Franco Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Post

Did you know in the case of selling gumballs size really does matter? This is one of the fun tips and ideas I picked up when researching our latest blog post on selling and merchandising gumballs. #nassaucandy #foodbusiness #foodretail #retail #wholesaler #sweets #candy #candyretail #candyshop #candystore #confectionery #gumballs

Does This Name Suck: DSW. Are you addicted to DSW's low prices on shoes? Do you think the name stands for Discount Shoe Warehouse? On our latest #tellthetruths video Rebeca dissects whether the name DSW sucks. Check it out, then let us know what YOU think. #brandtrue #naming #captioned

How do you feel about the name DSW? I think it sucks! Check out my latest #tellthetruths video to hear about why I say that. Then please let us know what YOU think! #brandtrue #naming #brandnaming #captioned

OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE INDEX SYSTEM (OPIS) For large retail sporting good stores it is time consuming and expensive for training sales staff to provide consistent evidence based information for running shoes for the consumer/athletic population. We at OPIS can solve this problem by categorizing your shoe inventory based on their shoe stability index, vertical support, energy return and cushioning. Please view our video on evidence base merchandising for running shoes.

RBB expert provides evidence before the CAT in a dispute over online restrictions of running shoe sales. Deckers, owner of the “Hoka” brand, was defending a claim made by a UK running shoe retailer, Up & Running (U&R), in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).  Until 2021, Deckers supplied U&R with Hoka-branded products at the wholesale level. However it terminated this supply arrangement following a dispute over U&R’s sales of Hoka-branded running shoes via a second website that Deckers’ found to be in breach of its terms and conditions (on the basis that it was not obviously linked to U&R). The claim alleges that, in the context of this dispute, Deckers’ behaviour constitutes an attempt to engage in resale price maintenance and/or restricting the use of the internet. Adrian Majumdar gave expert evidence on market definition, market shares and, in turn, the applicability of the VBER/VABEO market share thresholds. In light of this, a key issue for the CAT is whether the agreement in question amounted to a hardcore restriction by object such that the VBER/VABEO would not apply. RBB’s team included Adrian Majumdar, Iestyn Williams, Lucy Holden and Mankwan Ma. RBB was instructed by Stobbs who acted for Deckers. The trial ended on 25th July 2024. We await the CAT’s judgment with interest. https://lnkd.in/d4T-Ka5k #CompetitionLitigation #CompetitionLaw #MarketDefinition #ResalePriceMaintenance

Tired of the same old boring packaging? Say hello to a revolution in the world of unboxing experiences with our incredible custom tuck boxes! 🎁 #custompackaging #custommailerboxwholesale #designinspo #customboxes #customdesigns #packagingideas #packagingdesign #packagingsolution #packaginginspiration #customboxesavenue #supportsmallbusiness

Tired of the same old boring packaging? Say hello to a revolution in the world of unboxing experiences with our incredible custom tuck boxes! 🎁 #custompackaging #custommailerboxwholesale #designinspo #customboxes #customdesigns #packagingideas #packagingdesign #packagingsolution #packaginginspiration #customboxesavenue #supportsmallbusiness

𝐏𝐟𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 Pfanner, the Austrian manufacturer renowned for its protective clothing and gear, recently found itself in the spotlight due to an investigation of the Federal Cartel Office, Germany’s competition authority. Let’s delve into the details. 🔍 Background: Pfanner entered into agreements with several German retailers, emphasizing adherence to Pfanner’s recommended resale prices. These retailers were prohibited from offering rebates on Pfanner’s recommended resale prices. They could only provide a small complimentary item when customers placed substantial orders. The overarching goal? Safeguarding resale prices from deteriorating. 📅 Duration: This arrangement spanned from 2016 to 2021, during which Pfanner monitored compliance. However, the specifics of how Pfanner ensured adherence remain unknown. 🔍 Investigation and Outcome: Remarkably, the investigation didn’t involve inspections. After a retailer reported the practices to the Federal Cartel Office, it sent a formal information request to Pfanner. Notably, this request was facilitated through collaboration with the Austrian competition authority, given Pfanner’s Austrian headquarters. The Federal Cartel Office did not target the retailers. Instead, it focused on Pfanner, imposing a hefty fine of approximately 800,000 EUR. 🔒 Legal Basis: Resale price maintenance has been strictly prohibited in Germany since the 1970s. The Federal Cartel Office’s decision aligns with its unwavering commitment to enforce this vertical restraint. Any economic defence submitted by parties under investigation have consistently fallen on deaf ears. The Federal Cartel Office treats resale price maintenance as a per se infringement. Unanswered Questions: We’re left curious about the evidence that has led to this substantial fine. How did Pfanner ensure retailers to adhere to its recommended prices? Was it through surveillance, contractual mechanisms, or other means? 💡Takeaway: The Pfanner case underlines the Federal Cartel Office's vigilance on resale price maintenance. To encourage parties to voluntarily disclose vertical agreements, the Federal Cartel Office did not impose fines on the retailers involved. Participating in resale price maintenance thus seems riskier for suppliers than retailers. Keen to know more about this case? Check out the entire article written by ARNECKE SIBETH DABELSTEIN on our website (https://lnkd.in/eNYCJ_cR). #dlc #Germany #RPM #distribution #FederalCartelOffice

Sharing for better reach, socks needed for darning lessons: