those of us who recently decided to go with Sony and have a small beginners investment in glass and gear...

The feeling is one that; even as good as Sony's DSLRs are, they are not yet popular enough nor have enough mileage to warrant the premium prices on a lot of the products. Anyone thinking of buying CZ or G glass is expecting to pay for that level of quality. The rest of the gear, while also of good quality, hasn't had enough mileage yet to gather the type of reputation that people are likely to pay for.

I purchased the HVL56 back in Nov from B&H for $309, and now it's $150 higher...if I was a retailer, I would be put off by having to deliberately price items that will cause customers to reconsider the purchase. Esp since both B&H and Sony where turning a profit at $309. As a retailer, what is the incentive to push Sony products, when your customers can just go anywhere? I can go to SonyStyle now and get the same products as I could at B&H, KEH, etc. in addition to that, Sony has all sorts of deals with Credit and Financing that can only be gotten at their stores or site. Your local camera store is S.O.L....

This is going to create a negative buzz about the brand; cause people on the fence to hesitate and most like go with the other two, and really squash any positive momentum that Sony had built up among retailers who were slowly coming on board in being positive about Sony's offering.

Even, if the other DSLR manufacturers decide to follow the same path with regard to pricing; Sony will have the stigma of being the one company that started all of it...

Not a good idea in my opinion at this point in the game. While excellent (but limited) line up of DSLR products, it's Sony, not Hassalblad....

Hapster

PS - Now I might send flowers to the woman who over the holiday weekend sold me a Minolta 5600HS(D) in perfect condition for $45...

It is going to be interesting to see what will happen and how it will turn out. The thought just crossed my mind, that is it possible, that the reason Best Buy blew out the A700 could be related to this. Probably not, but just a thought. A digital SLR is still pretty new to me. I do not have a lot of gear and this move by Sony has made a couple Sony products certainly more expensive and possibly out of reach for a while. It will be interesting to see the prices on eBay and Craigslist climb also. In my limited knowledge, I just don't see how this is going to help Sony dSLR sales. I can see it protecting the retailers, if they can sell the product.

Ron

I just see less sales going to Sony. I thought the 100/2.8 Macro was overpriced at $580 as it was before the SURE kicked in....now at $640 it is definately overpriced. So I bought the Tamron 90mm macro for $450 and a $90 rebate. Is there almost a $300 difference in quality...I don't think so.

Now that they 56 flash is over $400 there is no way that flash is worth that much. Can't wait to see the overinflated price on the new flagship
flash that I was waiting for....I'll have to see what Metz has to offer on their 58 flash when it gets to the US.

Good luck Sony....though I am sure one of those CZ prime lenses is going to make it back into my bag one of these days.....but the next one on the list
is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 II EX DG Macro.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Sony basically been doing this for years? As far as I know it's only new to the camera division. They have gotten in trouble for it in the past when it was illegal. IIRC it was legal and then made illegal but Sony didn't quit doing it. Sony has since found creative ways of sidestepping the law.

(This was posted in a thread that I started relating to B&H, Adorama & others and is a reprint)

As for the reason......that makes sense. However, the MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) is not MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price). Therefore, retail prices at the stores should be less then MSRP which is usual. Sony is using this mandate to keep the prices in the stores the same as their online store. Is that really fair? Yes, there should be a "Minimum Advertised Price." A base line price that retailers should not go below for retail sale (Best Buy comes to mind...he-he), but that price should not be the MSRP by no means.

Regards,
Niko

I suspect that darn few car buyers, food shoppers, or clothing shoppers would consider it "fair" to be charged "minimum advertised prices." However, the manufacturer's intent is often to keep its products out of the hands of shoddy dealers who merchandise the products improperly, provide little or no after-service, and gain an unfair competitive advantage over retailers who provide the type of inventories and service that the manufacturer expects of them.

In any case, unilateral attempts at retail price maintenance by manufacturers typically succeed best for prestigious brands that have achieved high brand preference or insistence in the marketplace. This has worked well for Sony in the television market where it has achieved high brand preference. However, Nikon and Canon clearly have achieved much higher brand awareness and preference in the SLR/DSLR camera market than Sony, which did not have a single product included in this month's Consumer Reports rating of 10 "Basic [digital] SLRs." [The A700 was rated fourth among "Advanced SLRs."] Further, traveling around the country, I see a lot of Nikon and Canon SLRs and DSLRs hanging off people's necks--but I rarely see anyone using a Sony DSLR.

