4 ms·

> Luxottica purchased Sunglass Hut in early 2001. It promptly told Oakley it wanted to pay significantly lower wholesale prices or it would reduce its orders an

> Luxottica purchased Sunglass Hut in early 2001. It promptly told Oakley it wanted to pay significantly lower wholesale prices or it would reduce its orders and push its own brands instead. > Within months, Oakley acknowledged to shareholders that the talks hadn't gone well and that Luxottica was slashing its orders. > The company's stock immediately lost more than a third of its value. https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/luxottica.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/luxottica.html The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona.

brightlancer 6y ago
> The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona. It's on Wikipedia: "Luxottica acquired Oakley in November 2007 for US$2.1 billion. Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica There's even a sub-section on "Monopolistic pricing practices".
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Oops, I based that on the Oakley wikipedia article (which only mentions vague antitrust concerns[1]) and the parent's ignorance about Luxxotica's purchase of Oakley (I assumed he looked at the Wikipedia article). [1] > Luxottica's acquisition of Oakley has been criticized as potential violation of Antitrust laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc.)
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    I did read that section, but it's not immediately clear to me that those two things are causally related. Yes, Luxxotica cut Oakley out of their stores and Oakley stock lost a lot of value. But, Luxxotica bought Oakley 6 years later. Where's the link exactly? Did Oakley's stock continue to decline? Was there shareholder demand to sell? I was in the US Army in the time surrounding the purchase. The amount of Oakley product that was purchased by both the government and individual soldiers should have been enough to keep Oakley afloat all on its own.

brightlancer 6y ago

> The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona. It's on Wikipedia: "Luxottica acquired Oakley in November 2007 for US$2.1 billion. Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica There's even a sub-section on "Monopolistic pricing practices".

AlexandrB 6y ago
Oops, I based that on the Oakley wikipedia article (which only mentions vague antitrust concerns[1]) and the parent's ignorance about Luxxotica's purchase of Oakley (I assumed he looked at the Wikipedia article). [1] > Luxottica's acquisition of Oakley has been criticized as potential violation of Antitrust laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc.)
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  I did read that section, but it's not immediately clear to me that those two things are causally related. Yes, Luxxotica cut Oakley out of their stores and Oakley stock lost a lot of value. But, Luxxotica bought Oakley 6 years later. Where's the link exactly? Did Oakley's stock continue to decline? Was there shareholder demand to sell? I was in the US Army in the time surrounding the purchase. The amount of Oakley product that was purchased by both the government and individual soldiers should have been enough to keep Oakley afloat all on its own.