{"id":4204,"date":"2005-11-09T13:33:19","date_gmt":"2005-11-09T17:33:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/11\/09\/competitive-efficient-consume"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:25","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:25","slug":"competitive-efficient-consumer-driven","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/11\/09\/competitive-efficient-consumer-driven\/","title":{"rendered":"competitive, efficient, consumer-driven"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The Washington Post<\/EM>‘s Steven Pearlstein has an interesting column, today,<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
on the changes that technology has forced on the entertainment business, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
by giving consumers more choices and control over what they see and when <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
they see it.  <\/FONT><\/SPAN>“Prime Time Gets Redefined<\/A>,” (Nov. 9, 2005)  The industry has <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
told us for decades that it prospered only when it gave consumers what <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
they wanted.  But, Pearlstein argues <\/FONT><\/SPAN>that video-on-demand has shown us <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“what a big lie it was.”  He notes:<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Thanks to TiVo and other Internet-based technologies, people <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
not only can watch what they want when they want to watch it, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
but they can also do so without having to watch commercials. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Suddenly, the whole concept of a prime-time lineup has been <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
tossed out the window, along with an economic model that’s <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
been around since Geritol decided to sponsor the Ted Mack <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
amateur hour.”<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                    \"movie<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The column tells how the economics of the industry will change. “Much less <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
of what we think of as television will be paid for by advertisers, and more by <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
viewers.”  Networks will lose market share and power.  Hollywood <\/FONT><\/SPAN>studios <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
will become “indifferent about how you choose to get a movie.”  Price will <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
depend on the timing of your selection, the popularity of the movie, and medium<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
chosen.  The <\/FONT><\/SPAN>studios “that do best will be those that make, or buy, a wider<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
 range of well-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN>done movies for a variety of niche audiences reached through <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
targeted marke<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN>ting and distribution channels.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
Pearlstein concludes:  “There are many ways to describe this new entertainment <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
industry. The ones I like are competitive, efficient and consumer-driven.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

mid-argument
the touch of a child’s hair
soft from rain<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

Matt Morden<\/FONT><\/A>  <\/FONT><\/FONT>Morden Haiku<\/FONT><\/A> <\/EM>(Nov. 9, 2005)<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
After spending yesterday among scores of antitrust-minded lawyers and <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
economists (looking at the <\/FONT>real estate brokerage business<\/FONT><\/A>), Pearlstein’s column <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
is another strong wake-up call for me — a reminder that I’ve been ignoring my<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
competition-consumer advocate alter ego<\/EM>  and need to re-connect again here <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
on this weblog.<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
As our <\/FONT>original About page<\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN> stated, when <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT>ethicalEsq<\/EM> was launched here in   “oilcanHFs”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
May 2003, <\/FONT>the <\/FONT>dozen years that I spent immersed in antitrust law and competition <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
policy at the Federal Trade Commission left me with two beliefs:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny First, professional organizations, and the ethical codes they write <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and <\/FONT>purport to enforce, often needlessly stifle competition under the guise of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
protecting clients. And, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny Second, as with any other product or services, the consumers of law-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
related <\/FONT>services are best served when there is healthy competition among <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
providers, <\/FONT>a broad array of options and prices, and sufficient information to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
permit intelligent <\/FONT>choices. There needs to be a very good reason for depriving <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
law clients the <\/FONT>benefits of competition, and increasing the wealth of lawyers <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
doesn’t quite make <\/FONT>the grade.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Furthermore, the next decade practicing “main street law” left me with the “lasting <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
impression that the average consumer of legal services is often both shortchanged <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
and <\/FONT><\/SPAN>overbilled — with too little respect, information and choice offered by the legal <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
profession, <\/FONT><\/SPAN>and<\/I> too little protection from those running the disciplinary systems that <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
oversee lawyers.”<\/FONT><\/SPAN>[For more on my attitude toward antitrust law and competition policy <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
as tools for consumer <\/FONT><\/SPAN>sovereignty <\/FONT><\/SPAN>and consumer protection, see our prior posts: <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“<\/FONT>Happy Birthday Sherman Act<\/FONT><\/A>,” <\/FONT><\/SPAN>and “The Link<\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN> <\/FONT><\/SPAN>Between Antitrust, Monopolization and <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Our Microsoft Security Woes.”]<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

mid-argument–
a bumblebee
stumbles in clover <\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

<\/FONT><\/P>   Matt Morden<\/FONT><\/A> – <\/FONT>The Heron’s Nest<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> (Oct. 2001)<\/FONT>
\n

<\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
“oilcanHNs”  In 2003, I declared that July 2, the “birthday” of the Sherman Act (1890) can be seen <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
as Consumer Independence Day<\/EM> — offering American consumers freedom from monop-<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
olist and cartel activities that would raise prices and limit choices, even those done from <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
a sense of paternalism or noblesse oblige.  <\/I>Like all rights, of course, they need to be <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
vigorously guarded and asserted in order to survive and serve their purpose. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
From now on, the f\/k\/a<\/EM> gang, is going to do more guarding and asserting of the consumer’s <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
right to competition, <\/FONT><\/SPAN>technological innovation and efficiency, and the information needed to <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
make informed choices — the right, that is, to a consumer-driven marketplace.  Lawyers <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
and members of other professions and pseudo-professions, who couch their restrictions <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
on competition in terms of consumer protection will receive special attention, of course.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
at the height <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the argument   the old couple<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pour each other tea<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
George Swede<\/FONT><\/A> –<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>Almost<\/EM> Unseen<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN> (Brooks Books, 2000) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
mid-argument<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
the senior partner<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
has a senior minute<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n
mid-argument –<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
opposing counsel crosses <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
her legs<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
   dagosan<\/FONT><\/A> [Nov. 9, 2005]<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                              from D.C.<\/EM><\/FONT> \"subwayG\"<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
                                          <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post‘s Steven Pearlstein has an interesting column, today, on the changes that technology has forced on the entertainment business, by giving consumers more choices and control over what they see and when they see it.  “Prime Time Gets Redefined,” (Nov. 9, 2005)  The industry has told us for decades that it prospered only […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-15O","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4204"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4204\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12929,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4204\/revisions\/12929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}