Sound like this is going to be some Beckian anti-government Tea-Party rant?

Nope. This is about something important that will actually matter to your real life.

I’ve got a few things to say about a little topic called M.A.P., or Minimum Advertised Prices (click here for a primer).

This is a long one. You’re about to see what happens to me without an editor!

MAP is a policy exerted on retailers by a PG&A OEM or distributor in an effort to keep a brand’s price (and ostensibly its brand equity) artificially inflated. OEM’s can’t, or often don’t try, to limit what you actually charge for a product, but they do try to control how you communicate or advertise a price.

If OEM’s are really that concerned with maintaining exclusivity and brand equity they should just be selling directly.

My position on MAP in the past has been that I don’t like it on principal or in practice, but if it’s going to exist then it needs to be enforced 100% evenly across the board: no loop holes, no selective enforcement, no games.

I’m also on the record in several columns that I also don’t believe running a cut-rate outfit is a path to long-term success. However, business reality dictates that specials, discounts, and other promotions (when used wisely) are an important tool in the box when running a business.

As a retailer we should have the freedom to run our business how we see fit.

I have now changed my stance on MAP. I don’t like it and I’d like to see it done away with.

Not only don’t like it, I think it’s harming our industry as a whole and benefiting a select few (mostly the OEM’s that create and enforce it).

Over the years that I’ve been writing my column on e-commerce, I’ve read or heard from dealers that really want MAP policies. They think that by having draconian MAP policies that prohibit internet retailers from selling at prices that are different than what “regular” dealers sell in their store, or on their website, they are “safe.”

What I think is going to happen is that these dealers are going to discover that Ben Franklin was right when he said “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” If you are a small or medium sized dealership, those MAP policies are not there for your benefit.

They are there to keep you, Mr. or Ms. Dealership, in line while they wait for the business model that currently drives this industry to turn their way.

MAP policy in the end is going to hurt small retailers much, much more than it will disrupt the large pure-play e-commerce companies.

Most OEM’s or distributors “enforce” their policy by threatening to put a dealer on a “no ship” status for a period of time or to just outright stop doing business with them. Obviously it’s the OEM’s decision to do business with whomever they want and to do so however they feel is appropriate.

The reality is that a very small number of powerful OEM’s and distributors supply popular or must-have brands. Due to their broad appeal and ability to get shopper’s attention a retailer has to carry them. The option of telling these folks, “Thanks, but we’d prefer to have control of our own business and do business with suppliers that are partners as opposed to overlords” is not a viable, realistic alternative.

The biggest problem comes down to selective enforcement or special “arrangements” between some retailers and MAP-happy OEM’s or distributors. These may be overt (i.e. the apparently special relationship between LeMans and Dennis Kirk that Arlo Redwine has detailed on the DN blog), or they may come down to the MAP enforcer choosing to just turn a blind eye on transgressions by certain retailers.

When the enforcement mechanism is to not sell to a retailer, and that retailer sells literally tens of millions of dollars of that OEM’s product, do you really think they are going to put that retailer on “no ship” if they find ways around a MAP or just decide they don’t want to follow it?

In addition to their market clout, large internet and catalog retailers in our industry have the luxury of expensive legal advice that helps them find loopholes in the MAP policies.

If smaller retailers/dealers try these same “tricks” they are often subject to a phone call or email from the OEM/distributor’s legal team (however, the person on the phone is most likely not actually a lawyer and typically doesn’t have the authority to actually clarify or discuss the actual policy).

The major e-tailer’s legal capability can discourage OEM enforcement because the OEM knows the policy that won’t stand up to the rigorous challenge a crack legal team could mount. I don’t know a lot of small dealers with access to those kinds of legal resources.

Don’t even get me started on what will happen once they start distributing directly to folks like Amazon. Considering Amazon’s potential buying power, no OEM in our industry has the balls to tell Amazon what they can sell a product for, especially if a deal with Amazon (or Wal-Mart, or Sears, etc.) means 2X, 3X, or 4X the order volumes and dramatic increases in operating efficiency and profits.

