M14 Forum banner

Liberty Optics - no longer carrying PR scopes.

8K views 31 replies 15 participants last post by  jimincalgary 
#1 ·
I had this in the optics section but don't feel like it really fits there since it's not really about optics and more about business practices. For those that don't know, Premier Reticles got a USMC contract, guess the little guys don't matter anymore.

This is from Sniper's Hide... pretty interesting stuff. I was actually thinking of getting a PR scope from Scott at LO for my setup, glad I changed my mind and stuck with US Optics for it.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2542770&gonew=1#UNREAD

LibertyOptics said:
Hiders,

Track with me on this post, and read carefully.

We've gotten inquiries as to why we don't have Premier scopes on our website anymore. Here's why.

Problem:

As of April 29, Armament Technology Inc (ATI) suspended our Dealer Account and we were no longer able to purchase the Premier Heritage line of riflescopes. The suspension letter, signed by E.J. (Ted) Milner, Vice President of ATI and CC’d to Chris Thomas, President of Premier Reticles Ltd, reads in part:

Dear Mr. Berish,

It has been presented to us that your company has been offering Premier Reticles ‘Heritage’ Tactical riflescopes directly to consumers at pricing significantly below Minimum Advertised Price (MAP).

This behavior seriously undermines the value of the product in the eyes of the market and is particularly disruptive and damaging to the market distribution structure of Dealer and Stocking Dealer pricing.......

Please therefore be advised that your Dealer Account with Armament Technology Incorporated, sole Master Distributor for the Premier ‘Heritage’ Tactical line of products, is hereby immediately suspended.....”



This came as a complete surprise, as we have been extra careful in not putting any Hide member discount pricing in writing, either via email or PM. All deals were made strictly over the telephone, presumably in full compliance with MAP policy as commonly interpreted as industry standard practice.

The pretext for this suspension was that a customer at the Premier Reticles booth at the recent NRA show unveiled a scope with an invoice from us that “shocked and embarrassed” Premier Reticles staff and another Premier Reticles dealer at the show. The offending invoice was then sent to ATI and upon obtaining it Ted Milner said everyone got “mad as f**k” there and shortly thereafter the hammer came down. This was on the same day the suspension letter was dated, April 29.

Fortunately, Ted Milner volunteered the name of the offending customer, and a little internet searching revealed the contact info for same. The gentleman is identified as the President of G.B. Stumpp & Associates, Terry L. Dean. From their website, GB Stumpp :

G.B. Stumpp & Associates, Inc. is a leading manufacturer's representative for the outdoor market, including hunting, fishing, camping and marine products.

The firm aggressively markets products for ATI, Badger, Fobus, FoodSaver, Ithaca Gun, Lyman Products, Mag-Lite, PARA, Pachmayr, Pentax and VXI.

G.B. Stumpp & Associates is a carefully chosen group of electronic and sporting goods sales professionals, united under one business philosophy and committed to the success of the products they represent.

Each member of the sales force is a self-starter, armed with the integrity, experience and knowledge of territory that helps guarantee sales success
.”

The address on the website matched the shipping address on our files, so we got our man. I remembered Mr. Dean, as I initially quoted him a full MAP price and he pressed the issue asking if “there was any additional discounts available for Hide members”. So we took care of him, and I specifically told him not to post that price anywhere, haha the joke’s on me.

So, I called Mr. Dean on his cell phone, and to his credit after introducing myself and explaining the problem, he stayed on the line long enough to have this conversation with me:

Me: “Terry, why would you take a scope and invoice from us and get it in the hands of Armament Technology?

TD: “Because I work for Premier”

Me: “What? What are you doing for Premier?”

TD:” Checking MAP pricing on their dealers”

Me: “So you set me up??”

TD: “Yes”

Me: “OK. Let me ask you a question...ATI claims that they obtained a copy of the invoice today “hot off the press”. When did you turn in the invoice?”

TD: “About a month ago”

Our conversation ended shortly thereafter.


Afterward, I called Chris Thomas from Premier on his cell phone five separate times and left him five messages, asking him to explain what he knew. To date, he has never responded.

In summary, we had a rep for Premier order a scope from us at Hide pricing, forward the evidence to ATI, which prompted a 90 day suspension, a nice little sting operation, if you will.


