Black Friday/Cyber Monday Deals & Discussion 2013

Some serious price fixing/collusion on the HDTV side

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 29th, 2013 9:40 pm
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 22, 2004
2802 posts
252 upvotes

Some serious price fixing/collusion on the HDTV side

So I'm in the market for a 50" LED, and hoping to get a brand name like LG, Sony, Panny, Hitachi, etc with preferably 120hz.

I can't help but notice, across multiple retailers, the 50" Generic TVs are at $399.

The cheapest for a brand name is $599 - and this ranges from Best Buy, Future Shop, Superstore, Target and more.

Not sure if the vendors are to blame or if it's the stores.

***** these *****s.
19 replies
Member
Dec 8, 2006
342 posts
64 upvotes
Scarborough
Considering the price difference between Canada and the US I'd say manufacturers
Deal Addict
Nov 4, 2004
1503 posts
335 upvotes
Control is in the hands of the manufacturers. It's called Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP) . It prohibits authorized retailers from selling below the Minimum Advertised Price (MAP).

If a retailer violates the MAP it risks losing getting product from the manufacturer. It's a legal form of price fixing.
:arrowu: :arrowu: :arrowd: :arrowd: :arrowl: :arrow: :arrowl: :arrow: B A
Member
Nov 17, 2012
333 posts
88 upvotes
Le Gardeur
We're more used to this UPP in the professional product lines...
Jr. Member
Sep 1, 2006
166 posts
17 upvotes
Newmarket
You get what you pay for. Any TV in that price range is going to have serious compromises on features and image quality.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 22, 2004
2802 posts
252 upvotes
dcorban wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 7:47 am
You get what you pay for. Any TV in that price range is going to have serious compromises on features and image quality.
And wtf exactly does have to do with price fixing?

I know my $500 TV can't compete with a $2500 TV in terms of PQ, performance, etc - the point I was making was regarding the collusion in place by these vendors.
Deal Addict
Sep 15, 2004
3309 posts
142 upvotes
dcorban wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 7:47 am
You get what you pay for. Any TV in that price range is going to have serious compromises on features and image quality.
Simply NOT true. These panels come out of a very few places in the world, the assembly line spec is as close to spec as they can make it, some are graded lower and shipped to 3rd party assembly manufacturers then cheapen the electronics. But if it's brand name, the manufacturers assembly date (on back near the ser #) is all you need to know about quality, newer the better. There's very little downside on buying cheaper electronics (IMHO: less is better) the glass and LCD/LED sandwich is basically the same on a given generation. It's up to you if you want faster refresh, dual tuners, smart gear etc and are willing to pay hundreds if not thousands more for stuff that will be obsolete in 2 yrs.
Jr. Member
Jan 12, 2010
143 posts
35 upvotes
Oh come on... are you talking from theory? Just take a walk down to any electronics store (or your local drug store these days) and check out the wall of TV's. If what you're saying is remotely true, then there'd be very little difference in picture quality, etc, between them. But that's not at all the case. There's a huge difference. The $2500+ (retail) TV's simply have a much better picture than the sub-$1000 (price examples based on ~55").

I really REALLY wanted to buy a $700 TV this year. Because I thought I could. But no, in that range they're just crap. So I saved.
Member
Mar 21, 2008
218 posts
30 upvotes
Winnipeg
ah802 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 8:31 am
Simply NOT true. These panels come out of a very few places in the world, the assembly line spec is as close to spec as they can make it, some are graded lower and shipped to 3rd party assembly manufacturers then cheapen the electronics. But if it's brand name, the manufacturers assembly date (on back near the ser #) is all you need to know about quality, newer the better. There's very little downside on buying cheaper electronics (IMHO: less is better) the glass and LCD/LED sandwich is basically the same on a given generation. It's up to you if you want faster refresh, dual tuners, smart gear etc and are willing to pay hundreds if not thousands more for stuff that will be obsolete in 2 yrs.
While i do agree with you about the panels, you will find that the processors behind these panels should also be considered. You are not going to see the same image processor in an Insignia vs a Sony. I am not talking smart tv software.
Jr. Member
Mar 26, 2012
162 posts
27 upvotes
People still pay 2500$ for 55 inch TVs? Unless the TV gives blowjobs, I dont get it, sorry.

Supersized 4K TVs will legitimately cost a fortune. But you can have a -great- 55' panel for less than 1K if you buy it discounted.

I'm much more interested in is the lower cost segment that this thread was trying to asses in the first place. Ie, whether the cheap no-name TVs are really subpar enough to justify the price gap with the low-end offerings of known brands.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 3, 2006
6935 posts
2305 upvotes
Markham
doctorgonzo wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 12:05 am
Control is in the hands of the manufacturers. It's called Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP) . It prohibits authorized retailers from selling below the Minimum Advertised Price (MAP).

If a retailer violates the MAP it risks losing getting product from the manufacturer. It's a legal form of price fixing.
There's this UPP business in the US as well, but usually the retailers get around it by not showing the price until checkout. I've seen many times on Amazon and Paul's TV, it was the case for my TV I got from Paul's.
Deal Addict
Sep 15, 2004
3309 posts
142 upvotes
Valamyr wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 8:48 am
Supersized 4K TVs will legitimately cost a fortune. But you can have a -great- 55' panel for less than 1K if you buy it discounted.

I'm much more interested in is the lower cost segment that this thread was trying to asses in the first place. Ie, whether the cheap no-name TVs are really subpar enough to justify the price gap with the low-end offerings of known brands.
Check this Amazon deal Seiki Digital SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV Price: $493.99 & FREE Shipping, most of my viewing is HTPC, this stands head & shoulders above present offerings in the low end category.
Member
Aug 25, 2011
479 posts
102 upvotes
SCARBOROUGH
ah802 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 2:07 pm
Check this Amazon deal Seiki Digital SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV Price: $493.99 & FREE Shipping, most of my viewing is HTPC, this stands head & shoulders above present offerings in the low end category.
That's because it's the only TV in the low-end category.

There are very few entrants in the 4k market and Seiki is the only one with two offering below $1000. The next cheapest one is +$3000 AFAIK.
Jr. Member
Jan 12, 2010
143 posts
35 upvotes
Yeah but its the same b/s as when these no-namers got in the refresh game. Why does "240Hz" on a "Seiki" (pronounced "sucky"?) produce gobs of motion blur while a 60Hz older-but-higher-end Sony doesn't? Because there's more to the story than just hz. Similar with 4k. That's just refering to the number of pixels. Put 4 ***** 1080p TV's beside each other and all you have is 4x the ***** .

Ok, I haven't seen that TV so sure, I don't know for certain. And it is only a 39" so maybe its possible (I really doubt it).

I went to the stores in town again today to chase this dream of a sub-$1000 (or hell, even a sub $2000) 55" class TV with a good picture because, well, its another Black Friday, right? Nope... everything "cheap" had a picture worse than my 10 year old Toshiba DLP (granted, that was a $3.5k tv in its day).
Deal Addict
Apr 2, 2007
1568 posts
293 upvotes
s_mack wrote:
Nov 29th, 2013 8:40 am
Oh come on... are you talking from theory? Just take a walk down to any electronics store (or your local drug store these days) and check out the wall of TV's. If what you're saying is remotely true, then there'd be very little difference in picture quality, etc, between them. But that's not at all the case. There's a huge difference. The $2500+ (retail) TV's simply have a much better picture than the sub-$1000 (price examples based on ~55").

I really REALLY wanted to buy a $700 TV this year. Because I thought I could. But no, in that range they're just crap. So I saved.
Sometimes they make the more expensive tvs look better so people buy them.

Top