Large e-tailers also have the luxury of custom e-commerce platforms that allow them to create systematic end-arounds to the MAP policies in the forms of cash-back programs, rebates, gift-cards, loyalty programs, etc.

Instead of saying that a MAP protected helmet (from a large OEM and distributor) that normally sells for $300 is 20% off (which would explicitly violate said MAP policy) a large e-tailer can say “Buy this $300 helmet and receive 20% cash-back good on your next purchase” or “Buy this $300 helmet and get a $60 gift card.”

What’s nuts is that you can use this card or discount on a future purchase of a MAP protected product as well! And for some reason this is all OK with the folks writing and enforcing these MAP policies? So much for wanting to enforce brand equity though artificially inflated prices!

You can say “Low Price Guarantee: We won’t be under-sold! If you find [insert MAP controlled product name here] for less we’ll beat it!” Apparently this price protection is considered a private contract between the retailer and the customer and is not enforced under MAP… Lawyers… Gotta love ‘em…

If they are serious about the real purpose of MAP, why would these loopholes be OK?

If everyone on every internet forum on the face of the planet knows that they can call up or email UberMotoShoppingMegaSite.com and get a MAP protected jacket or pair of gloves that they found through a Google search on your (Mr. or Ms. rule-following, local dealership) site, but you can’t communicate to that shopper that you can and will in fact sell for the same low price that the big guys do… How does MAP help you again?

Even when the website/e-commerce platform providers in our industry have a way to enable the same promotional methods that the large e-tailers offer, thereby moving to a more level playing field, OEM/distributors drag their feet and don’t offer the necessary approvals that would be required to allow development to move forward.

In fact, as of this writing one platform provider has been waiting for several months for approval from a large OEM/distributor’s legal team regarding a promotional mechanism that would allow dealers the freedom necessary to compete with the large e-tailers while not violating MAP.

Why would the powerful OEM/distributor be so slow to enable small dealers to have the same promotional tools that large e-tailers have? No… Really… Someone please tell me why they have time and resources to track down every little dealership out there advertising products for $10 below MAP, but can’t get around to authorizing something as simple as this?

Let me put my tin-foil hat on for a moment:

Large OEM’s and distributors have recognized the writing on the wall.

Over the next ten years most (80%+?) of their business is going to come from large e-commerce retailers (even more so if the likes of Wal-Mart, Sears, and Amazon really start playing in the PG&A space as it looks like they intend to).

If they can do 80%+ of their PG&A volume with only 5-7 large retailers, they can dramatically reduce their overhead in the forms of sales expense, logistics expenses, etc. Right?

If they can get the market to look like that, don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to do that?

By enacting draconian MAP policies that are only strongly enforced on the smaller, more legally defenseless dealerships, they can force the market into a shape that is more conducive to their bottom line.

I don’t care if Amazon, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc. all actually follow MAP. How many customers shopping for a new helmet, gloves, or jacket are going to buy from your shop over Amazon if the price is the same?

It’s not so much that they want you all to go out of business overnight… But if they can help steer our industry to a model with a more easily managed small number of retailers… I guess you can’t blame them really. It actually is a pretty good long term plan for them to become even more profitable.

So as you can see, MAP is basically a game. Even if it was possible to enforce 100% (which it never would be), odds are that the large e-tailers would be immune through the use of their market clout, legal muscle, or systematic work-arounds.

Even if you have a MAP policy that could theoretically be enforced 100%, like all command economies, it will lead to black-market sales and other back-room deals if the MAP price is perceived as too high vs. other non-MAP products.

I’d argue that in the long run, MAP policies even hurt the OEM/Distributor because it robs them of important market signals pointing to the actual value of the product in the marketplace.

Under MSRP and MAP, some product manager builds a fancy Excel sheet to determine the best price. It then has its legal team enforce the MAP policy. What does that sound like to you?

Last time I checked a theory writ-large that looked pretty close to this failed in the ex-Soviet Union.

Even the PRC has recognized that free-market economics makes more sense than trying to a command and control economy in many instances.