Discussion:

There are three issues here...

First, we never violated MAP nor any other dealer agreement with ATI, and when I explained this to Ted Milner, he stated they were well aware of that, but “they aren’t obligated to provide Liberty Optics with any product, either”. Ted also agreed that what happened was a sting operation, but that didn't impede the suspension.

Second, the issue emerges that when it comes to pricing Premier products, MAP is really Minimum Selling Price, as discounts in any shape or form seem to conflict with ATI’s marketing strategy. When a recent Hide vendor attempted to do a Group Buy here with Premier scopes, we received a rather stern email, as copied here (emphasis added is mine)

April 13, 2011

Dear Premier Heritage Tactical line Dealer:

You are receiving this email to inform you about a recent situation in the marketplace involving a serious breach of pricing protocol surrounding Premier Heritage Tactical riflescopes.


Specifically, a major national optics dealer engaged in a marketing endeavor they advertised as a “group buy” whereby they implied that participating individuals would be able to purchase Premier Tactical products at below Minimum Advertised Pricing. This type of practice is strictly prohibited as contravening the spirit of Minimum Advertised Pricing policy under the terms of Distributor and Dealer pricing. As such, the offending Dealer’s account with ATI has been suspended and their outstanding Purchase Orders will remain unfilled.

Please let us remind all Dealers that:

1) Minimum Advertised Price is not a benchmark by which to offer a discounted price; it is the price the consumer should expect to pay. We expect Premier Dealers to foster that concept by exhibiting a price on their advertising and marketing materials and websites, and that price should be not less than MAP. The practice of displaying statements such as “call for price” or “call for best price” is not deemed to be acceptable.

2) Any program or endeavor that offers implied discounts for those participating in a “group buy” will not be tolerated.

3) Dealers are fully responsible for updating price lists on their websites to reflect current Minimum Advertised Pricing.

The goal of this correspondence is to serve as a reminder that Premier Reticles Ltd. and Armament Technology Incorporated are very serious about the financial success of the products we distribute as well as the financial success of the Dealers we serve. Premier products are ‘top of the market’ products that are fully capable of generating premium pricing in the market and consequently healthy profit margins for Dealers. Companies that do not see the value in this business model can expect the same consequence as that experienced by the national Dealer referenced above.

Please take some time to ensure your full compliance with this policy; your continued success with Premier Heritage Tactical products is dependent upon it.

If you have any questions about the aforementioned, please contact us.

Best regards,


Andrew Webber President Armament Technology Incorporated

Chris Thomas
President
Premier Reticles Limited



There you have it. As a “consumer”, expect to pay the MAP/MSP price on Premier products. I heard after our suspension an even more aggressive email was circulated by ATI warning of the consequences of discounting these scopes to you guys, and I bet finding a deal will be increasingly difficult, if not impossible.


Finally, there is the human element here. Business is business, but in the not too distant past we fully backed and aggressively marketed and sold the Premier Heritage as a viable premium alternative in the tactical scope market, in every effort to ensure the success of the product’s introduction in the marketplace, at a time when few others would. We thought we had a good relationship with Premier and had earned it through hard work and loyalty. Apparently such means nothing as we were never contacted or warned directly that we were engaging in “damaging and disruptive behavior” when it came to selling Premier scopes to Hide members. In other words, there was no desire to take corrective action, just a desire to obtain evidence that would justify eliminating us from the dealer network.

Conclusion:

No question, this hurts economically, as we are a small dealer and this product line was a good source of income for us. However, there are bigger issues here than just money. Since our genesis, we have done everything we could to serve the tactical shooting market by providing honest advice and product evaluation, customer service and good pricing. I am passionate about tactical optics and share this passion in building relationships with you guys, one customer at a time, to meet your shooting optics needs. That is how we choose to run our business.

It appears that since Premier has built up a nice dealer chain, we are expendable. That is their choice.

However, while our suspension was involuntary, given how all this came about, it is clear to me that the character and philosophy of ATI and Premier Reticles is incompatible with our own. Therefore, our choice is to never carry the Premier line of scopes again.

I apologize for any inconvenience to you, our customers.

