Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Padders
Steve I am sure this all sounds reasonable and peachy in your head but doesn't change the fact that many of us feel very little goodwill towards Cousins. Suggesting that they are a white knight and that all suggestions to the contrary are 'foolish' just makes you look arrogant and out of touch. If Omega are made to see sense then hooray for that, but some of your cheerleading seems rather incompatible with the widespread opinion that Cousins treat customers with contempt.
No other supplier is fighting for your right to repair a watch in a way that is even 5% of what Cousins is doing, and yet you describe the company as having contempt for its customers. What more care and concern can Cousins have for its customers than to help keep them in business, and what greater right can it have to their goodwill as a consequence? If you can point out any other knight (regardless of colour) that is coming to your aid, then please let me know.
I'm quite certain that I do not look at all foolish amongst those who take a holistic view of the survival of our trade. Stop the Cousins bashing and start acting in a unified way. We just proved that the invincible can lose to the minnow, what have you got to support us with in the next round of this battle? Some help would be appreciated. How about a bit of positive support instead of a put down?
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
demonloop
Steven, would you say any part of Cousins fight is to secure their own business, or is the action purely to help the watch enthusiasts who will undoubtedly benefit from free supply?
I accept the latter is a welcome consequence, but I remian convinced the former is their prime motivation.
I have no issue with that - they should be trying to protect their business - but I'm not entirely convinced by your portrayal that they're doing it for "us". Makes the whole thing a little wiffy.
Suppliers can't survive without customers, and customers can't survive without suppliers. There is no "them and us", just "us", and there is nothing whiffy about that. If you go out of business because you can't get parts, will that be Cousins fault? If all you have by way of objection is the concept that the bigger motivation is self preservation, then you and I are never going to agree. Like I said, who else is fighting for you?
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dave+63
Whilst it is in the interest of Cousins, winning this case would allow more suppliers to enter the market thus increasing their own competition.
Ultimately it will prevent Cousins from overpricing as other suppliers won't necessarily play ball.
Absolutely correct. Free and open competition on fair terms prevents suppliers from abusing consumers. That is what Cousins wants.
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tomaitch
Cousins main business was watch parts . Now they sell jewellery trade and other parts , consumables , watch batteries , tools . In fact almost anything with a watch or jewellery related title and the list grows as they glean products from Amazon / EBay and other online trade platforms adding a high markup in many instances .
Probably the family business is at a crossroads and this Legal issue spells the death knell if it goes the wrong way . I don't think there is another alternative but to fight it in the guise of a capped crusader and promote the fight for the benefit of the watch trade .
Bearing in mind most of forum members are collectors / owners and as knowledgable as they are the Cousins involvement raises eyebrows but doesn't affect them directly . Regardless of what happens watches will always be serviceable , it will just make the end user cost slightly higher .
I think Steve , you are beating the wrong Drum in the wrong arena .
I have suggested before the Batton should be held and fought by the BHI , as they are overall the custodians of the watchmaker in U.K. , not Cousins .
If Cousins had such a sympathetic stance to the future of watchmaking and to the ease of parts supply then surely they would of adopted more transparent ordering processes and more importantly faulty goods returns systems themselves rather than hide behind a very much convoluted and purposefully difficult one.
The latest step forward is a small step and I think that ultimately wether a final decision down the line is a positive one for the supply of parts or a restricted one I feel Cousins won't be a part of the final equation .
I do hope that sense prevails though and the correct path is identified to allow the industry to continue .
The current parts crisis exists because the trade organisations failed to understand competition law and have it applied in our industry. In some cases they colluded with manufacturers to help impose the restrictions. The BHI does not describe itself as a trade organisation. It calls itself a members organisation. I challenge you to contact them, ask them why they are not leading this fight, ask them for details of their arrangement with Rolex, and then report back to the forum.
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
demonloop
You've said a dozen times now "no-one else is fighting for you" this implies the fight is for our benefit alone - it isn't. You belittle your own position (and Cousins position) by suggesting otherwise, in my opinion.