Companies with MAP policies apparently are not big on history or economics.

Here’s a scenario: Helmet I sells for a MAP protected MSRP of $450 and dealer cost of $292 (profit: $158). Unfortunately at that price it just doesn’t stack up to (or sell as much as) Helmet K that retails for $500 but has a street price of $380 and a dealer cost of $300 (profit: $80).

Now as a retailer, I know my market, my customer, etc. and I know that if I could sell Helmet I at $380 I would sell the crap out of them!

I’d still be clearing more profit per unit than Helmet K and I’d move more units which would make more money for me and ironically for the OEM that wants MAP!

There’s no way that some brand manager at an OEM could envision those market dynamics when setting the MAP MSRP 6 or 8 months ahead of the market launch.

They don’t know what the economy is going to look like, they don’t know what competitors are going to do, etc.

OEM’s and distributors need to worry about setting a wholesale price that allows them to make a profit when they sell to a retailer and that’s it. Period. End of story.

The idea of using MAP as a way to “protect” a brand’s image is a joke when it’s clear that there are so many tricks and loopholes that allow the protected products to be sold at prices nowhere near the MAP.

Check out the abundance of MAP protected products that are sold on Amazon or on eBay through gray-market distribution deals as just one example of how MAP breaks down and does nothing to 1) protect the brand or 2) protect legit retailers.

In the end, here’s my take on MAP:

• MAP policies hurt retailers by limiting their options and choices in how they run their business
• MAP policies (either intentionally or deliberately) can never be enforced 100% across the board so it creates artificial inefficiencies in the market
• The resources being used to write, monitor, and enforce MAP are 100% non-value-added. I’ve been told that some retailers have people on staff full time that do nothign but find, and report MAP violations. These are the same people that volunteered to be hall monitors in grade school I bet.
• MAP policies hurt customers by forcing prices to be artificially high in the same way that price control cartels like OPEC artificially control the price of oil
• MAP price controls are eventually ineffective as grey-market retailers on sites like Amazon, eBay, etc. sell out the back-door of less scrupulous dealers

And here’s my suggestion. If you get a call from a MAP enforcer, have them speak to your lawyer.

If you find cases of large e-tailers violating the same MAP policies, report them to the OEM’s legal team and verify that the offending company has made the changes to their site or advertisement within the required time. If they don’t, then have your lawyer write a letter to the OEM pointing out that it appears that they are selectively enforcing the policy.

Eventually if we drown these OEM’s legal teams in reports of MAP abuse and catch them in the act of selectively enforcing MAP they will give up on the idea of playing this game of whack-a-mole.

Next we can try to name & shame. I’m creating a topic on my site here where you can leave comments and links to retailers that are violating MAP policies. It will be our own little MAP enforcement clearing house. Or Stasi if you will.

What’s pretty awesome about that idea is that I’m pretty sure that once the FTC gets wind of that post, and what is without doubt a clear case of collusion in our industry to keep prices artificially inflated, they will demand that it’s shut down.

Now if that happens, that pretty much proves that MAP is illegal, right? Collusion… Price-fixing… I’m pretty sure there’s a law or two somewhere about that.

Until these policies are challenged in court and eventually done away with, we are going to continue to see more and more power shift into fewer and fewer hands and that’s not going to be good for your customers, our industry, or most importantly your business.

I believe that these MAP issues are just the most evident tip of the iceberg that represents a looming challenge to the dominant business model in our industry.

However this time it’s going to be the Titantic that rams right though the iceberg. All of us, in our little boats, are going to be the ones at the bottom of the North Atlantic.

Let me know what you think.

When I was running marketing for the dealership that I work with, I had put on a few really successful open-house events. The “light bulb” moment came when I said: “we need to do stuff like this every month!”

That required someone dedicated to coming up with the ideas, handling all the logistics, etc. But I then saw this role as much more than just an “event” person. We need to do more community stuff. Community stuff takes a lot of time. I need a full-time person to do it. Bingo! It was that simple.

