Can anyone with any ties to Mississippi confirm this ? My distributor will not raise its price due to pressure from RBNA, so now our company is considering cutting jobs to cover our lost profits.

Rumor has it distributors in Miss. went against RBNA's wishes.

Your imput is appreciated.

DLR

Originally posted by DLR:
Can anyone with any ties to Mississippi confirm this ? My distributor will not raise its price due to pressure from RBNA, so now our company is considering cutting jobs to cover our lost profits.

Rumor has it distributors in Miss. went against RBNA's wishes.

Your imput is appreciated.

DLR

really, is that the front price to the retailer? or did they raise the price to the DSD and in turn DSD went up?

sound like RB pissed off the DSD

I can't help you , sorry.
Didn't we see this coming when the whole story broke a month or two ago? Either raise prices or cut jobs to maintain margin. The bad thing is most distributors are doing well with the one flavor/brand and this will only serve to hurt them in the end.

34 bucks a case for Red Bull? I love it!

any links to red bull's price increase

It's going down this week and next all over the place... Think about it. Distributors know the price increase is here and why would they not include it in their 2007 Pricing Letters going out to Retail???

It's gonna get ugly out there.

What ever happened to the
The Sherman Act or The Robinson-Pattman Act?
The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 (or Anti-Price Discrimination Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13) is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination. It grew out of practices in which chain stores were allowed to purchase goods at lower prices than other retailers. The Act provided for criminal penalties, but contained a specific exemption for "cooperative associations". The Act is an amendment to Section 2 of the Clayton Act.

In general, the Act prohibits sales that discriminate in price on the sale of goods to equally-situated distributors when the effect of such sales is to reduce competition. Sales to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are not subject to RPA. Price means net price and includes all compensation paid. The seller may not throw in additional goods or services. Injured parties or the US government may bring an action under the Act.

Liability under section 2(a) of the Act (with criminal sanctions) may arise on sales that involve:

discrimination in price;
on at least 2 consummated sales;
from the same seller;
to 2 different purchasers;
sales must cross state lines;
sales must be contemporaneous;
of "commodities" of like grade and quality;
sold for "use, consumption, or resale" within the United States; and
the effect may be "substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce."
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section."

I don't follow ytou on this one NRGSLLR. RBUSA is, or should be, charging all of thier distributors the same price for goods. The distributor then sells it the retailer at a set price which may include discounts for inventory hurdles. As long as these discounts are applied fairly and evenly across the board I don't think there is a problem.
It is somewhat like the Wal-Mart's strategy. They can sell lower because of Discounts on purchasing, not solely based on volume selling.

[ 01-11-2007, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: greg ]