BSc Economics and related programmes
Economics of Competition and Regulation EC 3015
Week 3: Market definition
Overview
• Why we need market definition• Key ideas:– substitutes– constraints on pricing
• Hypothetical monopolist /SSNIP approach• Practical methods and examples
2
Market definition...
is a preliminary stage in the assessment of competition, such as:
the existing state of competition in a market, or the effect of a merger on competition.
Reasons for market definition
3
Reasons for specifying a market definition
• The market is the context in which competition is assessed, e.g.:– Significant lessening of competition (mergers)– Significant market power (ex ante regulation)
• Practical: impossible to consider every possible way of specifying the market
• Choice may be contentious: => must be – clear– based on evidence
Reasons for market definition Key ideas
4
Example: Vue/Ster cinema merger
• OFT referred a merger between 2 cinema chains. Concern about SLCs in:– Romford/Upminster/Thurrock area– Leeds– Edinburgh– Basingstoke
• Questions:– what is the product market?– how to define the geographic market?
Reasons for market definition Key ideas
5
The product market
• Candidates– cinema exhibition of films/movies– films including DVD– the leisure market including restaurants
Reasons for market definition Key ideas
6
Which market definition makes most sense to you for assessing competition?
Cinema exhibition of ma...
Cinema and DVD m
ovies
Leisu
re acti
vities i
ncludi..
Someth
ing else
or don’t.
..
0% 0%0%0%
1. Cinema exhibition of mainstream movies
2. Cinema and DVD movies3. Leisure activities
including dining out4. Something else or don’t
know7
Key ideas
• Substitution:– if two goods are good substitutes they are
effectively in the same market
• Constraining pricing power– if the presence of another product “B” limits the
ability of “A” to raise prices above competitive levels then B is in the same market as A
These ideas are obviously related
Key ideasReasons for market definition
8
Hypothetical monopolist test -a framework for considering market definition.
XY
Z
X = e.g. Cinema exhibition of films(the main activities of the merging firms)
Y= e.g. Films and DVD(A broader selection of activities)
Z= e.g. films + DVD +leisure activities(A broader still selection of activities)
“It is an alternative to ad hoc determination of the relevant market by arguments about product similarity.”Link
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test
9
Hypothetical monopolist test (2)
1. Start with the narrowest definition (X)
2. Could a hypothetical monopolist of X raise price above the competitive level?
Or does the presence of the extra products in Y (DVDs) make this impossible?
X
YZ
If yes, keep this as the definition and stop
If so, new definition is Y. Repeat the procedure with Y and Z
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test
10
Hypothetical monopolist test (3)
What do we mean by “raise price above the competitive level” ?A S mall but S ignificant Non-transitory I ncrease in P rice
X
YZ
Hence, a SSNIP test
Usually 5-10%
CC mergers 5%
Typically around a year
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test
11
Attempt Workshop Activity 3 around now
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test Practical methods
12
Workshop Activity 3 feedback
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test Practical methods
13
Question 1
14
Case Elasticity - definition X
Elasticity - definition Y
Elasticity - definition Z
A -1.8 -1.0 -0.5
B -0.4 -1.5 -5.6
C -7.4 -6.1 -2.0
D -12 -2.1 -0.5
X
Y
Z
What is the relevant market for case A?
15
X Y Z
Contradict
ory/uncle
ar
0% 0%0%0%
1. X2. Y3. Z4. Contradictory/unclear
X
YZ
A X: -1.8 Y: -1.0 Z: -0.5
What is the relevant market for case B?
16
X Y Z
Contradict
ory/uncle
ar
0% 0%0%0%
B X: -0.4 Y: -1.5 Z: -5.6
XY
Z
1. X2. Y3. Z4. Contradictory/unclear
What is the relevant market for case C?
17
X Y Z
Uncle
ar/ co
ntradict
ory
0% 0%0%0%
C X : -7.4 Y: -6.1 Z: -2.0
X
YZ
1. X2. Y3. Z4. Unclear/
contradictory
Case D?
18
X Y Z
contra
dictory/
unclear
0% 0%0%0%
D X: -12 Y: -2.1 Z: -0.5
1. X2. Y3. Z4. contradictory/unclear
What is the nearest to competitive price?
19
1 2 3 4 6 7 >7
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
1. 12. 23. 34. 45. 66. 77. >7
Elasticity?
20
-9. -4.-2.33
-1.5 -1.-.6
7-.4
3-.2
5-.1
1
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. -9.00 2. -4.00 3. -2.33 4. -1.50 5. -1.00 6. -0.67 7. -0.43 8. -0.25 9. -0.11
Monopoly price?