I also wanted them to start being the “face” of the company on all our our online social networking activities. That led to me climbing up the abstraction ladder to call the position community relationship manager.

In short, this position is THE public and personal face of the company.

I just came across a post on ReadWriteWeb that deals with the same idea. Their article is obviously written from a more theoretical framework, while my take on it is much more the result of pragmatic, hands-on needs.

Marshall asks the questions “Do Startup Companies Need A Community Manager?” My answer is of course a resounding “YES”. However, like pretty much everything else it all comes down to the ability to execute on the idea.

It’s not PR!

PR is dead. The two-faced, B.S. spewing PR flacks that have made their money by coming up with ever more creative methods to lie to a company’s customer are going to die a loud and long overdue death.

PR was a one-sided shouting match. The new age of community is more about listening than talking. One thing that most PR people seem to have is a genetic aversion letting anyone else talk or listening to them when they do.

No one with ANY hint of PR on their resume should come anywhere near a community relationship position!

But what about all those functions that PR serves? Like minimizing damage when the company does something stupid or bad? Or “spinning” one result to be seen as something totally different?

Oh, I don’t know… How about not doing things like putting poison in kid’s toys, or letting poison food get produced in the first place or simply telling the truth?

Naive? Probably.

The direction that the world is going to force you to go? Absolutely!

Might as well start recognizing that you’ve got a transparent kimono on. Open it up… Or don’t… Don’t matter because people are going to know what’s going on anyway. You might want to see how the truth works for a change.

It’s not Marketing!

Marketing still has a valuable place when it comes to developing the identity and the initial message. But marketing is going to need to become much more participatory and reactive to the reality being dictated by the real world.

It must be legitimate!

Don’t lie. If you have a position that the market doesn’t seem to like, then explain in truthful detail why you did what you did, do what you do, or are going to continue to do what you did. Even people that hate you will at least respect you. How is that a downside? And who knows, maybe being honest may actually turn some people onto you. After years and years of BS, maybe legitimacy and honesty are worth giving a try?

It may be a game changer!

This has the potential to be one of those paradigm changing ideas that fundamentally changes the way companies communicate with their customers.

Customers don’t want to listen to PR B.S. and they sure as hell don’t believe anything that comes out of a marketing or advertising department.

There are of course risks. The old model of how PR/Marketing crafted and controlled a focused message or identity is over. In reality the only messages or identities that really mattered were the ones that the customers created for themselves and communicated to each other.

In the past it was obviously easier for a large company to force conformity to the desired message, but as the number of communication channels is now nearly infinite, there’s no way any company is going to be able to effectively control their message or ID.

Companies must sooner or later respond to the fact that the key to their company’s long term survival is the active and honest communication and participation with the market. And in non-economic terms, what’s a market if not a community?

This is going to totally shake up so many business practices! From product development, to accounting, to of course sales and marketing.

It’s going to bring about the need for greater transparency. Worn-out corporate double-speak is dead. The old guard PR industry is going to die (no doubt kicking and screaming about “losing control”).

It’s time for companies of all sizes to realize that they have already lost, or very shortly will loose, control over their true image.

So it’s time now to start crafting plans and organizations that can communicate and participate openly and truthfully with the market. That starts with the Community Relationship position.

If you really want to take this on and understand it, you need to closely read Groundswell. It will articulate in detail pretty much everything I’m talking about. But with better writing and more footnotes.

It does seem to have happened pretty quickly considering it was only back at the end of July that the MIC said it was evaluating if it should issue a request for proposal for a new sanctioning body. In only two months the MIC was able to complete their evaluation AND issue the request for proposals, AND get the proposals back, AND evaluate those proposals, AND then organize, set up, and announce this new organization. Maybe if they can do all that so quickly they can actually pull this off. Amazing example of organizational dynamics it would seem.

I just wish it was someone’s job to tell the OEM’s to think about the larger picture as it relates to expanding the motorcycle market in the USA and not just whine about losing their own little patches. Get out of the box a little and try to think a little more creatively and strategically.