Sincerely,

Scott
_________________________
Scott Berish
Liberty Optics LLC
An Official Vendor of Sniper's Hide.
www.libertyoptics.com
"See Better, Shoot Better"
406-890-2714
Scott@LibertyOptics.com
 
#2 ·
ATI wants to force the issue, that's OK. I'll just take Premier Reticles off my shopping list along with all ATI products. There's to many companies out there to worry about it.
 
#3 ·
Premier products are ‘top of the market’ products that are fully capable of generating premium pricing in the market and consequently healthy profit margins for Dealers. Companies that do not see the value in this business model can expect the same consequence as that experienced by the national Dealer referenced above.
Since when did price fixing and extortion become a legitimate business model?

I spend a lot of time at a very popular gun range just north of Salt Lake City, I'll make sure everyone I talk to hears about how Premier is ripping off the consumer. And I've been dreaming about the day I could afford one of their scopes...now I know why they are so expensive.
 
#4 ·
Scott at Liberty Optics is a good guy, and all my orders were handled in a timely manner and with good Customer Service. That whole chain of events as read was pretty sad really. I hope the Tactical SHooting community makes Premier feel a pretty big sting for this type of business practice.
 
#7 ·
Here's the other side of the stroy.

Dear Hiders,
My apologies for not responding sooner. Some folks in the industry actually take a break from their day job and try to enjoy the weekend with their families (and Moms). Nevertheless, it is Monday. So back to work.

First, I realize that there won't be much Premier can say here, if anything, now to dissuade peoples' decisions to NOT buy Premier-manufactured , ATI-distributed or GB Stumpp-represented products. I can see how, based on the facts presented by Scott Berish of Liberty Optics, a person would view Premier-ATI-Stumpp as evil and greedy.

Second, it seems that Scott's reputation is beyond reproach. There are always two sides to every story. In this case, one side being the customer-vendor perspective and the other, the legal and economic considerations of a manufacturer-vendor engagement.

I hope my response here meets with the approval of Snipershide and its moderators. We are not currently a vendor or paid advertiser, but we have supported Snipershide since its inception through past advertising and product donation. Though lengthy, this response is necessary to inform the public of the facts surrounding the suspension of Liberty Optics' dealer account.

To begin with, I think it's important to identify the structure of Premier and its affiliates.

Definitions:

1. Premier Reticles, Ltd is a manufacturer of high quality, high performance riflescopes. A 3rd generation, family owned and operated American company, which employs Americans. Chris Thomas is President.

2. Optronika GmbH , located in Biebertal, Germany, is an independent company founded by Chris Thomas in 2007 which employs an opto-mechanical engineering staff, formerly of Schmidt & Bender. All designs for Premier products originate here as well as the sourcing of critical high-precision components used to assemble riflescopes in Winchester, VA. Chris Thomas is President.

3. Armament Technology Incorporated (ATI), a Canadian company located in Halifax, Nova Scotia is an independent company contracted to serve as Master Distributor for North America for Premier Tactical riflescopes. ATI acts as an inventory holding company for which Premier Tactical products are distributed throughout a dealer network. Andrew Webber is President.

4. GB Stumpp and Associates, Inc. is an independent factory representation group engaged by Premier Reticles to solicit and establish storefront retailer (dealer) accounts in the Northeast US territory, for the purposes of stocking and selling Premier products. Terry Dean is President.

In January 2011, GB Stumpp was contracted to establish dealer accounts in the NE US. These factory reps, at their own expense travel state by state, dealer by dealer, informing and educating retailers about the quality and reputation of Premier riflescopes. One of the first questions after "what is my price?" is "do you enforce MAP?". Brick-and-Mortar dealers live by a separate sets of costs vs. certain internet retailers. The must make enough margin in order to: 1) buy and stock the product (customers need to fondle the product), 2) pay employees and 3), pay their overhead costs-just to name a few. Of course, in this day and age the biggest threat to store-front retailers is the internet. Though some consumers choose to purchase products online, the fact remains that store-front retail sales account for the vast majority of riflescope sales-though not yet for Premier, but if internet retailers are not kept in check, your local gun shop with its higher costs of operations WILL go out of business.

