Re: ATI response to Snipers Hide post by Liberty
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ATI</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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
</div></div>
Mr. Webber,
First of all, whatever you claim to have been or started out as, your personal company goal at present is clearly about taking as much money from long range shooters as possible, not putting the best equipment in as many hands as possible.
Your opinion about what is a fair price for your products is just that, your opinion. In a truly competitive market, the price for your product would be determined by the ebb and flow of competition and resources on both the production and consumer sides. I understand that as scale increases, the need to predict revenue increases as well, but that is no excuse for pretending to let a product's merit sell the product rather than manipulate sales across the vertical spectrum.
Either take the moral high ground and truly let your products compete (and abandon the gentleman's agreement between manufacturers to participate in horizontal price-fixing), or else admit that you are no different than any other cut-throat businessman who could care less about long term market sustainability and only looks to his own time, manipulating the legal industry every way possible to ensure increasing profit margins.
But whichever you choose, please do not walk amongst the commoners and tell them that you are just like them, that they could be just like you, and that all they have to do to be happy is to ignore the details and buy your products. That sort of cheesy salesmanship is best left to the politicians and special-interest sellouts. There is certainly nothing respectful about it.
Examine your definition of business ethics and your misplacement of the word "fair".
It's pretty straightforward - if the manufacturer sells the product at a price which pays the rent and is satisfactory, and the middleman does the same, and the end dealer as well, who exactly is hurt? Oh yes, the other dealers whose poor business choices or practices do not keep them competitive. I like to call it "business welfare" or "free-market marxism". And just like socialism, the group at the top has something to gain in the short term from all of the "fairness".
I'm not saying don't chase your dollar at the expense of your moral compass, but don't expect people with common sense to swallow the maneuvering.
Scotty