Retail profits are a function of both markup and unit sales volume, along with careful management of overhead. Without adequate sales volume, retailers will not make a ton of money selling Sony cameras and lenses regardless of how high Sony sets its Minimum Advertised Prices. The retailers will naturally place much more emphasis on stocking and selling the higher-volume Nikon and and Canon lines. Sony is truly playing catch-up when it comes to achieving brand awareness and preference for its line of DSLR products. Launching the A200, A300, and A350 may help--but enforcing higher retail prices may prove counterproductive and perhaps contribute to continued low stocking and unenthusiastic selling of Sony DSLR products at many retail outlets.

The bottom line is that higher prices can indeed lead to higher profits--but they often lead instead to lost sales opportunities and lower total profits. What lenses am I using with my new A700, for example? Only one new Sony lens--the 18-250, which I purchased at $50 below SonyStyle's price. For my other new lens, I chose the Tamron 11-18 over the similar Sony 11-18 strictly because of price. My other three A700 lenses are all used Minoltas purchased over ebay--which doesn't put any profits in Sony's coffers or that of its retailers. And my next lens will be the Tamron 90mm macro, not the Sony 100mm macro. I suspect that many other Sony DSLR enthusiasts exhibit similar lens buying behavior. Sony should pay heed!

And I am seeing strong sides to the argument on either end here.

Elsewhere on the net I am seeing those who have been waiting to jump on Sony about "something, anything" having a field day with this, whereas that never leads to much truth in the end. Sure it makes them feel good but they have typically been wrong about Sony's success and business strategy thus far. According to "they" Sony should have never made it this far, and I enjoy a silent wave of happiness as a result of Sony's success nevertheless.

Its so funny to read the "this will be the end of Sony" type of comments, like Sony can't make one error and still survive. Thats why I can't help but wonder what the motivation is behind those comments.

It is nice to see a civilized discussion on our boards people, thank you :).

Carl

I was just getting into my new a350. I am a newbie and all this talk is making want to exchange my a350. I had a 15% cupon tried to us it for a sal18-250 lens they said it was s.u.r.e priced so no dice. I can only use it for something I don't need or want right now! Any Ideas, should you keep sony or move on to a Known name in the dslr market. Hey they might let me use my cupon!

"I had a 15% cupon tried to us it for a sal18-250 lens they said it was s.u.r.e priced so no dice"

I'd like to contact that retailer.

Carl

Hey Carl, this was sony style. Can you pull any strings for me lol.

I wish.

Sony Style gave you a coupon then said you couldn't use it? I don't get that at all. weird.

Carl

Well I spoke to the customer service supervisor about this issue and she gave me the 15% off. Then about thirty minutes later I get a call from sony style. Its the supervisor telling me she could not use the cupon because of this s.u.r.e. So I hope this lens is worth the money I get it monday. Iam still within my 30 day exchange period so I've been looking at some canons. That kind of put a bad taste in my mouth when she called me back. I still love this camera but that experince has got me thinking. I just singed up for flikr my first posting has the link.

I have already sold most of my Sony gear and have ordered a much better camera. I beleive that this is price fixing by SONY and will not ever buy another product made by or for them.

you should always get the camera/brand that is right for you, congratulations to you.

However, it remains to be seen in fact whether or not Sony is "price fixing" or not. Seems an issue at least to me that is more business related than photography related, and until any real facts are gathered, it is all speculation at this point. What we believe without hard facts, are just specuation.

Personally the program smacks of price fixing, but I'll defer to the USSC on that call. In both the short and long haul I think it will hurt Sony camera product, at least speaking from the consumer point of view. Both Nikon and Canon, the heavyweights in brand recognition and quality among pros and high-end amateurs, might get away with it. But even with their "Flagship: roll-out scheduled for later this year, Sony does not yet have the reputation of the others and I doubt is in a position to dictate to the market. Personally I fit into that category and will put off on a Sony purchase, even though I have a sizeable investment in Sony (A-700s and Mintolta and Sony lenses). I have also noticed on auction sites increased activity of sellers auctioning off their Sony-KM gear in favor of switching over to Canon or Nikon. I think their program will increase such activity and devalue their product rather than enhance it. And if anything, maintaining value is key for me as I need to sell in order to justify upgrades.

I have used Nikon-Nikkor back in the past and was plenty satisfied with it during film days. I've often thought of selling my Sony gear to go back, especially as their D3 is now full-frame. But I also love my A-700 and await with baited breat the upcoming "Flagship" intro. Pricing and features will determine the call. But with this PURE program my hunch is I'll switch back over to Nikon and the Nikkor lens family.

