Mikes Cigars loses Oliva.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Legend

Seangar

Oliva pulled mikes account because he violated his contract.

I haven't read Mike's contract with Olivia .... have you?

You can't reformat the reason to make it sound stupid to try to make your case. Well I guess you can, because you did. But you now what I mean.

Sound stupid? This is about Olivia wanting price fixing and non-competitive selling of their cigars. I disagree with this completely.

Oliva is making a business decision. First you have to say to yourself. Ok they are not morons. They run a multi-million dollar company.

I would absolutely NOT say that. I have not met the Olivias to say one way or the other. However, idiotic business decisions are made all over this country on a daily basis. Can you say "New Coke?".

They must have good reasons to have these clauses in their contracts with sellers. I won't repeat them all here but they are listed in the post. Value of cigar. Local shops etc. Etc.

Some competitor squealed on Mike's and complained that they were undercutting their price. I prefer capitalism and competition in the marketplace, not communistic pricing practices. I won't buy more Olivias as a result of this, but I doubt that will make a dime's difference in their bottom line. I really don't care, it is the principle.

[renton20]

Take this with a grain of salt as I am not a business major and know very little if anything about the legality of price fixing, and or what would qualify as price fixing.

I only have two words to say about this, Rocky Patel. He not only let the competition flourish, he encouraged it. Now most people here I think will agree that his cigars have suffered in quality over the years and many, including myself, will agree that at least on the vintage line he has tweaked his blends for the worse. Now anyone who knows anything about internet sales knows that you can find OWR for about half of MSRP or less online. So tell me, why would you pay anything close to MSRP at a B&M for the same cigar? A few dollars is one thing but I personally would feel like I was throwing my money down the toilet if I did this. Even if I did really have a craving for one, enough so to pay over MSRP including taxes, I would never buy more than one. This seems to have drastically hurt his business long term. I know that personally I only have a few of his blends that I still enjoy and even then I would never pay MSRP for them.

If closing out this account and trying to get retailers to sell close to MSRP will keep oliva producing high quality delicious cigars than I feel like I can't complain too much. On top of that, Oliva cigars are well known and well liked because they are consistently good and very reasonably priced. As far as price fixing goes, they are trying to protect their business model long term. May not be something that I would necessarily do but IMHO they do have the right to do what they please with their company.

p.s. thanks for reading my probably unnecessarily long post

[Texan in Mexico]

I would absolutely NOT say that. I have not met the Olivias to say one way or the other. However, idiotic business decisions are made all over this country on a daily basis. Can you say "New Coke?".

I don't mean to get off topic but a big part of what I do is market research, campaigns and the New Coke idea is generally recognized as one of the greatest marketing coups of all time. Easily one of the Top 10.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Texan in Mexico

I don't mean to get off topic but a big part of what I do is market research, campaigns and the New Coke idea is generally recognized as one of the greatest marketing coups of all time. Easily one of the Top 10.

How so?

[Texan in Mexico]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

How so?

I don't want to divert this thread but basically - there is great debate as to whether this was done as a true shift in ideaology for a market leader or to generate fervor in the market.

Honestly we will probably never know, even Robert Goizurta has given contradictory accounts of the build up to its launch, many feel this was done purposely, and unfortunately he succumbed to lung cancer in 97.

My belief is that it was a weighed risk that perhaps didn't fulfill its potential but did create such a fuss that he we are talking about it on a Cigar Forum more than 20 years later.

It is an incredible case study. There is much more to it and I'd be thrilled to point you in the direction of some support material and you let me know what you think!

Thanks for your reply.

Travis

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Texan in Mexico

I don't want to divert this thread but basically - there is great debate as to whether this was done as a true shift in ideaology for a market leader or to generate fervor in the market.

Honestly we will probably never know, even Robert Goizurta has given contradictory accounts of the build up to its launch, many feel this was done purposely, and unfortunately he succumbed to lung cancer in 97.

My belief is that it was a weighed risk that perhaps didn't fulfill its potential but did create such a fuss that he we are talking about it on a Cigar Forum more than 20 years later.

