

If you have evidence of this you ought to contact the justice department because that is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

I’m not sure why Leupold (a wholesale manufacturer) would give a rats ass if retailers gave the scopes away for free. Leupold doesn’t sell retail anyway so why would they care?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

If you have evidence of this you ought to contact the justice department because that is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Apple, Coke, Pepsi, GM, and many others engage in pricing agreements. Facto of life I'm afraid...

John

Rick-Check with Leupold dealers and ask them. See how they feel about the matter.

Rick-Here is a post from the opticzone a while back. Your tone indicates you've never heard of this. It's been rehashed here and other forums a number of times.

"MSRP is the price that Leupold suggest that we should sell it, while the MAP is the price in which we must advertise the cost. Yes, my price is the same as Cabelas, but when you look at the general population, people are going to want to buy from Cabelas instead of The Optic Zone. The ability to offer a lower price was the only advantage that we had. Now the big companies with the money are able to do more of the advertising, by sending out 10-15 catalogs per month, while the little stores have to just sit back and only hope for a sale."

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Rick-Check with Leupold dealers and ask them. See how they feel about the matter.

You still didn’t answer my question as to why Leupold would care what a retailer sold their scopes for? If Leupold also sold retail I could understand it, but since they don’t why would they care. Be specific in your answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

If you have evidence of this you ought to contact the justice department because that is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Apple, Coke, Pepsi, GM, and many others engage in pricing agreements. Facto of life I'm afraid...

John

I can buy Coca-Cola at my local grocery store for a dollar a liter...and walk across the street to a 7-11 and pay a dollar for a 12 oz can?????? Where is the price fixing?

Large volume discounts are not against the anti-trust laws. Manufacturers telling retail stores what they have to charge is. Obviously, a retail store has to make a profit and they have to adjust their retail prices based on what they are paying wholesale for the merchandise. Cabela’s probably doesn’t pay the same wholesale unit price as a smaller store does because they buy the scopes by the truck load.

Rick0311 wrote:

quote:

You still didn’t answer my question as to why Leupold would care what a retailer sold their scopes for?

Rick-Pardon my French, but why the hell would I have to answer your question??? I'm not a dealer and don't work for Leupold. I gave you the facts. What more is there?

If you can't see the light, dig out of the tunnel. With tactics as Leupold employed, it's all about business/greed and keeping the largest vendors happy. It doesn't take a ton of business savvy to interpret Leupold's move; it just requires a little common sense and logical thought.

But tell me again: WHY WOULD I BE OBLIBGATED to answer your question?????

I don’t recall asking you to be obligated to do anything.

You conspiracy nuts crack me up sometimes. Use some of that logic you mentioned and ask yourself what the upside is for Leupold to fix retail prices? In plain English...how would it increase their corporate profits? If Leupold sells me 1,000 scopes wholesale and I turn around and sell those scopes for $5 bucks a piece how does that effect Leupolds bottom line?

Like I originally stated, “IF“ you have proof of this (as you claim to have) and if it bothers you and all these Leupold dealers you claim to know of, then you should all get together and contact the Justice Department.

Rick-This has been public knowledge for a good while now. Where have you been??? And in what thread did I claim to have "proof?" Please be specific.

"Conspiracy nuts".....give me a break!!!!!!

And yes, you did request commentary from me (how quickly one forgets, huh?). Remember writing "Be specific in your answer"?

Rick-Here's a link to one of the threads with the info. Perhaps this will help you, though the way you're going, you'll probably just label it another conspiracy against Leupold.


https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp.../893109301#893109301

The Leupold RX-I model is the only model that Leupold does not have a Unilateral price stucture on. We sell that particular model for $245.99. All the other models, RX-II,III, IV, have a required price that we must sell it for.

Leupold does have what is called a "Unilateral Pricing". The prices are set by Leupold and all retailers must sell the product at this price or take the risk of not being able to purchase Leupold products from any distributor. Leupold is now in the process of getting retailers that are not selling for these prices by getting lawyers involved. Any one that is not selling the Leupold product for the Unilateral pricing, will not be able to use any Leupold product trademark name, symbol or anything associated to Leupold on their website or store. If they do, they may be subject to being sued by Leupold.

