[Hasbro] Fined by UK Office of Fair Trading

[JacktheRabbit]

Hey, if you like to pay 5 times as much in taxes for your gasoline than you do for the gas itself then more power to you.

Just keep telling yourself that socialism is great.

DocMoriartty:


Secondly, please lay off the assinine comments like "Aint socialism great". I happen to think that it is rather good, but it does have it's drawbacks, just like I think capitalism has it's good and bad points. And please, don't mistake socialism for communism... they are different from each other.

 

[Darrin Drader]

This really isn't an argument about capitolism Vs. socialism. Its actually an argument about fair marketplace practices. A small company or store will have a much more difficult time competing with a larger company or store if certain ground rules aren't set.

When I worked at Future Shop (its a Canadian based electronics store much like Best Buy that used to be in business in the US), for the majority of the time I worked there, we weren't allowed to carry SONY products because of our low price guarantee and SONY's policy of not allowing competing retailers to change their pricing.

Still, having said that, I don't understand why fixing prices is wrong. All it does is ensure that products are always sold for a base price, thus maintaining the sense of value the customer feels when purchasing it. If the customer always pays $20 for a game wherever it is found, then prices can't be undercut between competitors, and the customer shouldn't ever feel like they've paid too much. Its not like we're talking about basic commodities that you have to have to survive. If monopoly was as important for survival as milk, then I might be a little more sympathetic.

 

[Hygric]

In the spirit of your reply to me, hey, if you enjoy living in a society where only the wealthy have access to decent standards of health care, education and legal representation, then more power to you.

Just keep telling yourself that capitalism is great!

 

[BryonD]

In the spirit of your reply to me, hey, if you enjoy living in a society where only the wealthy have access to decent standards of health care, education and legal representation, then more power to you.

Just keep telling yourself that capitalism is great!

I am far from wealthy. And I have access to wonderful standards of health care, education and legal representation. (Because capitalism is great)

 

[Morrus]

OK, let's stay away from the pseudo-political remarks and implied insults, folks. As this thread is about Hasbro, who own the game these messageboards are about, it would be a real shame if a small minority were to prevent others from discussing the situation by getting it closed down.

Now, on to the subject at hand...


I wonder what a £5M (about $7,5M?) means to a multinational company such as Hasbro? Obviously, they'd rather not pay it if they can help it, but just how punitive is a fine of that size?

 

[Turjan]

This is usually only the first step. VW had to pay a fine of $90M, GM $43M, and there are still lots of other companies to follow. I think, VW is looking forward to paying the next fine soon.

This will be the same with Hasbro if they decide not to comply with the law continually. These $5M will add to their deficit during the last time. The limit for the fine is 10% of all sales (not profits!). Additionally, these are no national fines but concern the whole of the EU. Therefore, this may indeed hurt the company.

 

[kingpaul]

Also in EU you can't price items the way you like, you have to price them so that you get money on them (to not crush concurence when a company cover several domains, because they might be able to give away product for free).

Wait, lemme see if I have this right. The EU has disallowed capitalism? That doesn't make sense. Why can't corporations sell their material for whatever price they want? RPG books are non-essential items, and if the consumer thinks they're to pricey, they won't buy. I can understand caps on essential items (base food stuffs and clothes).

And yes, I do understand the point brought up after this post on Hasbro forcing their distributors to comply with their wishes. However, this is another form of capitalism. If the distributors did not want to be shackled with those up-front restrictions, then they did not have to choose to accept them. As it is, they did so choose.

 

[kingpaul]

If I want to sell my car for $1, I can do so. I can't force the person who buys the car to sell it for $2 or less, though; he/she's free to sell it for any amount.

Actually, I disagree, and I have an actual case point. There's a college bar here in Erie, Antlers, that Gannon U has been wanting to buy for years. Finally, the owners of Antlers put the property up for sale, with the restriction in the selling contract that it remain a bar and never be sold to Gannon. If any future owner failed in these terms, it would revert back to the first owners, or their estate. The property sold.

 

[kingpaul]

To make matters worse, once they've dried up a community, many times absorbing the owners of their former competitors as employees, they will close up the store due to diminishing profits. So when the store leaves, the businesses that used to provide goods and services are gone, Wal-Mart is gone, and upwards of 100 (pitifully low paying) jobs are gone (for a small community, that is a pretty large chunk of the population).

I'm not doubting you on this, but I have not heard of this happening. Do you have any citations?

 

[Sammael99]

Wait, lemme see if I have this right. The EU has disallowed capitalism? That doesn't make sense. Why can't corporations sell their material for whatever price they want? RPG books are non-essential items, and if the consumer thinks they're to pricey, they won't buy. I can understand caps on essential items (base food stuffs and clothes).

And yes, I do understand the point brought up after this post on Hasbro forcing their distributors to comply with their wishes. However, this is another form of capitalism. If the distributors did not want to be shackled with those up-front restrictions, then they did not have to choose to accept them. As it is, they did so choose.

I'm no economist, but this view is fairly naïve...

The EU bans dumping, ie. selling a product at less than its base cost. The reasoning being, I presume, that only large companies can do that because they will make the money elsewhere, on another product line and therefore drive the smaller companies out of the business, thus encouraging monopoly or quasi-monopoly situations. It's a different mechanic aiming at a similar objective than the US anti-trust laws.

As to whether the distributors can choose not to work with Hasbro, of course they can't. There are a number of key products that you need to carry if you want to stay a distributor, and the products built by Hasbro are obviously it. So what you're saying is, their choice is accept our conditions or get out of the business... Not much of a choice...

I don't understand why this all gets political though. Capitalism has never been a free-for-all-do-what-you-will system. It's regulated, and these are part of the regulations. If Hasbro want to control the price of their product end to end, they need to sell it directly to the customer. It's as easy as that... And it's just a naïve a view as the above Bad Sammael !