stocks

Apple
Amazon recent activities

Yahoo

my stocks

I'd like Google (GOOG), Activision Blizzard (ATVI), and Netflix (NFLX).

If any of these aren't appropriate for our purposes, please let me know.

Google, a small web search company that you might've heard of, has recently been pursuing an advertising partnership with Yahoo. They recently bought a Korean blogging company, TNC, and have added "follower" features to their current web-based blogging software. One news columnist says that this kind of community creation put Google "On a Collision Course with MySpace and Facebook." Google is also about to release the much anticipated Android phone.

Activision Blizzard is set to release the second World of Warcraft expansion in November. The company releases Guitar Hero World Tour in late October. Barron's recently predicted that game "Game Sales May Power Up After Slump."

Netflix has recently secured permission to run applications on the Yahoo site. Goldman Sachs Asset Management, an institutional investor, just doubled its stake in the company.

Is Google a monopoly?

It's a question worth considering this week as we examine market structures, and consider where media companies and products fit in the context of the theory of the firm. Jeff Jarvis takes this up in a blog post titled "Google: Monopoly or Marketplace?"

... the issue isn't that Google is a monopoly. It’s that Google has become the marketplace. It where we all go for information. It’s where advertisers go for us.

It’s no different from a newspaper. Even when there were two papers in towns, one of them was the marketplace for homes, cars and jobs. That allowed the paper to set rates as high as the market could bear, which was very high. Google would say the difference is that it doesn’t set rates, the market does in auctions for keywords. Except in this case, by punishing Sourcetool, Google did set the rate. And it has the power to do that.

craigslist is also no different, except that Craig Newmark set most rates at zero. He’s the marketplace now and now that he has us by the neck, he could raise rates — as eBay did once it dominated the marketplace it created (though that invited competition from Amazon, Etsy, et al).

In his Guardian column on the subject, Jarvis writes:

But the problem with going after Google is that - unlike typical monopolies - it didn't steal its booty like a pirate in the night. It didn't win by being closed and proprietary. Google won by being open and distributed - which is not the image of the monopolist. The rest of the marketing universe, from media companies to advertising agencies, handed Google its dominance on a silver platter.

In other words, Google has become a monopoly of sorts, and remains that way, because consumers and advertisers have made it that way (e.g., newspaper companies spend big money and time optimizing headlines and keywords to win the SEO wars). ... Just something for us to chew on during class.

concentration of online news industry

HMF is making me really really dizzy, so I decided to start with Picard's piece then a little on HMF…

If we wish to measure market concentration or measure the degree of market competitions, both according to HMF and Picard, what we need to do first is to define our industry (market) and identify firms that comprise the industry. For a news Web site, name it MSNBC or nytimes.com, what is the industry and which companies comprise the industry? Can they answer this question or can we answer this question (I cannot……)?

Picard argued there is seldom direct competition among media, such as newspaper versus newspaper, but different media compete with each other for audience time and expenditure (p. 139). Competition among and between media can be understood as: intermedia competition and intramedia competition. These two take place simultaneously, and I guess this is one of the reasons why we find so hard to define the industry of online news.

To define online news industry, we can first start with U.S. based English news Web sites. Then second, in terms of intramedia competition, we include all U.S. traditional news media (TV, print, radio, etc). Third, in terms of intrmedia competition, we include all U.S. based new Web sites, which are countless. Fourth, we cannot ignore portal sites (in PEW's 2008 news audience survey, Yahoo was name the most frequently visited news site, p.22). And fifth, if the competition is for news users' time, how should we account for multitasking?

Here are the top eight most frequently visited news Web sites from Pew's news audience survey
Yahoo—28%
MSN/Microsoft—19%
CNN—17%
Google—11%
MSNBC/NBC—10%
AOL—8%
Fox—7%
NYT—4%
Local news Web site—4%
(other Web sites are 2% or lower)

But if we look at online news only at this point and ignore the traditional media (TV, print, radio) just for a second, using Pew's data, we can roughly see how concentrated online news industry is (even though it is survey data instead of industry data). Adding up the percentage of the second table on p.22 of Pew's report, it is added up to 122% because multiple responses by a user were accepted. Adding up the percentages of the first four (from yahoo to MSNBC), we have 57%. If we manipulate the numbers proportionately, we have CR4=49.72 (122%: 57% = 100%: 49.72%). Using the same method, CR8 would roughly be 65.57%. We have both CR4 and CR8 for online news to be moderately concentrated. They are higher than the CR4 (42%) and CR8 (48%) of print newspapers Albarran and Dommick have in our HMF text p.147. What does this mean is… this moderate (or almost highly concentrated for CR4) concentrated online news industry is consistent with oligopoly I guess?

iTunes and iPods

As I was reading HMF this weekend, I kept thinking of iTunes and iPods and the market dominance that they've had. At the start of the year, iTunes sold about 80% of legally downloaded music according to Wired magazine. iPods, meanwhile, accounted for about 70% of mp3 players sold by units and 84% when measured in dollar volume according to Fortune magazine. Clearly they have huge market shares which are relatively close to being monopolistic. They blow the concentration ratio measures out of the water.

In section 7.2.1.1 of the HMF reading, we learn that if the sum of the percent market shares of the 4 largest companies are greater than 50% (CR4 >/= 50%) or the sum of the percent market shares of the 8 largest companies are greater than 50% (CR8 >/= 75%), then the market is considered highly concentrated. According to the Wired and Fortune numbers, then, even if iTunes and iPods were divided up between 8 different companies, they would still compose a highly concentrated market. (This is untrue, of course, for the unit sales of iPods, however, the fact that even this number is close to making this statement true in part proves my point.) the Hirschman-Herfindhal Index can't be applied to this case because I don't have the market shares for all competing companies readily available.

There have been some questions, as mentioned in the Wired article, of whether iTunes will lose market share as other services are able to offer more Digital Rights Management free files, songs, music and albums. So far, Apple says that iTunes market share has only gone up since the release of more DRM free songs by other services, but I find it interesting that the New York Times article doesn't include any specifics; Perhaps Apple didn't go into substantive details?

Also, I wonder exactly how these markets would be characterized? Are mp3 players and digital music monopolies or oligarchies? (Or maybe neither?) There is really only one firm to speak much of in each market but in reality there are a relatively large number of not so well known firms as well. Also, there are barriers to entry in that it's hard to break into Apple's market share and well known state. Which is it? (Apologies if the text addressed this question at some point, my eyes started glazing over at the game theory section. I haven't had good experiences with game theory.)