Just curious.

Carl

I thought price fixing had to involve more than one company. Sony, Canon, and Nikon could all agree to sell their entry level cameras for $799. Maybe some retailers don't like this idea, so all three strong arm them to go along with it. That's what I believe to be price fixing.

A couple years ago a bunch of LCD flat panel makers got in trouble for price fixing. They all agreed to artificially inflate the prices of their LCD panels, even though the technology was actually getting cheaper. Samsung has been investigated for price fixing more than once in the last few years.

IIRC Sony and Fuji were accused of fixing the price of beta tapes a while back.

Ovlov,

What you are referring to--Sony, Canon and Nikon agreeing to sell at the same price--is referred to as horizontal price fixing (direct competitors conspiring to reduce competition) and is illegal per se under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Likewise, it would be illegal for various retail camera dealers to conspire amongst each other not to compete on price. (It's not necessary that the fixed prices be identical, by the way. It would also be illegal, for example, if Sony agreed to sell at $699, Canon at $799, and Nikon at $899.)

Vertical pricing agreements between a manufacturer and its retailers--normally referred to as "resale price maintenance"--are more complicated. As defined on Wikipedia: "Resale price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the latter will sell the former's product at certain prices (resale price maintenance), at or above a price floor (minimum resale price maintenance) or at or below a price ceiling (maximum resale price maintenance). These rules prevent resellers from competing too fiercely on price and thus driving down profits."

Some criticize resale price maintenance on the grounds that it drives up prices and harms consumer welfare. Others argue that it helps keep the manufacturer and its retailers profitable and helps promote interbrand competition (i.e., Sony vs. Canon vs. Nikon) although perhaps reducing intrabrand competition (i.e., one Sony dealer vs. another). In particular, some claim that it keeps large retailers from driving small retailers out of business. Interestingly, some federal judges have actually assumed that it will usually be to the manufacturer's (and thus the consumer's) advantage to set the retail prices LOW in order to sell more products--which obviously is not always the case. (I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not Sony has set its prices "low.")

There is a long history of resale price maintenance court cases and legislation going all the way back to about 1911. Rulings have gone back and forth. Federal laws permitting resale price maintenance have been passed and repealed. I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but I believe the current position of the courts is that resale price maintenance agreements are not illegal per se under the antitrust laws but must be considered on a case-by-case basis using "rule of reason" to decide whether there has been a harmful effect on competition and consumer welfare.

Hope this helps. It's a complicated issue.

Andy

Andy

Thanks for the comments Andy :).

I think most of what I've read "out there" about this issue on the comments side, leans towards individuals who really have no idea at all about how this will affect-anything at all.

C

Is this not illegal in EU?

Hi Glyn,

Yes in the EU that would be deemed as price fixing and thus not legal.

Andrew

...... thinking that its time to re-look where one goes with Sony & their DSLR range.
It's overpriced, not much around the shops and maybe...becoming all too difficult to stay with.
Sony think they are a Champagne when in fact they are a very medicare lemonade.

If I can get rid off my Sony investment and not loose to much, I'll jump.
I certainly will NOT be investing any more in the Sony range.

Someone posted "to keep its products out of the hands of shoddy dealers who merchandise the products improperly, provide little or no after-service, and gain an unfair competitive advantage over retailers who provide the type of inventories and service that the manufacturer expects of them."

Well if I try and call my official Sony dealer, he provided absolutely zippo "after-service" - He can't even answer the phone - even when I left a message that I wanted to buy a 350 for my son - I am still waiting for the return call!

I bought my son a 40D this past weekend.

I don't think this has anything to do with better customer service. That is just a smoke screen.

Its a real shame, as sony have priced the A200 so cheap, they gouge out on other parts cost wise. I really think, for the long term, they have to change their position. It also looks very poor, for new buyers and users...

I don't have any major issues with sony, not really got any complaints in other product areas. But when you see something go on, that is just kinda stupid, you have to say something ;-)

Hi John and Barry,

This SURE thing has created lots of noise and yet they are doing nicely. Ok, so I'm basing all of this on the UK and not the US (but from what I've heard they are not doing too badly there either) but the cameras are selling very well.

They pulled an absolute stunner when introducing the three entry level cameras, they are well featured (not withstanding the lack of DOF or MLU) produce great images, and the pricing is very keen- especially the A200 and A300. I saw an A200 for £329.99 the other day with the 18-70mm lens, and Tamron 55-200mm lens. That combination would make someone a very very nice starter DSLR.

