There are many species of ducks. While RPM is illegal in Australia there are legal distribution methods that achieve the same end. The most commonly encountered examples are companies that distribute their products through ‘agents’ (order takers who get commissions) and the actual sale is company direct. Miele and Asko may be the best recognised of the genre, but there are others. Wherever you go be it JBHiFi, The Good Guys, Camberwell Electrics, Bing Lee, Berloni, … , … , the price for Miele, Asko, and other ‘agency products’ is the price because no matter where one orders (not purchases), Miele, Asko, etc ‘accepts your order’ as the seller, and when there is a ‘sale’ on same it is likewise available from (rather than offered by) all the agents.
I disagree, though I have never purchased Asko or Miele products, I have purchased other brands from JB and Good Guys. In fact, 2 months ago, I toddled into my local JB store and requested a price on a 4k computer monitor. The sale-person immediately knocked $50.00 from the advertised price. I thanked him and explained that I was going upstairs to Hardly Normal to check their prices. Hardlys was unable to match JB’s price, so I went downstairs and asked the sales-person to supply the monitor as discussed. I received a further $35.00 discount for reasons best known only to the sales-person.
You can guess where I will concentrate my future technology shopping.
RPM is wrong. The ACCC is wrong for allowing such things. Again, the name of the entity is:
Australian Competition and CONSUMER Commission.
Nowhere in the title are distributors, retailers and manufacturers mentioned. The ACCC is charged with defending CONSUMER’S rights. In that sense and with respect to Tooltechnic, they have failed CONSUMERS.
I request that the ACA act on behalf of consumers and deal with this matter.
What are you disagreeing with? That the agency system is legal and in operation?
Most products are not sold through ‘agencies’ but some manage to do and stay with it, such as Miele and Asko. Your example of tech is not exactly relevant to the premise since competition is rife, excepting possibly for Apple?
I am not defending the agency system, just noting it is legal and is effectively retail price maintenance in another form.
This is irrelevant even if it was the case. If one reads the ACCC decision, it relates to Festool/Fein tools. Tooltechnic hasn’t decided on its own accord to add it to the RPM as it was in the original decision. If Fein wasn’t in the decision/determination, then it wouldn’t have an exemption.
No it isn’t. Tooltechnic has been provided and exemption under law and is legal. Just because an individual disagrees with it, that doesn’t mean it is illegal.
Europe isn’t Australia and its laws are very different. Europe often fines companies (e.g. Apple, Google etc) for the same practices which occur in Australia, where Australia has not carried out similar action against these companies. This is because the legislative and trading environments are very different.
The ACCC stated…,
This results in consumers being able to make more informed decisions about the purchase and maintenance of these relatively complex products
The ACCC believes the products are relatively complex compared to other tools available and suggests the tools potentially can’t be serviced by anyone. The same paragraph indicates the determination was to allow consumers to know that there would be better levels of pre and post–sales retail services to allow consumers to make more informed decisions in relation to their purchase…not because the tools are complex.
You may find the following link appropriate to make a more direct request.
https://support.choice.com.au/hc/en-us/requests/new
P.S.
It may also assist to set out the issue concisely with a clear historical timeline and references, as if it is going to be read for the first time, by someone not familiar with the products or topic.
Sometimes a discussion can be unintentionally fanned by a ‘this is how it is’ from one side and a ‘why [because I don’t agree]?’ from the other.
Most jurisdictions have their unique attributes for better or worse. When something does not seem right, yet it is legal, calling it out and seeking to change it by a focused process through the system is what is expected in democracies. Regardless, sometimes vested interests prevail, be they a powerful individual, company, or political group.
Calling public attention may get the right ‘ears’ listening and responding, or may generate ‘window dressing’ (common in Australia). Public ire is ephemeral until the next big issue pushes the last aside so finding a pollie who likes the ‘photo-op’ with himself leading the charge is usually most effective at the end of the day.
If focus is lost or the target becomes too big it gets harder. If the target is small and the specific case is not of general interest it is usually difficult to achieve critical mass to drive change.
Changing a political or business culture is never easy, ever, and oft times impossible save for the occasional excursion off the rails. Hence change has always been and remains a difficult challenge regardless of the merits of a cause.
There are many excuses and some reasons for our oversight or lack thereof being as it is, and can usually be traced back to how elections have gone over time, but that is a different discussion not for here.
I have purchased products through the system you mention and have been able to wrangle a discount (though I have never purchased Miele nor Asko). Apple is a company I have assiduously avoided since 1987 (when I acquired my first computer). I hope to always avoid the company, as I find many of their practices quite offensive.
You have the same choice with Tooltechnic.
I get the impression you strongly dislike Tooltechnic for more than the reason outlined above. Do you work for a competitor to Tooltechnic, have had a run in with Tooltechnic (such as pre or post sales support) or other reason? You seem to have more interest in this specialist tool company than what would be expected of the average person.
In relation to particular brands and after sales support (servicing and maintenance), many service agents don’t service all brands as they don’t have sufficient experience or training, and possibly as a result, aren’t privy to the spare parts supply chain for those particular brands.
We have struck this with common household products where a service agent has indicated they can’t service the particular brand. This has been for white goods, power tools and vehicles.
This is the crux of the ACCC decision, ensuring there is adequate pre and post sales support.
Tooltechnic is possibly unique that it gained ACCC exemption in their case, where many after businesses haven’t done so or deemed it necessary as there is sufficient service dentres/agents to support their products where needed.