DMG/AMA Pro Racing (apparently) has the goal of making motorcycle racing more exciting and interesting to a wider audience. Think NASCAR for motorcycles.

That might be part of the problem I guess. The motorcycle community (at least the people I talk to) all seem to think that NASCAR=BAD. It’s insane. They all are like, “DMG is going to turn motorcycle racing in the US into NASCAR.” They apparently think this is a BAD thing?!

The MIC and ostensibly this new USSB organization seems content to have one of the largest countries in the world with one of the worst street bike racing series as measured by things like mass-market, non-motorcycle specific sponsor involvement, media viewership, race attendance, etc.

Seriously… has anyone from the MIC been to an AMA race lately? The stands are empty. It’s TV coverage is totally limited to SpeedTV (not that there’s anything wrong with SpeedTV.. I watch it constantly. But for the industry as a whole to grow it needs to be on the majors like Speed’s parent FOX). It’s the same old tired crop of motorcycle/powersports centric sponsors that are there race after race.

There’s no appeal to the old AMA superbike formula outside of hard-core motorcycle enthusiasts and of course the OEM’s (especially Suzuki who essentially dominates the Superbike class).

It seems that the motorcycle and powersports industry prefer to keep their blinders on and fight over pieces of a tiny little pie instead of making a REALLY, REALLY big pie instead!

The argument goes that the new DMG formula is going to have limited/formula spec bikes that have little in common with their street-going siblings other than some decals. The poor manufacturers are going to be left without the “test bed” to develop new bikes if they can’t put their best foot forward. Right.

Hmmm… It seems to me that there is a racing series that involves vehicles with four tires that follows a very similar strategy and they seem to do pretty well.

Has the MIC or the motorcycle industry as a whole never heard of NASCAR? Have they not looked at the amazing success that has been possible with the NASCAR formula?

Win on Sunday sell on Monday still works pretty darn well for the OEM’s that play in NASCAR’s game and those cars have absolutely, positivly nothing in common with the street going variations. Especially now that NASCAR has the Car Of Tomorrow (COT).

This is just stupid, short-sited thinking on the parts of the OEM’s and the MIC as far as I’m concerned.

What does the MIC know about creating a racing series from scratch. Promoting it. Getting killer media deals put together? Do they know more than the folks at DMG? I’m going to guess… No.

How are they going to model it? What are they going to base it on? What should they base it on. The AMA model that was so uniformly hated by pretty much every single racing fan I’ve ever talked to? Or NASCAR, that EVERYONE knows about even if they never have watched or wish to watch cars go ’round and ’round.

I’m willing to be that these guys are getting a bunch of traffic that they have no idea where it came from.

Here’s why this is such a big deal to me. I want more, more, more people to watch motorcycle racing on TV and in person. I want to see motorcycle racing on FOX. I want soccer moms driving around in their giant killer cages to have a #69 Repsol Honda sticker on their bumper right next to their #88 Jr. NASCAR sticker.

Why? Because now those same soccer moms that were once content to run down motorcycles left and right in their mini-vans now like motorcycles! They know what they look like! They might even end up SEEING them when they try to turn left.

In fact, the same day I get this announcement I get the print version of PowerSports Business that has an article about how the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) wants the Feds to start looking into motorcycle crash data more because fatalities were up in the US in 2007 by 6%!

Now explain to me again how maintaining a failed, fringe racing series like the USSB is bound to become (vs. a larger, more well funded, and popular series that the DMG was trying to put together) the catalyst to expand motorcycle’s visibility in the USA?

You can read this article that has some comments from Roger Edmondson (head of DMG) that indicate that he’s probably not a real happy camper right about now.

Mark my words that this may be a death knell for street motorcycle racing in the USA in the same way that the IRL/CART split killed off open-wheel racing here. Of course, maybe I’m totally wrong and the MIC will be able to create the kind of series that the motorcycle industry in the US needs.

[edit: i just came across this news that even though KTM is on the board of the MIC, it will NOT be racing in the MIC/USSB and will stick to the AMA Pro Racing/DMG gig]