Earlier this month we examined proposed European legislation concerning large suppliers’ possible ability to insist their retailers have bricks and mortar premises that customers can visit.

eBay has been campaigning on this for over a year, with Amazon joining the fray in public recently. eBay has been examining the latest draft: “The direction of the general text is very positive towards online commerce. (But) this brick-and-mortar provision is inconsistent with this,” eBay vice president Tod Cohen told Reuters.”Those who want to engage in price discrimination will have another tool to do it,” he added.

It would be less than honest not to declare an interest – this blog is owned and funded by eBay. But as an independent journalist I have interviewed many small businesses which started as eBay ‘stores’. There was the guy selling tropical fish. The men’s designer clothing outlet. These are reputable, professional businesses, some of which now have retail premises and some of which don’t, but which would not have been able to start if the proposed legislation had been in force at the time. The world economy has enough problems, we don’t need new business stifled at its inception.

This is at the heart of consumer choice. If a customer would rather buy from someone they can visit, fine – that’s completely allowed. If they don’t then they shouldn’t be prevented from doing so by new regulations.

Buying items online in Europe should be straightforward. You search for the product you want, you might well use a price comparison site, you check your favourite sites to see whether it’s available even less expensively and you buy.

This works as long as someone discloses their price.

Which is where recent events in the US are becoming interesting. A number of manufacturers are preventing online retailers from putting prices online in that territory.

The reason behind it is that following a key ruling in an American court, manufacturers now have greater freedom to forbid companies from advertising their goods below a certain price, so you find out the cost at checkout. In Europe, the rules on retail price maintenance are stricter, but this has not stopped some brands from trying to water them down.

It’s all part of an attempt to control retail prices. Premium goods manufacturers want their goods to retain premium prices and they perceive anything else as a race to the bottom.

But forcing others to conceal prices or dictating minimum prices doesn’t answer this. Make the items desirable enough so that people will want to buy them and you’ll satisfy the customer, the retailer’s profit increases and everybody’s happy. A hidden or enforced RRP is little more than a fig leaf.

One of the Web’s greatest strengths as a trading medium is its complete transparency. I want to buy a book, I check all the sites and I choose the best offer, following my own preferences on price and the site’s service levels. Yes, this might put pressure on prices (unless it’s a rare collector’s item in which case multiple buyers might drive it up), but that’s how a competitive, open market works

I can only hope that transparency will be restored. Everywhere.

The European Commission is considering allowing brands to force companies selling items online to have bricks and mortar shops for customers to visit as well. This comes under guidelines called the Vertical Restraints Regulations (VRR) and comes under competition law.
Frankly this is nothing less than an assault on the customer’s right to choose. Found a better price for something from a seller on eBay?  If it doesn’t have actual premises, it might not be able to sell certain brands in future. Got a bargain on Amazon? Tough – it doesn’t have a shop you can visit so it could be banned from selling you this product.
It really is that simple. Europe is considering limiting choices to places customers can visit. This is more than slightly patronising. People are generally intelligent enough to decide when they want to buy on the Web and when they don’t.
According to an article by Amazon in today’s Wall Street Journal the people in favour of the new rules believe the more traditional businesses make more investment. They train their staff, they put the hours in, they pay their rents and it’s not fair that the pure-play e-tailers get the business as a result.
This is a specious argument. First, shoppers frequently compare prices online and check reviews for the best product only to then buy offline, but no one calls that free-riding. Second, the e-tailers bring a lot of their own skills to the market: logistics, web design skills, none of these should be written off. The investments in technology, structures and customer service are a different, but equally legitimate business model by all means but that’s all.
And until now, customers have been treated as intelligent people who can assess what they want to buy and whether they want to buy it online. This is now under threat and I’d urge everyone to write to the European Commission’s Competition section (see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/index_en.html) and their MEP (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch.do?language=EN) to try and kill off this requirement to have a bricks and mortar store as soon as possible. They must fight to stand up for the consumer’s right to make an informed choice about when and how to buy.
(Declaration of interest: this blog is owned and paid for by eBay, but the views expressed are those of the author).

The European Commission is considering forcing companies selling items online to have bricks and mortar shops for customers to visit as well. This comes under guidelines called the Vertical Restraints Regulations (VRR) and comes under competition law.
Frankly this is nothing less than an assault on the customer’s right to choose. Found a better price for something on eBay? Hard luck, it doesn’t have actual premises so it can no longer operate. Got a bargain on Amazon? Tough – it doesn’t have a shop you can visit so it could be ruled unlawful.
It really is that simple. Europe is considering limiting choices to places customers can visit. This is more than slightly patronising. People are generally intelligent enough to decide when they want to buy on the Web and when they don’t.
According to an article by Amazon in today’s Wall Street Journal the people in favour of the new rules believe the more traditional businesses make more investment. They train their staff, they put the hours in, they pay their rents and it’s not fair that the pure-play e-tailers get the business as a result.
This is a specious argument. First, unless a supermarket (for example) actually invented bread, it’s already riding on someone else’s efforts. That’s entirely fair in business. Second, the e-tailers bring a lot of their own skills to the market: logistics, web design skills, none of these should be written off. The investments in technology, customer service and the consequent lower prices are a different business model by all means but that’s all.
And until now, customers have been treated as intelligent people who can assess what they want to buy and whether they want to buy it online. This is now under threat and I’d urge everyone to write to their MEP and kill off this legislation as soon as possible. The National Competition Authorities are meeting about VRR today and need to stand up for the consumer’s right to make an informed choice about when and how to buy – if this legislation wins through it’s a hell of a blow.
(Declaration of interest: this blog is owned and paid for by eBay).

On Sunday 31 January a number of pubs in the UK showed a football match, Arsenal v. Manchester United. Nothing special about that– but the regulars were handed glasses and watched the whole thing in 3D.

Sky TV will follow this by launching its 3D channel in April so everyone can have a look. Everyone with a new 3D television, that is.

This is where the consumer is going to have to watch out. Last time we had the introduction of a new technology in television, high definition, it was chaos. We had Full HD, True HD and HD-Ready, all of which had different screen resolutions. The industry did a pretty bad job of explaining it all and sales – particularly for the online retailer, who by definition couldn’t demonstrate his or her technology in front of the customer – were slow to take off.

Now 3D has started emerging into the public domain, with the UK leading the way in Europe. We need to ask a few things of the TV manufacturers and broadcasters before buying:

·      You’re asking us to buy new TVs quite soon after we’ve all bought flat screens. Recession aside, are you going to start doing this every three years?

·      A number of sources suggest that the Internet is going to converge with TV, and some TVs already have bits of Internet on them. Is this going to involve yet more technology change – and will another new generation of TVs follow as a result?

·      Four manufacturers have confirmed 3D models so far, Sony, Samsung, LG and Panasonic. Will they all be adhering to the same standard or are we in for another Betamax v. VHS punch-up?

I’ve seen demonstrations and can confirm they’re pretty impressive.  The programmes, the technology, will be very enjoyable. But based on the TV industry’s history of getting new technology going, I have my reservations about how quickly it’ll catch on.