R.M Williams Ban Online Retailers from 1st January 2022

BraggingRights on 25/12/2021 - 16:33
Last edited 12/01/2022 - 20:50

Just a reminder that on the 1st of January 2022 all retailers have been instructed not to sell R.M William products online, so if you wish to buy any RMW products I strongly advise to do it before the new year, as I can only imagine that there will no longer be much price competition and therefore, price hikes for RMW products.

Update (01/01/2022): Retailers are banned from selling RMW stock with the following exceptions: David Jones, The Iconic.

Reasoning given to stores: majority of stores were discounting the brand to a level that larger retailers such as David Jones could not compete due to their overhead costs, and therefore had given an unfair advantage so to do right by their largest stockist, they have tightened the rains.

Fashion & Apparel R. M. Williams

Related Stores

R. M. Williams
R. M. Williams

Comments

  • Maglia Nera on 25/12/2021 - 17:29
    +1

    proof?

  • rektrading on 25/12/2021 - 17:48
    +3

    Stand up to price collusion by buying from international shops.

    • Bristhrifty on 27/12/2021 - 07:20
      -1

      Just don't buy these hideous shoes in the first place.

  • apsilon on 25/12/2021 - 18:32
    +18

    Going back to their roots and pretending it's 1932 and the internet doesn't exist. Good luck with that.

  • Savas on 25/12/2021 - 18:57

    Why would they introduce this policy?

    • rektrading on 25/12/2021 - 19:16
      +2

      The brand is owned and operated by boomers that think that they can compete with international brands by going offline.

      Brands that refuses to sell online is ngmi.

    • apsilon on 25/12/2021 - 19:23
      +6

      It's actually a common position for brands positioning themselves as exclusive luxury labels.

    • pharkurnell on 25/12/2021 - 19:38
      +2

      Control pricing.

  • Maglia Nera on 25/12/2021 - 19:03
    +1

    ok thanks seems like they're trying to somewhat prevent specials being plastered on the interwebs

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 25/12/2021 - 19:39
    +5

    Vote with your wallet.

    Even at $400 I can’t justify it let alone a $100 increase on RRP.

    Or maybe this is a rich peoples joke I’m too poor to understand.

    • brandt on 11/01/2022 - 19:10

      The joke is you'll buy Florsheim for $150 every year while the $400 RM Williams will last 10 years

  • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2021 - 19:56
    +1

    I don't think they're worth more than $320

  • AussieDaddy on 25/12/2021 - 20:23
    +5

    I never understood why they cost that much to begin with. And now they decided to go off-line, that will hit them hard financially.

  • Bristhrifty on 26/12/2021 - 07:17
    +1

    If you want to wear ugly work boots get yourself some blundstones. Why anyone wants to pay $400 for these is beyond me - chew some straw if you want to look like a farmer.

    • apsilon on 26/12/2021 - 07:35
      +5

      If you want to wear ugly work boots get yourself some blundstones.

      Better to buy Australian made like Redback, Mongrel or Rossi.

      • TheOtherLeft on 26/12/2021 - 08:26

        As soon as the other Aussie shoe makers start making a similar high end product then RM will be dead

    • tik tok on 26/12/2021 - 09:22
      +1

      Its $600, excuse me.

  • WrittenByKevinWatson on 26/12/2021 - 09:16
    +1

    I think apsilon has the right of it. They're trying to reposition as a luxury brand. But whether it's possible to reposition a brand traditionally popular with rural workers and more recently with politicians, including Tony Abbott and Branaby Joyce, as a luxury brand remains to be seen.

    L Catterton, who owns Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Givenchy, and Moët Hennessy Champagne couldn't in the seven years or so that they owned the RM Williams brand.

  • tik tok on 26/12/2021 - 09:23
    +1

    My understanding is they are allowed to sell what they have in stock - not allowed to bring in new stock. Currently going through a wrong order process with a retailer and was told this as I wanted the issue sorted before 1st of Jan.

    • BraggingRights on 26/12/2021 - 09:47

      I was told different, that all online sales are to be stopped by January 1st as you can notice a lot of these retailers currently have sales on RM to get rid of the stock online.

      Unless the retailers are being misinformed or misunderstood, I just don't understand why they all seem to now be having sales online to move stock.

      In addition, they are allowed to sell in-store so what stops these retailers just ordering new products, continuing to sell online and claiming it was existing stock?

      • apsilon on 26/12/2021 - 11:51

        You can bet the next phase will be dropping many if not all of those retailers as they won't fit the luxury image they're positioning themselves for.

    • jackspratt on 26/12/2021 - 19:22

      I imagine there are legal issues with RMW trying to dictate to re-sellers about how they sell stock they purchased prior to 1 January 2022.

      • BraggingRights on 26/12/2021 - 20:42

        Couldn't imagine retailers not getting an option to send back stock for a refund/credit if they are not happy with the new arrangement to prevent legal action.

  • Soixante on 26/12/2021 - 11:11
    +1

    Do you know if this includes stores like The Iconic etc.? They haven't announced anything and seem to have a lot of stock. No Boxing Day special annoyingly!

    • BraggingRights on 01/01/2022 - 15:13

      I have just shared an update, the answer is yes, The Iconic is one of just two brands allowed to sell online (David Jones, The Iconic).

  • popcornready on 30/12/2021 - 13:20

    Brands are within their right to not offer their products to other third party retailers. Its not against the law.

    • rektrading on 01/01/2022 - 10:10
      +1

      Brands that think they know better than the market.

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/87/83/6687835302fb7a74ec86…

      • popcornready on 03/01/2022 - 18:38

        No idea what blockbuster has to do with RM

        • BraggingRights on 04/01/2022 - 20:03

          Blockbuster had the opportunity to buy Netflix multiple times, but ignored the fact online would be an immediate threat as they didn't see online sales/streaming being successful.

          I think this is where the reference may come from, and that is undervaluing the need for a free market online.

          • popcornready on 05/01/2022 - 11:33
            +1

            @BraggingRights: Still doesn't really make sense.

            RM Williams sells online. If RM Williams strategy was simply to restrict customers to buy 'in store' only, then I would somewhat agree.

            Many brands restrict the retailers that sell their products. I dont see Louis Vuitton selling at Big W, do you?

  • tonyjzx on 10/01/2022 - 18:57

    lol andrew forrest

    i belioeve that they think this is their 'toy' company so they dont care as long as they sell their stuff in a fashion they see fit

    they'll always have signficant financial backing

  • ameno on 25/01/2022 - 12:29

    Twiggy gets involved and the entire company goes to shit.

    No surprise there with the little egomaniac involved.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join