In the 3+ months of discussions with potential Premier dealers, the name Liberty Optics came up several times. Terry Dean took it upon himself to not just call Scott for pricing, but also to consummate a purchase. Per the following conversations with Terry, he assured me of his lack of knowledge of Snipershide and that he did NOT mention being a "Hider" in order to get a "good price". On 19-April-2011, Terry simply called and asked for a price for a Premier Heritage 5-25x56mm Tactical and was NOT quoted MAP, but was offered a price substantially lower than MAP. In fact $100s of dollars less. He placed his order immediately and got the scope two days later. Note: This was less than a week after the "stern email" dated 13-April-2011, sent to all Premier dealers admonishing them to avoid such practices. Premier nor ATI had any knowledge of Terry's intentions or actions.

On Friday 29 April 2011, opening day of the NRA Show in Pittsburgh, Terry presented to me his new 5-25x and the Sales Receipt, dated 19-April-2011, from Liberty Optics. Upon receipt of an email copy of this Sales Receipt, ATI contacted Scott via telephone and got the response that the "Terry Dean purchase discount was for a credit against previous purchases...". ATI advises that they have a copy of the bill of sale and there is no credit referenced on it. When pressed to substantiate this credit, Liberty states they need to call back. Upon a call-back, Liberty advises there was no credit, it was sold at the discounted price.

Up until this point, Premier and ATI did not take any action against Liberty Optics as there was no tangible proof that such pricing was happening. After countless discussions, verbal and written agreements, Scott Berish continued to sell scopes at highly discounted prices. Combined with his inability to honor his commitments and agreements, and the reluctance of new dealers taking on the Premier lines of products, Premier and ATI felt it necessary to finally take action. It should realized that the terms of Scott’s dealership status were same terms as all Premier dealers conduct their business under. Premier and/or ATI reserve the right to suspend, and if need be, terminate, dealer status if any of the provisions are violated. This doesn't have as much to do with MAP as it does a legal contract where the undersigned acknowledges the provisions associated with such violations.

Since Scott has been nice enough to share excerpts from intercompany documents between ATI and Liberty Optics, and the interdealer communique' , I don't think it's necessary to outline their contents. However, I want to remind the reader that we did NOT terminate the LO's dealer account, we simply "suspended" it. Here I will quote the Suspension Letter verbatim. Red text indicates what was left out of Scott's opening remarks in this thread:

"April 29, 2011

Liberty Optics LLC
Attn: Scott Berish
PO Box 2554
900 Riverside Rd
Kalispell MT 59901
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berish,

It has been presented to us that your company has been offering Premier Reticles 'Heritage' Tactical riflescopes directly to consumers at pricing significantly below Minimum Advertised Price (MAP).
This behavior seriously undermines the value of the product in the eyes of the market and is particularly disruptive and damaging to the market distribution structure of Dealer and Stocking Dealer pricing.As such, it contravenes article 11 of our published Terms as detailed in our 'Distributor Pricing' schedule.
Please therefore be advised that your Dealer Account with Armament Technology Incorporated, sole Master Distributor for the Premier 'Heritage' Tactical line of products, is hereby immediately suspended. Your current Purchase Orders #5 (dated 21-April-2011) and #6 (dated 26-April-2011) will not be satisfied until such time that payment for both orders plus Liberty's outstanding account balance is received by Armament Technology Incorporated.

At that time, we will arrange shipment of the orders either collect or to your UPS account.
Assuming your outstanding balances are paid within terms, we are willing to review the status of your account in 90 days time
.

Regards,

E. J. (Ted) Milner.
Vice President
"
In our opinion, we have given Liberty Optics several chances in the past couple years to adjust his business practices where Premier products are concerned. Premier nor ATI, intended this to embarrass Scott in any way. Scott chose to air these internal communications publicly.

Furthermore, in order for Premier Reticles to stay in business and continue to offer warranty service, we must sell millions of dollars worth of riflescopes. The actions of Liberty Optics or any such offending account, and their refusal to abide by legally binding agreements has forced us to the decision to "suspend" their dealer status. Therefore, to protect the investments of both existing and new dealers, who have signed the same agreements, we must weed out dealers who refuse to play by the rules.