It is an incredible case study. There is much more to it and I'd be thrilled to point you in the direction of some support material and you let me know what you think!

Thanks for your reply.

Travis

Travis,

Interesting there can be different ways to interpret what happened. I was in my PhD in Food Science in 1985 so was paying attention to this and a few years later have spoken to a student's father who was a VP in coke at that time. Looked to me (based on what I've read and heard) to be a top down decision that was based on flawed interpretation of sensory testing and market dynamics. I don't drink pop so I was largely insulated from what happened in the marketplace once they announced they were changing the formulation, but I do remember fellow students going nuts to buy a lifetime supply of the old stuff. At the time, I was more interested in ensuring a supply of J. Lohr Gamay Beaujolais and Caymus Cabernet.

Shoot me a PM with some info or links if you would. I'd be interested in another viewpoint of what happened.

/Sean

Originally Posted by Texan in Mexico

I don't mean to get off topic but a big part of what I do is market research, campaigns and the New Coke idea is generally recognized as one of the greatest marketing coups of all time. Easily one of the Top 10.

According to Snopes and the folks at Coke and other sources http://www.google.com/search?q=New+C...x=&startPage=1, this was not a marketing ploy.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

one more
Windows Vista: The 'New Coke' of the PC age | csmonitor.com

Originally Posted by nozero

According to Snopes and the folks at Coke and other sources http://www.google.com/search?q=New+C...x=&startPage=1, this was not a marketing ploy.
]

May not have been but the execs at coke spun it to work for them. Which it did.

This was my point. These guys aren't morons. And assuming anyone, let alone guys in charge of a multi-million dollar company, is stupid just because you don't see their reasoning is foolish. And arrogant. I try to remind myself of that whenever I think something is stupid. Well there must be a reason. What is it? What am I not seeing? Etc. I don't know everything yet. :-D

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Legend

May not have been but the execs at coke spun it to work for them. Which it did.

This was my point. These guys aren't morons. And assuming anyone, let alone guys in charge of a multi-million dollar company, is stupid just because you don't see their reasoning is foolish. And arrogant. I try to remind myself of that whenever I think something is stupid. Well there must be a reason. What is it? What am I not seeing? Etc. I don't know everything yet. :-D

I am reminded of a friend who screwed up and missed his flight, thinking he read 220 when it was 1220.

The plane he missed crashed killing all on board.

He still screwed up by missing the flight, but it turned out well for him.

Same thing with coke.

[doctorcue]

So we should all agree to disagree. Aren't we here to smoke?

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

I am reminded of a friend who screwed up and missed his flight, thinking he read 220 when it was 1220.

The plane he missed crashed killing all on board.

He still screwed up by missing the flight, but it turned out well for him.

Same thing with coke.

Yeah they are still morons. Just lucky morons.

Figures.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Legend

Yeah they are still morons. Just lucky morons.

Figures.

Exactly.

I'm glad that you now agree with the Coke VP I spoke with regarding this escapade.

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

I haven't read Mike's contract with Olivia .... have you?



Sound stupid? This is about Olivia wanting price fixing and non-competitive selling of their cigars. I disagree with this completely.



I would absolutely NOT say that. I have not met the Olivias to say one way or the other. However, idiotic business decisions are made all over this country on a daily basis. Can you say "New Coke?".



Some competitor squealed on Mike's and complained that they were undercutting their price. I prefer capitalism and competition in the marketplace, not communistic pricing practices. I won't buy more Olivias as a result of this, but I doubt that will make a dime's difference in their bottom line. I really don't care, it is the principle.

I stand corrected. You are much smarter than the guys at oliva, they are stupid, you have considered every possible business situation. Forgive my Impertinence, I will no longer doubt you.

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

I haven't read Mike's contract with Olivia .... have you?



Sound stupid? This is about Olivia wanting price fixing and non-competitive selling of their cigars. I disagree with this completely.



I would absolutely NOT say that. I have not met the Olivias to say one way or the other. However, idiotic business decisions are made all over this country on a daily basis. Can you say "New Coke?".



