Not true..... see below.
This misperception is that "cost" comes in only one form, that being a dollar amount paid by someone for a thing.
In reality, "cost" encompasses many things. The way a manufacturer protects their brand is by raising the soft costs associated with carrying their brand - this does two things:
1. It sets a "virtual floor" below which retailers cannot sell profitably. Therefore, the "cutthroat" game cannot be played.
2. It forces the provision of actual service to customers.
For example, in the instant case (drysuits) the requirement could be to (1) carry some amount of stock, (2) provide a certain number of rental suits in inventory, and (3) have an on-site means of demoing and fitting them (e.g. a pool) at the store. They could also insist that the dealer provide rental suits either at a deep discount or at no cost while warranty work was done.
This would drive up the "cost" of the suits to the dealer, and make cutthroat pricing impossible. It would also actually address the issue, which is the "blind order taker" mentality that pervades this part of the business, because you simply couldn't get a dealership without meeting the requirements.
Now the actual value would be there to match the "perception" that the manufacturer wishes to create.
This would amount to a "price support", but without breaking the law either in spirit or by letter.
That's because most premium brand manufacturers actually insist on some measure of customer service and demand certain things - like display space devoted to the brand, employee training on the brand, a certain level of stocked product, etc - in order to get a deailership.
Instead of insisting on the provision of actual services to the customer, which creates real value, the manufacturers in this case turn to creating the sham of value by restraining price, instead of by insisting that certain parts of the customer experience - and thus the brand's value - are protected.