In closing and due to the amount of expletives used in conjunction with Premier, its products, ATI and GB Stumpp et al, here on SnipersHide, we will not offer any further responses or posts concerning this matter.

Should anyone have additional questions or comments, please email me directly at: chris@premierreticles.com. I will do my best to respond to respectful requests in a timely and professional manner.

Emails to ATI can be sent to: sales@armament.com

Sincerely,

Chris Thomas, President
Premier Reticles

Top
 
#8 ·
Wow, it's a rare thing to get a inside info on how the big corporations screw us but here it is.

I love the justification they are using;

We need to sell millions of scopes in order to stay in business and continue with our wonderful warranty program so we are going to tack on hundreds of dollars of profit on a single scope sale and screw you.

Nice.

What a bunch of crap. Thomas doesn't realize that he exposed his thinking about what his business is and how it stays profitable. He put staying in business as his first priority and then he mentioned the warranty program. So I can only conclude that he thinks that the warranty program is the service he is offering to the customer in exchange for him staying in business. Does that mean that he feels that his scopes are junk and that therefore the warranty is of greater value to the customer? Probably not but it does show that his concern for a high profit are "Premier" in his mind.
 
#9 ·
Actually his statement about staying in business and warranty is flawed. Think about it, they sell to the distributor for $XX, after that their profit is out of the picture. The distributor sells to the dealer for $YY, after that their profit is out of the picture. The dealer sells to the consumer for $ZZ, in this case their MAP.

So how does that affect PR/PH's ability to stay in business and offer warranty work? They get the same amount of money no matter what. The distributor gets the same amount of money no matter what. So why not let the dealers decide what their profit margin needs to be? Sell them for less, move more, everyone makes more money in the end.

Personally I don't think PR/PH scopes are worth what they're asking these days (when they first came out the prices weren't bad). That's not saying they're a bad scope, just saying for what they want now, I'd spend my money elsewhere on something with a better track record. Personal opinion there only.
 
#10 ·
I agree with you NoExpert and if people accept your reasoning it reinforces my belief that Thomas has turned in to the "profit at any cost" CEO.

I've always dreamed of getting a Premier scope but between the ridiculous prices they charge and this info I'll not spend my hard earned dollars on their product.
 
#11 ·
MAP and other vendor agreements are nothing new. They have been going on for as long as I know back since the 1950's and probably many years before. These agreements are in place by manufactures and distributors to protect the dealers in their system. These usually go along with the higher priced ticket items which traditionally have lower margins than lower priced ticket items.

As I see it LO signed a legal and binding agreement to sell the PR products for not less than the manufacture dictated and LO obviously violated, on more than one occasion, that legally and binding agreement.

So, LO got caught and got their wrists slapped with a 90 day suspension to purchase product as it should be.

Just my .02 cents worth and our famlys 60+ years in the retail / vendor business along with experiecne with working with these type of vendor agreements.
 
#12 ·
I agree, the contract was violated, but like I said, it's rare when the average guy gets to see how badly companies screw us and this gave me a glimpse of it. I'm all for profitability and capitalism but when you dictate a price without concern for what's reasonable it's immoral. I'm not trying to debate morality I'm just stating my opinion. If you charge an unreasonable price for a product is called price gouging and it is illegal in some circumstances. To me, this is the same issue and it's wrong.

Personally, I would refuse to sell the product and just tell customers that after reviewing the pricing schedule and the dealer's agreement I felt that the product was overpriced and I wouldn't be a part of that kind of business activity because I felt that it wasn't in the best interest of my customers. My guess is that what you loose on the front end in profit margin per item would be made up in loyal customers and word of mouth sales.
 
#13 ·
I've seen these agreements for advertising prices, never for selling prices. Do you have any contracts that actually state you will not sell an item for less than this price? I'm not in any way questioning integrity, this is just cause I'm really curious if they actually say something like that. I worked for two major manufacturers and all they covered was advertised prices. Basically any advertised price couldn't be lower than a set amount. However they could sell it for a lower amount, be it a promotion, sale, special discount, etc...
 
#14 · (Edited)
It varies not only on whole product lines but also certain products, usually the higher end products, manufactures sell in their line up of all their products. And yes, we have had contracts that have stated minimum sell price.