This information is direct from Leupold's Assistant Marketing Cordinator.

quote:

Leupold does have what is called a "Unilateral Pricing". The prices are set by Leupold and all retailers must sell the product at this price or take the risk of not being able to purchase Leupold products from any distributor. Leupold is now in the process of getting retailers that are not selling for these prices by getting lawyers involved. Any one that is not selling the Leupold product for the Unilateral pricing, will not be able to use any Leupold product trademark name, symbol or anything associated to Leupold on their website or store. If they do, they may be subject to being sued by Leupold.

That's not the first time I've heard about this and it's absolutely absurd. This reason has steered me from Leupie on several purchases.

The only folks I know that get a good deal on Leupies are Hunters Ed. Instructors and they get a full 40% off of what the normal prices are. The bad thing is they can only buy for themselves but, what Leupie don't know will not hurt em' . It's quite amazing at the prices they get. I looked at the price list and they can get a 6.5X20x40 VXIII Long Range w/ 30mm Main Tube and Side focus for 392 and they were selling the 4-12x40 VX1s for 167 and the bases and ringes were priced around 9 bucks. I might need to get my HS instructor liscense.

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Rick-This has been public knowledge for a good while now. Where have you been??? And in what thread did I claim to have "proof?" Please be specific.

"Conspiracy nuts".....give me a break!!!!!!

And yes, you did request commentary from me (how quickly one forgets, huh?). Remember writing "Be specific in your answer"?

Asking for a specific answer is hardly the same as inferring an “obligation†on someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Jackoviak:
The Leupold RX-I model is the only model that Leupold does not have a Unilateral price stucture on. We sell that particular model for $245.99. All the other models, RX-II,III, IV, have a required price that we must sell it for.

Leupold does have what is called a "Unilateral Pricing". The prices are set by Leupold and all retailers must sell the product at this price or take the risk of not being able to purchase Leupold products from any distributor. Leupold is now in the process of getting retailers that are not selling for these prices by getting lawyers involved. Any one that is not selling the Leupold product for the Unilateral pricing, will not be able to use any Leupold product trademark name, symbol or anything associated to Leupold on their website or store. If they do, they may be subject to being sued by Leupold.

This information is direct from Leupold's Assistant Marketing Cordinator.

Jon,

Brownells lists (retail) a Leupold 4.5-14x50mm LRT scope with a non-illuminated mil-dot reticle for $1,164.99 (item # 526-000-064)...you list it on your web site at $1,059.95, $105.04 less...how can that be if the retail price is fixed? Not arguing, just asking.

Brownell's has a history of listing the MSRP, and if that's the case, that's OK with Leupold -- as long as it is not BELOW their unilateral price. But don't take my word. After all, in your own words, I'm just a "conspiracy nut" and probably just imagined this whole Leupold pricing situation anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Jon,

Brownells lists (retail) a Leupold 4.5-14x50mm LRT scope with a non-illuminated mil-dot reticle for $1,164.99 (item # 526-000-064)...you list it on your web site at $1,059.95, $105.04 less...how can that be if the retail price is fixed? Not arguing, just asking.

Rick,

I am not sure why Brownell's have that price on the particular Leupold scope. Our price is the Unilateral price which is the minimum we can sell if for.

Also, do you know that Leupold restricts all retailers what can be offered as promotional items?

I don't agree with the policy, but we follow it to a "T" and I can say one thing our Leupold sales have dropped significally since the policy came out in 2004.

There are many companies out there that have MAP pricing (Minimum Advertised Pricing), but Leupold is the only one that we carry that requires the retailer to sell the item for a specific price.

Jon,

Leupold also just blew their long time relationship with Premier Reticle. I thin k they got pissed when they didn’t get the Marine Corps contract for the new sniper scopes. Premier got the contract with the Corps to work over the S&B scopes and install the new reticles in them and right after that Leupold cut their ties with Premier. It all happened right around the time that Dick Thomas passed away.