I run a small business in a completely unrelated industry (home entertainment service). My interest in woodworking is as a hobbyist. I do, however, possess a very strong sense of right and wrong. I have been in the retail environment (audio) and am abundantly aware of the very heavy penalties for anyone involved in RPM. As such, my retail business had to compete with much larger companies, without the benefits of RPM. I survived. I became interested in a specific Festool product, after watching one in action. I was not impressed with the price. I sought out a method to obtain the tool at a more appropriate price and was able to land the tool into Australia, from a German dealer, at close to 50% of the Australian RRP (which was, in fact, the ONLY price). I subsequently purchased another item at a similar price saving. After which, the German dealer told us that he was no longer able to supply any more tools outside the EU. It was then that I began investigating Tooltechnic, Festool (Europe) and the issues surrounding the companies. I became deeply disturbed at what I found. I wrote to the ACCC expressing my concern at the 2014 decision. Subsequently, I was invited to make a submission prior to the 2018 decision.
I am in the domestic audio service industry and have been since 1975. I am well acquainted with restrictive practices surrounding some brands and products. Threats to go to the ACCC usually resolve any problems quickly and simply. I can assure you that, with my electronics training (along with 50 years’ experience), that Festool products are MUCH simpler than a domestic CD player or surround sound amplifier. The technology is basic, albeit with some innovative features in some products. In fact, my preferred brand is Bosch (because, the RRP is lower, I can wrangle a discount and the quality is equivalent in most cases) and the technology is arguably at least the equivalent of Festool.
My present concern surrounds Sawstop™. This technology is a game-changer. In fact, after a particularly bruising court case in the US, there was talk that Sawstop™ was to be made mandatory on ALL table saws. Festool now owns the technology. They prevented Bosch from releasing a similar system, at lower cost. That means, for those of us who feel that a table saw is a particularly dangerous product, we are locked into purchasing at whatever price Festool decide they want to charge. Since Festool saws are generally at least double the price of competing products, the technology will be well out of the reach of most domestic consumers. Festool is a much smaller company than Bosch, yet they were able to scupper Bosch attempts to release a competing product.
Tooltechnic is a company that needs to be reigned in. The ACCC is asleep at the wheel.
I found your previous confusing too. I think you were intending to say Miele, Asko use the agency system but The Good Guys, JB HiFi don’t but it came out as if the latter list use it also.
I have written a rebuttal of the ACCC decision on this matter. The pdf is available here:
It will need to be read in concert with the ACCC decision document.
Assume this was the submission to the ACCC?
No. I wrote that document this morning. My original submission (to the 2014 decision) is likely lying on an old hard drive somewhere. When the 2018 decision came down, I was so disgusted with the ACCC, I just gave up. Now that Festool owns Sawstop™ I may need to revise my outlook and begin the fight all over. This valuable safety technology must not be allowed to be available to wealthy woodworkers only.
Thanks for being specific, on re-reading I understand the confusion. I edited it according
I had not intended to imply products sold by non-agency arrangements were not competitively priced from store to store even though in many cases the ‘sales’ or ‘limited time advertised prices’ seem to be the manufacturer’s RRP per the manufacturer web site 
The agency model is apparently the thing of the times. The Senate has piped in, but the ACCC? If good enough for appliances, good enough for everything?
You have to love the loyalty for some 57 years of supporting Honda.
The rough end of a pineapple.
But perhaps Honda bought some pineapples from Taiwan so as to help them out.
Even with the wealth of choices from consumer advocates the coalition has once again gone with business friendly mindsets and has to be on the back foot to plead neutrality.
Reading about her record - accepting everyone has the right to an attorney and legal advice and it is essentially a job like any other - but that there are many others not similarly tainted who could have been nominated, so adding this here seems appropriate.
Government once again gives consumers a ‘finger of disdain’ managing the window dressing nature of the ACCC they wrought by design, and they seem keen to assure it stays that way.
Methinks the word ‘proactive’ does not exist in the coalition dictionary regardless of topic unless it is in a paragraph with rorts of one or another kind.
I would have given the guernsey to ASIC.
It was formed 30 years ago, and so far, it doesn’t seem to have “prosecuted” any crooked company directors at all. It is beyond belief that ALL of the company directors in Australia have behaved blamelessly for such a long period.
I can only conclude that ASIC thinks it’s more appropriate to fine their companies, instead of the crooks. So the penalty is passed on to their shareholders, and they can continue granting themselves astronomical bonuses for being clever enough to outsmart the authorities.
When I say “authorities” I mean it in the nicest possible way - sort of like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
In my experience, the only way to clean up the swamp is to grab a few of the real crooks - expose them publicly - drag them through the courts - and put them in the slammer.
After that, the rest of them will start to cower in the corner and take their directors’ duties seriously.
This “laisser faire” style of government, with NO effective intervention, is just a waste of taxpayer money.
It might suit some politicians, who are constantly looking for donors for party funds, but it’s no way to run a modern economy…
And it sounds like you ACCC example is just “more of the same”.
Like all those offences revealed by the recent Royal Commission into the banking and superannuation industries. Offences that in one instance the company concerned was well aware of as far back as 2013, but did nothing to stop it until after the Royal Commission had already started its work. “Scamper scamper - we might get caught - let’s actually DO something!”
Sorry to say so - but that’s “too little, too late”!
It is what enough voters cast their ballots in favour of many years. It would be impossible to argue against your observation yet an electorate has options. If a majority do not take them up? Some do not accept there is enough difference among the Tweedle family members to matter since neither has shown a willingness to get business or miners or developers offside.
If we look in a mirror we see ourselves even if not all of us, enough of us.
Another view of the ACCC, from the departing chair Rod Sims.
On corporate mergers which can lead to poor consumer outcomes through lessening of competition.
Sims has been a campaigning chair, …… and more recently launching a campaign to make it easier for the ACCC to block mergers – a proposal for which the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, lacks enthusiasm.
The new chair is an experienced corporate lawyer. It’s a step change from the background of the outgoing chair (an economist) with extensive business and public sector experience.