If you had come on here and said,
"Cousins are taking Swatch to court, because they do well out of selling these parts, and if they win then the supply of parts should be secured for enthusiasts like yourselves, and private watch makers",
I think you would have got more support than you've received thus far, even setting aside the obvious reservations about Cousins themselves.
Personally, I don't like someone claiming to do me a favour when the reality is that it's in their own interests and they wouldn't be doing it otherwise. I prefer a spade to be called a spade.
To turn this on its head slightly, can I ask this:- if the profit in the Swatch parts had dwindled off for Cousins over the past 4/5 years to the point they were just breaking even with them and were considering removing them from sale and then they received the Swatch letter saying they were stopping supply, would they still be taking this action for "us"?
Two points in reply.
Firstly I have already said that the supplier / customer relationship is mutual. One can't exists without the other and both have an equal interest in making a profit. So in a circumstance where that relationship is under threat from outside forces acting illegally, I maintain there is only "us", and I am not going to shift from that position, even if you think it is some sort of PR posture. I have been banging the drum for unity and mutual respect in the trade for years. I have spent a lot of time on forums like this trying to pass on what I know. For me, helping other people with any form of learning is the best way to show respect for them because it demonstrates that you think they are of value. The best reward is when someone teaches you something in return. Cousins is fighting to save its customers because without customers it would have no business. Customers need to be fighting to save their suppliers, because without suppliers they have no business. Mutual respect is the key.
Secondly, the reply to your final question depends upon perspective. If there is no demand for a product from the market, then Cousins would stop selling it, and if the supplier to Cousins then refused to supply them, then of course they would not fight to retain that product. If there was a demand for that product, but the profit margins were very thin, then a decision on whether or not to fight to maintain supply would depend on what impact the loss of that product would have. Cousins value as a supplier is that it stocks and offers the full range of parts and equipment that its customers need to run their businesses. It offers a one stop shop with fast delivery. If a product with thin margins is essential to the survival of customers, then Cousins would fight to hang on to it. However, neither of these options is what we are dealing with here. The margins on watch parts are comfortable, and there is a huge demand from customers for them. The refusal to supply is a blatant attempt to manipulate the market, so the fight is on, and it is for the mutual benefit of Cousins and its customers.
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reeny
That could still happen, even if Cousins win.
Unless the courts set the pricing structure, parts could be sold as expensive as Swatch like to independent suppliers, while being sold at cost to in-house repair centres.
The law in relation to dominant market undertakings takes care of this eventuality. They are required to sell on equivalent and reasonable terms to all. What that means is that wholesalers buying in equal volume must be charged equal prices, and if sales are made direct to repairers, then again the price can be varied by volume of sales, but if that volume is less than the wholesalers buy, the price must be such as to allow the wholesalers to compete.
In talking about in house repairers, you have unwittingly jumped from the market for spare parts into the market for servicing and repair. The law regards these as two different markets. If a dominant manufacturer were suspected of supplying its in house repair service with parts at a discount so that they had an unfair market advantage over independent repairers, then the Regulator would demand to see their internal accounts, and take the necessary steps to ensure fair play in the Service market.
Understanding Competition Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by
demonloop
Is that really true though? Cousins are fighting to save a profitable part of its business, as they are entitled to.
Surely a more open and honest statement would be to say "Cousins is fighting to save Swatch parts supply, as they make good money selling them and they have customers who rely on the supply"
Profit isn't a dirty word, but tarting it up as "doing us all a favour" doesn't sit well with me.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
The only difference between your position and mine is I would phrase it as:-
"Cousins is fighting to save Swatch parts supply, as they are a profitable product for both themselves and their customers who rely on open supply to remain in business"
We are not "doing us all a favour". A favour would be a bit of extra discount. This isn't a favour, it is a fight for everyone's survival and the right to conduct business in a free and fair market.