I have to know

[Billldg]

I understand how this may look, but lets be fair. MAP pricing only sets the minimum price, it doesn't set the max. If someone wants to pay X amount of dollars for an item then its their right to spend their money. I have no problems or ill feelings towards any of you all, but what @TopShelfAquatics did isn't wrong. It is their right as a business trying to make money in a field that really isn't that profitable to do what they want. People can always wait for more to come into production and buy it at MAP pricing, if they r in to much of a rush to buy it at any cost then that's on them. I am sure this will not be a favorable post, but that is my 2 cents.

 

[Demonic]

I understand how this may look, but lets be fair. MAP pricing only sets the minimum price, it doesn't set the max. If someone wants to pay X amount of dollars for an item then its their right to spend their money. I have no problems or ill feelings towards any of you all, but what @TopShelfAquatics did isn't wrong. It is their right as a business trying to make money in a field that really isn't that profitable to do what they want. People can always wait for more to come into production and buy it at MAP pricing, if they r in to much of a rush to buy it at any cost then that's on them. I am sure this will not be a favorable post, but that is my 2 cents.

You are entitled to your opinion as anyone else. My main reason for being upset at a company doing this, is we can’t get this product without them. What’s to stop them from keeping the prices where they are? It’s no different than the guy who sold the pills at outrageous prices a couple years back. In my eyes there is no difference.

 

[MnFish1]

There is a rumor which is bothering me and would like to know the truth if possible. Are you selling a trident to highest bidder?

To whom are you referring? what is the rumor and who is 'you'?

 

[Demonic]

To whom are you referring? what is the rumor and who is 'you'?

TSA

 

[Demonic]

I understand how this may look, but lets be fair. MAP pricing only sets the minimum price, it doesn't set the max. If someone wants to pay X amount of dollars for an item then its their right to spend their money. I have no problems or ill feelings towards any of you all, but what @TopShelfAquatics did isn't wrong. It is their right as a business trying to make money in a field that really isn't that profitable to do what they want. People can always wait for more to come into production and buy it at MAP pricing, if they r in to much of a rush to buy it at any cost then that's on them. I am sure this will not be a favorable post, but that is my 2 cents.

Also would have you been upset if BRS had upped their price to 1500?

 

[MnFish1]

You are entitled to your opinion as anyone else. My main reason for being upset at a company doing this, is we can’t get this product without them. What’s to stop them from keeping the prices where they are? It’s no different than the guy who sold the pills at outrageous prices a couple years back. In my eyes there is no difference.

Wait - am I misunderstanding - did the not do a raffle of sorts for the unit they had and sold it to the 'winner' for 20$? Are you serious with this - what exactly is 'wrong'. For Gods sake - for you and some others - the world (believe it or not) for whatever (conspiracy theory or not) you want to believe - will not end if you dont get a trident today tomorrow or 3 months from now - MY god - if this the only thing you have to concen yourselves with I'm happy for you

 

[MnFish1]

You are entitled to your opinion as anyone else. My main reason for being upset at a company doing this, is we can’t get this product without them. What’s to stop them from keeping the prices where they are? It’s no different than the guy who sold the pills at outrageous prices a couple years back. In my eyes there is no difference.

What keeps them from keeping the prices at xxxxxx + 599 - is that eventually supply will catch up with demand. Patience is a virtue - why would you want to be one of the first people to buy this product - wait a couple months - to me thats common sense.

 

[Demonic]

Wait - am I misunderstanding - did the not do a raffle of sorts for the unit they had and sold it to the 'winner' for 20$? Are you serious with this - what exactly is 'wrong'. For Gods sake - for you and some others - the world (believe it or not) for whatever (conspiracy theory or not) you want to believe - will not end if you dont get a trident today tomorrow or 3 months from now - MY god - if this the only thing you have to concen yourselves with I'm happy for you

Are you trying to tell me my opinion about this matter doesn’t matter because you don’t agree with it?

I won’t argue here, no point in it. For what it’s worth I didn’t try to get one yet other than make a call to a LFS. If you read the post I have made it wasn’t about that, it was the way about doing business.

 

[Billldg]

Again, I have NO ill feeling towards any of you all. Like you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. The whole point is that some people will sell a JF Homewrecker for a 1000 dollars for a stub of a frag while others will sell a monster frag for 250 dollars, now who is wrong. The answer would be no one, if someone is willing to pay high dollars for something then it is worth that much in that person's eyes. I will buy a Trident, but I can wait for production of the units to stabilize. I understand your frustration, but I still don't think what TSA did was wrong.

And please, everyone, their has already been way to much mud slinging and name calling over the Trident already, let's always discuss these situations with a clear and level head.