219 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. 92. 83. 74. 65. 56. 47. 38. 2
Elasticity at monopoly price?
22
-9. -4.-2.33
-1.5 -1.-.6
7-.4
3-.2
5-.1
1
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. -9.00 2. -4.00 3. -2.33 4. -1.50 5. -1.00 6. -0.67 7. -0.43 8. -0.25 9. -0.11
Some practical methods
• Price level comparisons• Price correlations• Demand elasticities• Critical loss analysis• Diversion ratio analysis• Price-concentration studies• Transport costs• Journey time analysis (“isochrones”)
Reasons for market definition Key ideas Hypothetical monopolist test Practical methods
23
Price level comparisons
Law of one price:Homogeneous products in same market will
have the same price because of arbitrage.
Large price differentials (if unexplained by quality differences) tend to indicate separate markets
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
24
Practical methods
Price correlations
Similarly, if prices move closely together (for differentiated products)
suggests in same marketIssues:
How closely is “closely?” Can we get a benchmark
Deflate by RPI or CPI first?
Some other cause of correlation?
Use stationarity & other analyses to correct for possible biases?
See conference paper by MnCube et.al .
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
25
Practical methods
Price correlations
Examples mentioned in MnCube et al:1. “Stigler and Sherwin (1985) used correlation analysis to test
whether the cities of Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans are in the same market for wholesale petrol. They correlate monthly fuel prices in the three cities during the period 1980-82 inclusive. Their results indicate that the correlation coefficients are very high: the coefficient between New Orleans and Chicago is 0.792; that between New Orleans and Detroit is 0.967; and that between Chicago and Detroit is 0.77, hence the three cities are in the same market.”
2. Nestlé/Perrier (EU) (1992) 3. Rexam/AN (2001)
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
26
Practical methods
Demand elasticities
• See examples in workshop 3
• Own elasticities: “low” elasticity => we have found relevant market.
• How low is low?• Cross elasticities: High cross elasticitiy
suggests we should add another product/location
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
27
Practical methods
Critical loss analysis• When we do not have econometric
estimates, but have a knowledge ofcosts:
• “Critical Loss Analysis calculates the hypothetical monopolist’s Critical Loss, meaning the magnitude of lost sales that would (just) make it unprofitable for the hypothetical monopolist to impose a SSNIP, and compares it against the so-called Actual Loss of sales that would result from the SSNIP. If the Actual Loss would be less than the Critical Loss, the SSNIP would be profitable, so PNOS would form a relevant market.”
Farrell and Shapiro “Improving Critical loss analysis” linkSee Workshop 3 for an example
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
28
Practical methods
Diversion ratio analysis
Response to question:If you could not buy A , what would you buy
instead? B? C?
It is a hot summer’s day and you fancy a Coke. But the Coke is all gone...
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
29
Practical methods
What will you have instead?
30
Pepsi
Dr Pep
per
Lemonad
e
Other s
oft drink
Hot drin
k Beer
Other
I do not d
rink C
oke
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Pepsi2. Dr Pepper3. Lemonade4. Other soft drink5. Hot drink6. Beer 7. Other8. I do not drink Coke
Diversion ratio analysis
• Does not require actual behaviour (revealed preference) to be observed.
• But Stated Preferences tend to be mistrusted by economists
• In combination with other techniques can provide corroboration (or otherwise)
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
31
Practical methods
Price-concentration studies
• Based on structure-conduct -performanceparadigm
• Do prices depend on concentration in this candidate market?
• If so, suggests it is a relevant market• Example: Staples/Office World• As always, econometric studies are contested!
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
32
Practical methods
Transport costs
Useful for geographic definitionIf transport cost are low between P & Q suggests P & Q are in same geographic
market(can be checked by comparing prices and
price trends)
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
33
Practical methods
Isochrones
Useful for geographic definition:
Used in CC inquiries:Supermarkets, SE airports, Vue/Ster
merger, Stericycle (hospital waste)
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
34
Practical methods
Isochrones
Simplified case:
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
35
Store
max distance travelled by most consumers
Isochrones
Simplified case:
Price level comparisonsPrice correlationsDemand elasticitiesCritical loss analysisDiversion ratio analysisPrice-concentration studiesTransport costsIsochrones
36
Store A
max distance travelled by most consumers
Store B
Overlap area
Are there enough consumers in the overlap area to constrain the pricing of the other store? If so they are in the same market
Summary
• Some basic theory to learn• Understand the SSNIP test• Many practical methods• Widely used because competition agencies
require objective, auditable evidence• Different parties submit competing analyses• Interesting field for an applied economist• More next week, including “Cellophane fallacy”
37