I believe what PR has going on here is the traditiional 3 step distrubution system. Thats where the manufacture sells to a distributor / wherehouse and in turn they sell to the dealer / retailer and from there to the public. Along with this a firm, usually a contracted outfit, to represent the product/s to distributors and to dealers / retailers and sign them up to deal the product to the public.

There's a fine line between margins and volume when it comes to making and breaking it is these type of retail businesses. On one hand you can't have inventory set on the shelf and "collect real estate". You have to turn your inventory over and keep moving it out the front door. On the other hand you have to meet your overhead and make some semblance of profit to justify being in business. The balance of volume sales and margins along with profit that have to be met to keep the doors open and justify even bothering to be in business has always been a struggle even for the larger outfits.

So as an example, you are a company that wants to get your products to market and your reps. are calling on retailers to get on board with your product and become a dealership for these products. If, as in PR's case, they manufacture and want to sell a higher end, higher priced ticket item, and that being what it is, as with most higher priced ticket items with lower margins and within somewhat of a niche market place, they have to give consessions to the dealers to get them on board. Retailers want to know what their price is, how much annual quota volume they must sell to remain a dealer, what the opening order $$$ they have to purchase to become a dealer, what kind of volume discounts are available when purchasing over minimum quotas if any, and what guarantees are in place to protect their investment in inventory against another dealer selling for less than they can justify taking the risk to become a dealer and inventory these type of products.

If the dealer / retailer doesn't feel it's a good risk, he shouldn't take it on and if he feels the vendor agreements are not good for his business and a bad risk for him he also shouldn't take it on. If a dealer signs up to take on the product with the various vendor agreements that may be in place he shouldn't violate what he signed.

If PR has made these agreements with all their dealers thay can't let one or more of them violate the same contract they've made with all the other dealers to get the product into their stores. If they do, the other dealers, over time, will drop their line of products and sell others if for no other reason than to keep their turn rates and margins up to thrive and survive in their business.
 
#15 ·
I know the whole thread made me feel warm and fuzzy all over...

The only thing warmer and fuzzier will be when I read how all the CEO's and CFO's Get Indicted By The Feds For 'Price Fixing' With Their Co-Conspirators, Uh...I Meant COMPETITORS, Damn-It!

Are They Doing It Now?
Of Course Not!
Do I Now Believe That They WOULD Do It If They Thought They Could Get By With It?

Hell Yes!!! Greed Is Good! And They Just 'Admitted' To Being Greedy!

GI5

CAVman in WYoming
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAMMAC
#16 ·
Exactly, and then they try to sugar coat it with all kinds of justifications as to why it's a good thing.
 
#17 ·
And yet another side from ATI.

Dear Sniper’s Hide Forum Members:

Armament Technology Incorporated is a small company started by me in 1988 with a one-thousand dollar investment. As a national class long range rifle shooter, my goal for the company was to bring better equipment to the shooting community. Since then we have grown into an International Distributor specializing in top-of-the-line weapon Sighting Systems for military and commercial customers. We pride ourselves on our business ethics as well as fairness to our Dealers, and in our 22 year history we honestly feel that we have never left a customer unsatisfied.

When we agreed to purchase millions of dollars worth of rifle scopes from Premier Reticles, we did so because we believe they are the very best on the market. We then went forward to put these products in inventory for prompt delivery to our Dealers and their customers. In conjunction with Premier, we set Minimum Advertised Pricing that would support the business model. The MAP we set is certainly not excessive for a product of this quality and is in fact as low as we dared in order to keep the business healthy. From the beginning we received complaints that one or two Dealers were selling the product at a profit margin that was below that which was required by the majority to pay rent, hire employees and do the advertising required to stay in business.