 

[Silver14SS]

Wait - am I misunderstanding - did the not do a raffle of sorts for the unit they had and sold it to the 'winner' for 20$? Are you serious with this - what exactly is 'wrong'. For Gods sake - for you and some others - the world (believe it or not) for whatever (conspiracy theory or not) you want to believe - will not end if you dont get a trident today tomorrow or 3 months from now - MY god - if this the only thing you have to concen yourselves with I'm happy for you

While the winner would have paid $20 for the winning raffle ticket, I think OPs issue is TSA selling tickets in a quantity that greatly exceeded the Trident price.

 

[MnFish1]

Are you trying to tell me my opinion about this matter doesn’t matter because you don’t agree with it?

I won’t argue here, no point in it. For what it’s worth I didn’t try to get one yet other than make a call to a LFS. If you read the post I have made it wasn’t about that, it was the way about doing business.

NO - of course your opinion matters. I was only suggesting that your OP was a bit unclear - and its not like they were selling a trident for 4000$ - I just dont see the immorality that you do. They had (1?) unit - and they raffled it off - would you rather that they had a wrestling match for it in front of their storefront? I mean - you're acting like they committed some kind of crime - where it was merely a marketing thing (in all likelihood) - who cares - and who wants one today? But - no your opinion is definitely as valid as mine - and I isn no way was trying to criticize that opinion. I'm not sure how you got that idea.

 

[Silver14SS]

I don't know how many tickets they sold, maybe they really did make $4k

And yes, a wrestling match or other feats of strength should have been the solution!

Edit, saw on page 1 there were 50 tickets.

 

[MnFish1]

While the winner would have paid $20 for the winning raffle ticket, I think OPs issue is TSA selling tickets in a quantity that greatly exceeded the Trident price.

SO what? Why is it an issue? I dont mean this as a criticism - I'm just asking - so what? Lots of companies do this - its not like its immoral - or is it? Do we know for sure that they got more than 25 entries? I certainly didn't hear about it. If they did - thats on the (silly- sorry) people that took the risk on the raffle and threw their money away. Its certainly not on the raffle-maker..... or am I missing something here?

 

[Demonic]

Def not a crime, just not something I wouldn’t expect from a company. Especially one this well known.

Question still stands, would anyone be upset if BRS sold these for the same cost as this one? By all legality jargon, nothing stating they can’t, they choose not too because they are trying to keep their customers happy.

My opinion of course

 

[Silver14SS]

I didn't say it was an issue, just trying to add more clarity to what I believe OP was trying to convey. In other words I was trying to speak for them

I think some people will perceive and remember it as taking advantage of a low stock situation. Not everyone will, but it may lose some potential customers. I'm sure TSA considered that before their promotion.

 

[Billldg]

Def not a crime, just not something I wouldn’t expect from a company. Especially one this well known.

Question still stands, would anyone be upset if BRS sold these for the same cost as this one? By all legality jargon, nothing stating they can’t, they choose not too because they are trying to keep their customers happy.

My opinion of course

That's were the MAP pricing comes into play, Neptune set it at 599 dollars, personally I will only pay 599 for it. If for some reason the price goes above that then me buying it isn't meant to be.

 

[Demonic]

That's were the MAP pricing comes into play, Neptune set it at 599 dollars, personally I will only pay 599 for it. If for some reason the price goes above that then me buying it isn't meant to be.

That’s correct, but that’s the minimum, they can set it higher if they choose to do so. This is what sets the retailers apart.

 

[MnFish1]

I didn't say it was an issue, just trying to add more clarity to what I believe OP was trying to convey. In other words I was trying to speak for them

I think some people will perceive and remember it as taking advantage of a low stock situation. Not everyone will, but it may lose some potential customers. I'm sure TSA considered that before their promotion.

I actually agree what the company said - they had 1 unit - and rather than have one person buy it they raffled it. Good for them... Now - maybe it would have been a better marketing campaign to say - we will donate everything over 599 to 'xx' charity.... Who knows maybe they will. I do see your point @Demonic

 

[Silver14SS]

If the intent was to give 50 people a shot at the Trident, I think a drawing without selling tickets would have accomplished that without ruffling any feathers. Could have let the winner purchase it at whatever without publicly profiting $400.

 

[MnFish1]

If the intent was really to give everyone a shot, I think a drawing without selling tickets would have accomplished that without ruffling any feathers.

meaning that the winner would have just paid the retail price - yeah - agreed. But - hindsight is always 20;20 - and there would be a cost associated with managing that ( how many people do you think would put in requests, etc) - but yeah - its certainly another way that might have seemed more 'equitable' in hindsight?