I’m sure the lawyers and the courts will resolve the pricing issue with Leupold, and it still makes very little sense (dollars and cents wise) why they would institute such a policy in the first place since they do not compete in the retail marketplace with you guys.

Many companies may have “MAP†agreements...but those are exactly what they say: Minimum
“ADVERTISED†Pricing. That is why allot of times you see companies having “POR†(price on request) listed for products they sell. Legally, they can sell at whatever price they want to, but the contract they have with the manufacturer limits the prices they can “advertise.â€

I have a friend who is a retired DOJ lawyer that specialized in Anti-Trust cases and we have had numerous conversations about this kind of stuff over the years. Companies can write any kind of contract they want to, but the courts and the DOJ both have the authority to interpret those contracts based on the current legal understanding of the Anti-Trust laws...and price fixing is almost always viewed in a negative way by both the courts and the DOJ.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I have a friend who is a retired DOJ lawyer that specialized in Anti-Trust cases and we have had numerous conversations about this kind of stuff over the years. Companies can write any kind of contract they want to, but the courts and the DOJ both have the authority to interpret those contracts based on the current legal understanding of the Anti-Trust laws...and price fixing is almost always viewed in a negative way by both the courts and the DOJ.

Well Rick, if that is the case, I guess who is going to have the guts to be the first to file the complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Jackoviak:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I have a friend who is a retired DOJ lawyer that specialized in Anti-Trust cases and we have had numerous conversations about this kind of stuff over the years. Companies can write any kind of contract they want to, but the courts and the DOJ both have the authority to interpret those contracts based on the current legal understanding of the Anti-Trust laws...and price fixing is almost always viewed in a negative way by both the courts and the DOJ.

Well Rick, if that is the case, I guess who is going to have the guts to be the first to file the complaint.

Hey, they can kill you but they can’t eat you!

If the situation is as you and others have described it, I don’t think it would be all that difficult to get a bunch of the smaller Leupold dealers together. Collectively you represent a sizable outlet for Leupold products even though as individuals you may be small potato’s in the big scheme of the corporate world.

I would bet that if you checked with a lawyer specializing in contracts that you would find that you can sell Leupold scopes for whatever you want to as long as you don’t “advertise“ the prices. As you already noted Leupolds contract provides for “Minimum Advertised Prices“...NOT minimum “sales†prices.

Of course nothing in the law requires Leupold to grant you a dealership, but if they cancel your existing dealership agreement without just cause (based on an interpretation of their contract by a court) you could sue the hell out of them for lost revenue.

Rick-

For the most part, your posts prior to this thread have been solid -- and I've generally agreed with them.

But as this thread unfolded, your attitude and tone were noticeably different. And now, you've gone from outright skeptic (calling us "conspiracy nuts") to supporter in mere hours.

We're all allowed to change our minds and backtrack. But I guess what I am getting at is that I was surprised -- actually shocked -- by your earlier postings...so much so that it influenced the tenor in my replies. After all, I don't make a habit of kicking out bad information, and when, after a couple of self-explanatory posts, you just couldn't grasp the fact that Leupold actually did adopt this policy, your denial truly perplexed me.

Glad to see you back on the right track...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Rick-

For the most part, your posts prior to this thread have been solid -- and I've generally agreed with them.

But as this thread unfolded, your attitude and tone were noticeably different. And now, you've gone from outright skeptic (calling us "conspiracy nuts") to supporter in mere hours.

We're all allowed to change our minds and backtrack. But I guess what I am getting at is that I was surprised -- actually shocked -- by your earlier postings...so much so that it influenced the tenor in my replies. After all, I don't make a habit of kicking out bad information, and when, after a couple of self-explanatory posts, you just couldn't grasp the fact that Leupold actually did adopt this policy, your denial truly perplexed me.

Glad to see you back on the right track...

Bobby,

I got into this after you made a blatant statement that Leupold fixes retail prices...which still has yet to be proven by you or anyone else...and I stated that if you had proof of this you should contact the DOJ.

