IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itsp17/168487.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition and vertical/agglomeration effects in media mergers: bagging bundle benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Howell, Bronwyn E
  • Potgieter, Petrus H.

Abstract

Existing frameworks (such as used by the New Zealand Commerce Commission in its recent evaluation of the proposed merger between Sky Television and Vodafone) require, as a first step, the definition of the relevant markets affected by the merger or vertical integration activity. Historic precedents in the telecommunications sector have tended towards finding that vertical agglomeration effects when network operators integrate downstream into the provision of applications and services to end-consumers are harmful to competition. Such Structure-Conduct-Performance methods of evaluating mergers and other aspects of market performance are problematic when the firm(s) concerned supply many different products, both together in various different bundle forms and separately as individual components. Defining the markets for (merger) analysis on the basis of only one of the components in a possible bundle that the (merged) firm may supply risks overlooking the complex interactions that occur on the demand side when consumers make their purchase decisions. This is especially likely to be an issue in the supply of internet applications and content bundled with broadband internet access. Consumers have heterogeneous preferences for different applications and content (hereafter ‘content’), and will purchase (or access) many different content types. Even though ownership of rights to distribute one content may confer a degree of market power in for the owner-provider over those consumers with very strong preferences for this content over all others, it is not axiomatic that the firm will be able to exert this power over consumers whose preferences are more evenly distributed. The more variety there is in the content bundles available, and the more heterogeneous are consumers’ preferences across the various content types, the greater is the number of possible markets in which interaction is likely to occur and the more problematic it becomes to identify the relevant markets for analysis of mergers and antitrust cases. We propose that classic merger and antitrust analysis based on econometric cost-benefit analysis can be augmented by using simulation and numerical analysis of a range of bundle offers expected to be relevant in decision-making. We develop a simple model and use it to demonstrate how this approach could have informed the recent New Zealand Commerce Commission decision about the proposed Sky-Vodafone merger by offering some quantitative estimates of total and consumer welfare and provider profits under the proposed factual (with bundling) and counterfactual (individual component sales) cases. The approach may also inform other analyses, such as the assessment of the effects of two-sided markets and firm pricing decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Howell, Bronwyn E & Potgieter, Petrus H., 2017. "Competition and vertical/agglomeration effects in media mergers: bagging bundle benefits," 14th ITS Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Kyoto 2017: Mapping ICT into Transformation for the Next Information Society 168487, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itsp17:168487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/168487/1/Howell-Potgieter.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chenghuan Sean Chu & Phillip Leslie & Alan Sorensen, 2011. "Bundle-Size Pricing as an Approximation to Mixed Bundling," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 263-303, February.
    2. Schmalensee, Richard, 1982. "Commodity Bundling by Single-Product Monopolies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 67-71, April.
    3. Franco Papandrea & Natalie Stoeckl & Anne Daly, 2003. "Bundling in the Australian Telecommunications Industry," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 36(1), pages 41-54, March.
    4. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    5. Jeffrey Prince & Shane Greenstein, 2014. "Does Service Bundling Reduce Churn?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 839-875, December.
    6. Yannis Bakos & Erik Brynjolfsson, 1999. "Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1613-1630, December.
    7. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2013. "Profitability Of Product Bundling," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 35-57, February.
    8. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    9. Dave HEATLEY & Bronwyn HOWELL, 2009. "The Brand is the Bundle Strategies for the Mobile Ecosystem," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(75), pages 79-102, 3rd quart.
    10. Adilov Nodir & Alexander Peter & Cunningham Brendan M., 2012. "Smaller Pie, Larger Slice: How Bargaining Power Affects the Decision to Bundle," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, April.
    11. Crawford, Gregory S. & Cullen, Joseph, 2007. "Bundling, product choice, and efficiency: Should cable television networks be offered a la carte?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 379-404, October.
    12. Schmalensee, Richard, 1984. "Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 211-230, January.
    13. Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-685, April.
    14. Carbajo, Jose & de Meza, David & Seidmann, Daniel J, 1990. "A Strategic Motivation for Commodity Bundling," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 283-298, March.
    15. Mark Armstrong, 1999. "Price Discrimination by a Many-Product Firm," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 151-168.
    16. Armstrong, Mark, 1996. "Multiproduct Nonlinear Pricing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 51-75, January.
    17. Chen, Yongmin, 1997. "Equilibrium Product Bundling," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(1), pages 85-103, January.
    18. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2009. "The Brand is the Bundle - Strategies for the Mobile Ecosystem," Working Paper Series 4038, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    19. R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan & Michael D. Whinston, 1989. "Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(2), pages 371-383.
    20. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2013. "The Antitrust Analysis of Multi-Sided Platform Businesses," NBER Working Papers 18783, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. William James Adams & Janet L. Yellen, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(3), pages 475-498.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Howell, Bronwyn E. & Potgieter, Petrus H., 2019. "Bagging bundle benefits in broadband and media mergers: Lessons from Sky/Vodafone for antitrust analysis," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 128-139.
    2. Bronwyn E. Howell & Petrus H. Potgieter, 2018. "Bundles of trouble: Can competition law adapt to digital pricing innovation?," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 19(1-2), pages 3-24, March.
    3. Jidong Zhou, 2017. "Competitive Bundling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 145-172, January.
    4. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    5. Mark Armstrong, 2016. "Nonlinear Pricing," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 583-614, October.
    6. Jeffrey Prince & Shane Greenstein, 2014. "Does Service Bundling Reduce Churn?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 839-875, December.
    7. Sang‐Hyun Kim & Jong‐Hee Hahn, 2022. "On the profitability of interfirm bundling in oligopolies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 657-673, August.
    8. Andrea Mantovani, 2013. "The Strategic Effect of Bundling: A New Perspective," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(1), pages 25-43, February.
    9. Takanori Adachi & Takeshi Ebina & Makoto Hanazono, 2017. "Endogenous Product Boundary," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 85(1), pages 13-40, January.
    10. Vaubourg, Anne-Gael, 2006. "Differentiation and discrimination in a duopoly with two bundles," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 753-762, July.
    11. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2010. "Optimal Provision of Multiple Excludable Public Goods," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 1-37, November.
    12. Akifumi Ishihara & Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2013. "Dark Sides of Patent Pools with Compulsory Independent Licensing," CARF F-Series CARF-F-318, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    13. Sheikhzadeh, Mehdi & Elahi, Ehsan, 2013. "Product bundling: Impacts of product heterogeneity and risk considerations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 209-222.
    14. Howell, Bronwyn E. & Potgieter, Petrus H., 2018. "Bundling information goods and access – simulating competition," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190345, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2013. "Profitability Of Product Bundling," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 35-57, February.
    16. Waterman, David & Sherman, Ryland & Wook Ji, Sung, 2013. "The economics of online television: Industry development, aggregation, and “TV Everywhere”," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 725-736.
    17. Peitz, Martin, 2008. "Bundling may blockade entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 41-58, January.
    18. Chen, Yongmin & Li, Jianpei, 2018. "Bundled procurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 116-127.
    19. Stephanie Lee, 2017. "Does Bundling Decrease the Probability of Switching Telecommunications Service Providers?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(3), pages 303-322, May.
    20. Chen, Minghua & Rennhoff, Adam D. & Serfes, Konstantinos, 2016. "Bundling, à la carte pricing and vertical bargaining in a two-sided model," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 30-44.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:itsp17:168487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.itsworld.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.