In order to not lose the Dealers that buy the majority of the Premier products from us, we had to enforce the Minimum Advertised Price policy that we have in place. To That end, certain Dealers, in exchange for our very lowest pricing, were asked to sign a document that assured us that they were adhering to the policy. The signature at the bottom of the document was really meant to be an assurance that the Dealer understood the policy and would agree to do business with us under those terms. When the term of the agreement expired, we did not insist upon signing a renewal in that the subject was referenced in our regular Terms. Despite the fact that Liberty Optics signed the original document, and clearly understood their obligation, rumors persisted that the scopes were being sold at prices far below that which would sustain the production and business. Because our company does not respond to rumors, we took no action until we were presented with unsolicited evidence that the practice was taking place (our company does not have any relationship with the individual that purchased the scope). Upon presentation of the facts that Liberty Optics was not keeping their end of the agreement or at least the spirit of the agreement, we had no option but to suspend Liberty’s account for a three month period. Provisions were made to allow Liberty to satisfy any orders they had already taken. Apparently those offers have been refused.

For our company this whole issue is about someone not keeping their word on an agreement. When agreements between business partners are broken there has to be some responsive action, otherwise nobody else we have ever made agreements with will see the value in either side honoring the deal. It is unethical to turn a ‘blind eye’ on a practice that hurts the majority, even if that practice brings in extra sales for a few or the one.

This incident has been an unfortunate one, although I feel that the biggest loss is the support of the shooting community for Premier products. These riflescopes are among the very best manufactured anywhere, and I hope that the members of the Sniper’s Hide forum can put this argument between businesses behind them and go back about the business of engaging targets at extreme ranges.

Respectfully,

Andrew Webber
President, Armament Technology Incorporated
 
#19 ·
The 'hand' of the market has, for once, revealed itself.

Granted, LO seems to have violated a contract.

That said, the contract in question is propping up a very apparently inefficient and corrupt distribution system.

Face it- the Internet is a very efficient means of conducting retail transactions. Computers have largely made distributers obsolete. A manufacturer can frankly just as easily sell to the general public as a middleman. I know I've never seen a PR scope in a brick and mortar store, but I'm sure my local gun shop can get on the Internet and $pecial order one for me, if I want one. It begs the question- why can't I just order it myself?

Lastly, I'm a bit skeptical that the value of PR scopes is anything more than the cachet of having paid a big pile of money for one. Much as the cachet of a Range Rover is that they are very expensive vehicles ('exclusive' is the adjective the limeys like to use), though they command not very much money on the used market, as the build quality generally leaves a lot to be desired.

So here we're presented with an example of a product that is being sold for prices far in excess of the cost of manufacture and distribution- as evidenced by LO being able to profitably sell them for 'hundreds of dollars less' than the competition- at what benefit to the end consumer?

What I see are vastly inflated prices for the privilege of owning a 'high end' piece of glass that is likely no better than the sort that the DoD sees fit to supply the folks who need to put carefully placed holes in things from great distances as a matter of course.

It's fairly clearly a matter of price fixing, but historically the DoJ doesn't tend to get involved when the issue is boutique products for people with more money than good sense.
 
#20 ·
No, it's not price fixing. Price fixing is when several or more manufactures get togeather and set prices for like products that they each manufacture.

I've read this over and over again on the Hide that it's price fixing and it's not.

Please get facts straight.

I'm not siding with anyone on either side here as I really don't give a about this industry as it doesn't put any $$$ in my pocket.
 
#21 ·
Well I know that I wont be buying any Premier scopes, that is even if I could afford their unrealistic, non-price fixed, artificially inflated prices.
 
#22 ·
I have been in Business...
We had 'Franchises' Not Honored by the Big, International Company...They Started Selling to K-Mart!!! in OUR Franchise Territory!
We coulda-shoulda-woulda sued their Ass...But you know how that would have worked out for us...
I am 'Only' 64 Years Old...GI1...but I have Seen The Elephant!
I Remember 'Mom and Pop' Stores Driven Out of Business by 'Safeway'...
And Dozens of 'Little Guy's' Go Broke Because of Walmart's Pricing...
And Hundreds Of Entrepeneurs Who Marketed Their Product to Cableas' or like companies, only to see A Very Similar! Product Offered by That Company A Year Or Two Later At 1/2 Price!
The Ultimate Irony Here...For Those Sellers Who 'Played The 'MAP' Game Here, Would Be That A Year Or Two From Now The 'PR' Scopes Are In Fact IN The Cabelas' Catalog...DISCOUNTED !!!