So far, all I have seen or heard is that Leupold has adopted a “Minimum Advertising Price†provision in their dealer contract. The operative word there is “advertised.†I have seen or heard nothing the indicates that Leupold requires a minimum “selling†price.

My suggestions to Jon were “if†he felt that Leupold was fixing his retail prices then he should contact either a lawyer, the DOJ, or both.

How has my opinion changed? I didn’t call anyone except you a “conspiracy-nut†and that was based on your statement that it was “obvious†that Leupold’s greed was behind this evil practice of fixing retail prices. You didn’t offer anything (and still haven’t) to base that claim on, you just stated that it was “obviousâ€...which to me it is not.

I have already given one verified and provable example where the Opticzone sells a Leupold scope for over $100.00 less than another Leupold dealer does. How is this possible if what you are claiming is true?

Making claims is one thing...proving them is another. So far all you have done is make claims. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own private set of facts on which to base it.

Rick0311 wrote: [quote]I didn’t call anyone except you a “conspiracy-nutâ€...[quote]

Really???

Below is your quote from earlier, and unless I am blind, I see a plural form in that sentence...

"You conspiracy nuts crack me up sometimes."

Rick0311 wrote:

quote:

I have already given one verified and provable example where the Opticzone sells a Leupold scope for over $100.00 less than another Leupold dealer does. How is this possible if what you are claiming is true?

It's simple, Rick. Brownell's is selling for over $100 MORE than the OpticZone. Jon already stated that he was selling for the MINIMUM price. Here is his reply to you: "Our price is the Unilateral price which is the minimum we can sell if for."

Gee.......

Which part of MINIMUM ADVERTISED PRICE (MAP) are you missing?

You have still done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims that Leupold is fixing the retail “selling†prices for their scopes. I understand that they have provisions that govern what prices a dealer can advertise...lots of companies have that policy and it is not against any law I am aware of...nor does it govern what the product can be sold for.

Look up the word “unilateral“ in the dictionary and see what it says. I’ll save you the time...it means: performed by or only effecting one person or party.

If you keep beating your head on your key board you will have even more trouble hearing and comprehending words!

Rick-I give up. I won't waste any more time trying to make a point to you -- a point which everyone else already understands.

And actually, I did look up something in the dictionary. It was "stubborn." Strangely enough, it had no listed definition but did include a photograph of yourself!

I have to add one more thing:

Rick0311 wrote: Which part of MINIMUM ADVERTISED PRICE (MAP) are you missing?


Rick-WHAT PART OF Jon'S REPLY can you not comprehend??? It follows below, in case you need to re-read and misinterpret it yet another time.

quote:

There are many companies out there that have MAP pricing (Minimum Advertised Pricing), but Leupold is the only one that we carry that requires the retailer to sell the item for a specific price.

'Nuff said...

From the DOJ web site...

Forms of Collusion

Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid rigging, or market division or allocation schemes. Each of these forms of collusion may be prosecuted criminally if they occurred, at least in part, within the past five years. Proving such a crime does not require us to show that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement. Price fixing, bid rigging, and other collusive agreements can be established either by direct evidence, such as the testimony of a participant, or by circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious bid patterns, travel and expense reports, telephone records, and business diary entries.

Under the law, price-fixing and bid-rigging schemes are per se violations of the Sherman Act. This means that where such a collusive scheme has been established, it cannot be justified under the law by arguments or evidence that, for example, the agreed-upon prices were reasonable, the agreement was necessary to prevent or eliminate price cutting or ruinous competition, or the conspirators were merely trying to make sure that each got a fair share of the market.

Price Fixing

Price fixing is an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold. It is not necessary that the competitors agree to charge exactly the same price, or that every competitor in a given industry join the conspiracy. Price fixing can take many forms, and any agreement that restricts price competition violates the law. Other examples of price-fixing agreements include those to:

Establish or adhere to price discounts.

Hold prices firm.

Eliminate or reduce discounts.

Adopt a standard formula for computing prices.