Some competitor squealed on Mike's and complained that they were undercutting their price. I prefer capitalism and competition in the marketplace, not communistic pricing practices. I won't buy more Olivias as a result of this, but I doubt that will make a dime's difference in their bottom line. I really don't care, it is the principle.

Originally Posted by Legend

I stand corrected. You are much smarter than the guys at oliva, they are stupid, you have considered every possible business situation. Forgive my Impertinence, I will no longer doubt you.

SeanGar's response is arguing ideas and stating his point of view.
Your reply is personal.

Let's keep the personal insults out of this.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Legend

I stand corrected. You are much smarter than the guys at oliva, they are stupid, you have considered every possible business situation. Forgive my Impertinence, I will no longer doubt you.

Read my blasted post and stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

I have not met the Olivias to say one way or the other.

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

Some competitor squealed on Mike's and complained that they were undercutting their price. I prefer capitalism and competition in the marketplace, not communistic pricing practices. I won't buy more Olivias as a result of this, but I doubt that will make a dime's difference in their bottom line. I really don't care, it is the principle.

Oliva is practicing free market capitalism. Choosing who they sell to and how their product is marketed. Sorry to doubt you again, but check your definitions of communism

[jaymz]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

Some competitor squealed on Mike's and complained that they were undercutting their price. I prefer capitalism and competition in the marketplace, not communistic pricing practices. I won't buy more Olivias as a result of this, but I doubt that will make a dime's difference in their bottom line. I really don't care, it is the principle.

What is good for the consumer and the economy is that companies obey the contractual agreements that they are legally bound by. In a capitalist system, Oliva has the right to sell their products at the price they determine is good for their company. They also have the right to require certain concessions be made by the retailer carrying their wares. The retailer also has the right to not agree to those terms, and refuse to stock Oliva's product. If what the OP said is true, Matt's Cigars got caught violating a legal contract multiple times and got slapped on the wrist for it. This was dishonest business practice and should be discouraged. If a company is willing to defraud a company as large as Oliva, how honest do you believe they will be in their dealings with you as a customer. I as a customer will be thinking twice about purchasing anything from Mike's Cigars in the future.


(FYI - in a communist system, the state would own both the cigar manufacturer *and* the retail outlet, and the employees would receive whatever money the government felt like doling out to them)

Originally Posted by jaymz

What is good for the consumer and the economy is that companies obey the contractual agreements that they are legally bound by. In a capitalist system, Oliva has the right to sell their products at the price they determine is good for their company. They also have the right to require certain concessions be made by the retailer carrying their wares. The retailer also has the right to not agree to those terms, and refuse to stock Oliva's product. If what the OP said is true, Matt's Cigars got caught violating a legal contract multiple times and got slapped on the wrist for it. This was dishonest business practice and should be discouraged. If a company is willing to defraud a company as large as Oliva, how honest do you believe they will be in their dealings with you as a customer. I as a customer will be thinking twice about purchasing anything from Mike's Cigars in the future.


(FYI - in a communist system, the state would own both the cigar manufacturer *and* the retail outlet, and the employees would receive whatever money the government felt like doling out to them)

What I was saying just much better. Well said. People seem to have forgotten what free market is and that our nation was once the place where it happened.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by jaymz

(FYI - in a communist system, the state would own both the cigar manufacturer *and* the retail outlet, and the employees would receive whatever money the government felt like doling out to them)

Prices are fixed in communist and socialist systems. They are not in a free market. Your comment about who owns the store and what employees are paid is irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for a copy of Mike's contract with Olivia.

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

Prices are fixed in communist and socialist systems. They are not in a free market. Your comment about who owns the store and what employees are paid is irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for a copy of Mike's contract with Olivia.

Setting a minimum price for a retailer to sell your goods is not price fixing. Price fixing is when the retailers get together and artificially raise prices on agreement. Msrp is standard in a free market. As is decreasing supply to increase demand. So is flooding the market to devalue something. All of it is free market tactics. You may not agree with them but it doesn't make them communist. You made an emotional comment that was incorrect. No harm or shame in it.