'As The World Turns'

GI5

CAVman in WYoming
 
#23 ·
And those who were suckered in to this game laughingly explain to us how stupid we are for pointing out the obvious problem with their system. They tell us that because we are just ignorant buffoons we don't understand that this is just business as it is done today, "this is how it's always been done". No it's not how it's always been done, it's how the corporate raiders and profiteers did things forty years ago and others just adopted their unscrupulous ways. Forty years ago people were rioting over this kind of crap and now everybody laughs at those of us who know the difference and call us fools.

Oh well, society always repeats the same mistakes and if you live long enough you see it. I've gotten to the point where I just want to relax in the middle of nowhere and wait for the idiots to eat each other during that last desperate spasm of panic when they finally realize that their new and improved system has failed.
 
#24 ·
I see, according to PR it's good business to keep shooters from getting a good deal on their scopes. It looks like they smacked the hand of one of their dealers and got punched out for it. How long will it take them to live this blunder down. I would like to congratulate the businessmen at Premeir Reticles that made the move to mess with one of the most popular optics retailers on the internet, what's your next trick?
 
#25 ·
This is just a veiled price increase from Primier.

If you don't like their price don't buy their scope.

I am sorry for Scott, he is a good guy and I love my Premier scope. I paid well below advertised price, but I got my 3x15 in 2009. If I would have had to pay MAP I might have bought a NF or a USO.
 
#29 ·
Same here. If I had to pay MAP, PR would have lost business to someone else, period. I love my scope, and I'm not trading it, but I won't be squawking about how good it is anymore, either.

What did these bozos think was going to come of this? I guess they thought Scott would just roll over and take it, and keep their dirty little secret.

My favorite part of the response emails is how they're all for the end user, but the next thing is they have to protect the other dealers.

Oh well, good luck PR, if I ever buy another high end scope it WON'T be PR. Full stop.
 
#26 ·
Punish the efficient business that can bring product to market at a lower cost than the other guys. Yeah, that makes sense. Premier and ATI won't be seeing a dime of my money, that's for sure.
 
#27 ·
I love the part in ATI's response about turning a blind-eye to a practice that hurts the majority (the majority of dealers that is). The majority they should care about, and in fact claim to, is the consumer, who is paying more for a product than they should because companies like Premier and ATI and preventing the market from dictating the price.
 
#28 ·
I love capitalism. REAL capitalism. They certainly have a right to set the policy for those selling their product. Consumers have the right to be informed and to buy their product or not. I believe in the right of producers. I believe in the right of consumers. Free markets work. I own my own company.

Any one that buys a product like this, knowing that they are NOT getting the most for their money, has the right to do so. PERSONALLY, I love quality and go for it first. BUT, at a price and I won't buy a product if there are other products of equal or better or approximately equal quality for a better price. That represent a better value.

Sometimes you want a feature or want it quicker, and are will to pay a premium for it. I do that sometimes, but not often. I'm usually a quality, but value shopper.

Other than reflex scopes, I haven't purchases any scopes less than about $1200. My last 2 purchases were a $3600 USO and a $1500 NF. With the internet, you can be a well informed consumer.
 
#31 ·
Welcome to the sausage factory, everybody.

It isn't pretty, but this IS typical of how the dirty retailing works...

I believe in the right of producers. I believe in the right of consumers. Free markets work.
+1

There are all sorts of reasons for NOT wanting to sell, or have one's products sold, for less than the regular price.

And it sounds like LO should have been a little more clever about undercutting MAP.

Just try to buy a Britax carseat for less than MAP... Retailers will ship for free (how much does THAT cost?) and pay the sales tax, but they won't sell for less than MAP.

Or, I'm aware another retailer of high-end optics who can't/won't sell for less than MAP, but he throws in other goodies for free: buy an Aimpoint, get a SureFire flashlight for free.

And don't think that it's just big producers squelching little retailers, either. Big retailers routinely charge little producers for shelf space (that's right, the producer pays the retailer to stock the producer's products).

I'm going to go take a shower now...
 
#30 ·
What I don't get is they continue to have parallax adjustment issues even with current production scopes. You'd think for this "premium" price they'd be able to address this issue. This issue is well documented on Sniper's Hide. Of course they take care of it right away when somebody sends in a scope with the issue, but you'd think they'd put this "fix" into production so it's no longer an issue.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top