Maintain certain price differentials between different types, sizes, or quantities of products.

Adhere to a minimum fee or price schedule.

Fix credit terms.

Not advertise prices.
In many cases, participants in a price-fixing conspiracy also establish some type of policing mechanism to make sure that everyone adheres to the agreement.

Bobby,

Gulity as charged...I “stubbornly“ require that people making statements that they wish me to accpet as fact offer something more than innuendo or their personal beliefs as a basis for me to evaluate their claims.

I have continually said that “IF†Leupold is doing what you and others claim, then all of the affected dealers should ban together and contact the DOJ...or they should stop carrying Leupold products and make it known to EVERYONE why they are doing it.

I have no idea if Leupold is doing what you claim...but it is quite apparent that neither do you!

Perhaps someone could post a copy of the Leupold dealer contract where it states that Leupold reserves the right to set the minimum retail prices that dealers may charge, and then we can all know if we are starting from the same page, so to speak.

For the record, I have no personal or business connection with any scope manufacturer or retail scope dealer...including Leupold.

I don't what to get in the middle of this. Rick the only thing that I see is incorrect with all of your statements is the "MAP" pricing. In Leupolds policy, there is no referral to the words, "Minimum Advertise Pricing". They call it "Unilateral Minimum Resale Pricing". I am by no means a lawyer or know the law. Are these 2 terms the same or different, I have not a clue.

The only thing that I can say is that we have been cut off twice by Leupold and could not purchase any products from any distributor. One time was because we had a customer call and place an order over the phone and we sold the scope for $5.00 under the "unilateral price". The next day we were on Leupolds do not sell to list at all the distributors. It turned out that the customer that purchased the scope was a Leupold Representative from another state. Is this right? I don't agree to it, but we follow the policy to a "T" now since I have a family to feed. Have our sales went down? Most definitely!

Jon,

Contract law is a fascinating topic, and I have a bit of experience in it through my 30 plus years in the motion picture business negotiating my own deals and writing my own contracts...starting out with the assistance of a very well known theatrical agent who specialized in writing and interpreting contracts.

One of the primary tenants of any legal contract is the well established provision that any ambiguities contained in the language shall be interpreted AGAINST the drafter of the contract by the courts.

It is also well established in contract law that unless otherwise defined in writing words in a contract will be assigned their common meaning when interpreting them. Unilateral, in its common meaning, refers to something that only effects one person or party. Therefore, Leupold having a Unilateral priceing system that applies to all dealers would be just a bit ambiguous...to me anyway.

If this is in fact their policy I believe that a very strong case could be made against them...but the best person to check with would be a lawyer who specializes in contracts and/or Anti-trust cases. Sometimes what we lay people think a contract says, and what an expert thinks it says are completely different. Due to the fact that Leupold engages in interstate commerce with its dealers that gives the federal government and the federal courts jurisidction over their business practices.

There’s an old saying that anything is legal as long as you don’t get caught! Leupold may believe that smaller dealers will keep quite rather than lose their dealership licence with them...or perhaps they just think that no one is smart enough to catch on and turn them in.

If I were you I would be contacting every single small dealer I could find and would also be contacting those dealers that you mentioned that have hired lawyers to fight this. There is power in numbers...plus any legal costs can be split up more if you have a large group.

Rick, Leupolds pricing is old news. If you have a problem with it why don't you pick up the phone and call THEM instead of being a prick with everybody that is simply telling you what is happening. I don't know why they do it, I don't know the legalitys of it, I just know what has been explained to you is the case. I don't buy Leupolds anymore either unless used.

dempsey,

If asking for some proof beyond idle speculation, conjecture and gossip is being a prick, then I guess I‘m a prick...what’s your excuse?

Like I said, call Leupold if don't believe anyone here including a Leupold dealer. You obviously take every other piece of information as speculation, conjecture and gossip. By the way I haven't witnessed any information by you that isn't speculation. The people offering views opposite of yours are based in bonifide experience. Take a trip down to your favorite dealer and ask them. Then call Leupold and ask them. When you're done please report back with your findings.