A lot of the price issues are based on a couple of high end lenses and not typical of the whole range, for example the HVl-F42 flash compares very well to the 430EX mk2 and Sb600 flashes, the 55-200 and 75-300 lenses are both very well priced being as cheap if not cheaper than comparable lenses for Canon and Nikon. The batteries do cost a little more, but you generally get longer life (in terms of shots) and better features (exact % readout) than on competitor systems and crucially they work on all of the Alphas. Again the cable release is a little bit more than others, but it is backwards compatible with my Dynax 7000i and all the DSLRs they make. Canon have different cables for different cameras, so whilst it's cheaper in the first place, if you upgrade to a different camera the price advantage goes straight away.

Give it 6 months to a year and we'll know the true effect of SURE.

Andrew

Boy am I glad that I didn't comit to the Sony a-mount DSLR system. I was ready to sell my entire Nikon film outfit and switch to Sony's DSLR system but now I've decided to save money and use my current nikon lens with a new Nikon DSLR. Sony doesn't have the the market share that Nikon or Canon have and they probably never will this pricing 'SURE' wont help.

Really doesn't make much of a difference at all for sales despite the apparent nature of the program you read about. Prices are good actually for the Alpha system, and if you cross compare Nikon/Sony/Canon in the mid level DSLRs you'll find that you can go out the door with a camera and couple of lenses for a starter kit easily priced at or below the Canon or Nikon systems. All 3 have competitive features and prices (all said and done) despite the fact that Canon or Nikon do not have such a program.

I think you should do a bit more research on the subject on pricing first to get a fair evaluation, rather than just buying into an article you read in the paper before judging the Alpha system entirely. Especially, if you are interested in the features of the camera system. Sure or no sure, Sony's prices are good in the Alpha system and have recently been dropped even more for the holidays on lenses and camera bodies.

Most buyers aren't even aware of the Sure pricing until they read about it in the media. Based on pricing alone, they would have never known the difference in a store or online, and in fact many good deals can be found. The higher end lenses cost more, because well frankly Zeiss lenses are a premium lens that neither Canon or Nikon have in an auto-focus product. Even the 16-80 Zeiss is a fair price when you evaluate the systems, try finding an optical equivalent in Nikon or Canon for $699.00 with image stabilization and you won't.

Sure isn't all roses of course, it is something designed more by the sales dept and really should be dropped, if anything because of the stigma that it has created among buyers. Yet, if you look at the prices, they remain competitive. I think if you like the Alpha System, it would silly to abandon it based on the program alone, especially if you find a deal that matches your budget. You'd be surprised what you can get an A200/A300 2 lens kit for and what features you get for the dollar vs the competition, if you just evaluate fairly.

Carl

I know nothing about this retailer:
http://www.prestigecamera.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ID=10102219&l=LowPriceDigital
If you google "Sony A900"
You will find several adds for the A-900 well under $2999.00.

I could be that all these vendors are bait-and-switch scam artists but who knows?

With the global economy in free fall, I feel like time is on my side. When Obama takes office, time passes and CHANGE or NON-CHANGE takes place, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to the economy. Most have us have lived in a time of ever growing life style and ever climbing prices. I'm old enough to remember the stories told to me by my parents and the great depression of 1929. From what I can see, we are about to enter a new era in what our money will buy us. When vendors and manufactures have an abundance of products and few people able to afford them, it will be interesting to see how well "Sure pricing" holds up. When gasoline was over $4.00 per gallon everyone parked their SUVs and the roads emptied. I just saw gas for $1.70 per gallon. I think we are going to see some of that CHANGE that we all wanted. I'm holding off buying anything until I need it. This will be an interesting winter.

Dave

is one of many rip off artists out of NYC. A quick Google search will find many people who have had bad experiences with them.
Dave

I had been planning to buy Sony on the assumtion that prices will come down as the holidays get closer. Prices will decline, but for other brands. Goodbye Sony. You make good stuff but its illegal to set prices in the U.S.

Just as you wished.

You haven't seen the price reductions? Have you been on Sonystyle recently?

Are you certain that Sony is breaking a law? If so, please let us know which law so we can discuss this further, I find that an interesting topic.

If Sony has done any wrong I am not here to defend them, they should admit to any wrong doing. But first we should be certain of any wrong doing before accusing them of such, correct?

Carl