Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[Pete Freedman]

In the retail world, brands decide who can and can't sell their product all the time, and one of the considerations IS what competing brands are being sold (both at that location and at any nearby locations). It's not anti-trust for manufacturers (which is what the corps are) to decide who, what, and how their product is sold.

DCI only exists because the corps themselves allow it to exist; they don't exist to support DCI.

Are you saying retail brands are allowed to ask stores to exclude other brands?

I agree the corps can decide where they compete, and can presumably decide partly on the basis of which other corps are competing. But that's very different from asking the show promoter to exclude other corps.

But again, I don't really know. I'm asking.

[Slingerland]

Asking them to exlude other brands? No, not usually. Tell them that they can't have their product to sell because they'd prefer not to be sold next to another manufacturer's competing product? Sure, all the time.

If the retailer feels that selling Brand X will be better for business, then he's within his right to drop Brand Y, if that's what it takes to get the rights to sell X.

In the case of the MiM shows, since it's already established in DCI that corps 'own' TEP shows, the MiM concept isn't a very far stretch of that envelope; rather than one corps owning a show, it's seven, owning a series of shows jointly.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Slingerland

[Pete Freedman]

Asking them to exlude other brands? No, not usually. Tell them that they can't have their product to sell because they'd prefer not to be sold next to another manufacturer's competing product? Sure, all the time.

If the retailer feels that selling Brand X will be better for business, then he's within his right to drop Brand Y, if that's what it takes to get the rights to sell X.

In the case of the MiM shows, since it's already established in DCI that corps 'own' TEP shows, the MiM concept isn't a very far stretch of that envelope; rather than one corps owning a show, it's seven, owning a series of shows jointly.

There's a lot I don't know about how corps are assigned to shows, so I'm not sure about this one. It sounds pretty subtle though; that DCI isn't excluding the lower corps from TOC shows, but rather that DCI is transferring control of the scheduling to the G7, which then excludes the lower corps. That could be a distinction without a difference, as they say, especially if DCI in fact literally owns the show and/or literally schedules the corps. There is no actual sale of the show as an entity, correct?

You may be right about this, but it doesn't sound like something that would prevent the case from going forward, just something that might factor in the final decision. And I wouldn't think the G7 would want the case going forward to begin with.

[Jeff Ream]

Yes, but that's like the store owner being ok with Coke and Pepsi asking them to exclude RC. The question is, does RC mind? RC is the victim, not the store owner.

Similarly, does Jersey Surf mind being excluded from TOC shows? That's where the question comes in. DCI isn't the victim, it's the excluded corps, especially since a stated reason for the exclusion is money, as I understand MiM's motives. The DCI BOD voting for it is part of the collusion against the lower corps.

DCI IS THE CORPS.

[glory]

First, anti-trust typically refers to restraints against fair trade that might harm consumers. That second part (might harm consumers) is important because those laws typically aren't (and shouldn't) be used to promote equal competition. A capitalist system recognizes that some competitors are more able than others. It's not against the law therefore to promote a product that consumers demand just because it might disadvantage a weaker supplier.

That's the case in the Coke/Pepsi example where those firms pay retailers for optimal shelf space. Their deeper pockets explain why it's easier to find Coke and Pepsi than it is to find RC or C&C Cola. It's also true in the case of concert promoters who bring us the same acts over and over while new ones who haven't found a ready market have to wait. And it's true in the case of DCI where the activity has created a venue for its highest grossing product - the seven y'all resent so much.

Which brings me to the second point. I don't think it's true that the seven keep all the TOC money. On the contrary, I think DCI keeps a large share of the proceeds, enough to be decisive in its fiscal health. Or to put it another way, a lot of corps not performing are earning via DCI from TOC.

HH

[perc2100]

I think you're saying there are no separate MiM shows outside of DCI, right? OK. Still, it's the TOC shows that represent the problem.

Not really. It looks like A) there are non MiM corps in the TOC shows so they are not exclusionary, and B) there are other shows/performance opportunities for the other shows.

This isn't much different than DCI excluding Open Class corps from shows. As of this season, and past seasons, DCI & MiM corps are seemingly "playing nice" together and collaborating on what is likely a mutually beneficial venture: kind of the opposite of antitrust violations

[perc2100]

Recently, the Seven have let non-Seven corps compete in TOC shows. I think this is great. But I don't know if it results from pressure to let them in, scheduling holes in the Seven's tour schedule, or the Seven wanting to "Share the Success" with other corps.

I suspect a bit of "all of the above." Talking to some staffers about the TOC shows in the past (when it was 100% MiM groups), I was told that it created logistic problems since they all had to tour in such a way to go to those shows, and it wasn't necessarily ideal (not to mention some expressed discontent that they were ADDING shows to their schedule when they would've preferred rehearsal time instead). This gives the corps a bit of flexibility schedule-wise, as well as creating a little bit of goodwill to the rest of DCI by including them in the shows.

[perc2100]

In the retail world, brands decide who can and can't sell their product all the time, and one of the considerations IS what competing brands are being sold (both at that location and at any nearby locations). It's not anti-trust for manufacturers (which is what the corps are) to decide who, what, and how their product is sold.

DCI only exists because the corps themselves allow it to exist; they don't exist to support DCI.

In the music world, it is very common for manufacturers to have exclusive "territories," so to speak. For example, if there are two music stores in a neighborhood it would be common for one store to sell Yamaha instruments while the other store can not; conversely the other store can sell Mapex while the other one cannot.

[perc2100]

First, anti-trust typically refers to restraints against fair trade that might harm consumers. That second part (might harm consumers) is important because those laws typically aren't (and shouldn't) be used to promote equal competition. A capitalist system recognizes that some competitors are more able than others. It's not against the law therefore to promote a product that consumers demand just because it might disadvantage a weaker supplier.

That's the case in the Coke/Pepsi example where those firms pay retailers for optimal shelf space. Their deeper pockets explain why it's easier to find Coke and Pepsi than it is to find RC or C&C Cola. It's also true in the case of concert promoters who bring us the same acts over and over while new ones who haven't found a ready market have to wait. And it's true in the case of DCI where the activity has created a venue for its highest grossing product - the seven y'all resent so much.

Which brings me to the second point. I don't think it's true that the seven keep all the TOC money. On the contrary, I think DCI keeps a large share of the proceeds, enough to be decisive in its fiscal health. Or to put it another way, a lot of corps not performing are earning via DCI from TOC.

HH

This nails it: a better understanding/description of anti-trust laws than has been stated so far. It's all about the good of the consumer, and in this case I would think DCI has no problems as far as anti-trust

[garfield]

I suspect a bit of "all of the above." Talking to some staffers about the TOC shows in the past (when it was 100% MiM groups), I was told that it created logistic problems since they all had to tour in such a way to go to those shows, and it wasn't necessarily ideal (not to mention some expressed discontent that they were ADDING shows to their schedule when they would've preferred rehearsal time instead). This gives the corps a bit of flexibility schedule-wise, as well as creating a little bit of goodwill to the rest of DCI by including them in the shows.

This seems to expose, if true, that the Seven consider the competition to be more important that the increased gate at TOC shows. Unless your suggestion is that they wanted the practice time to present a better TOC show, it's likely that taking away time from practice jeopardizes the finals placement position of those who were grumbling.

That might hint that, even with the TOC "New" format, the payoff from playing, and placing well, in DCI's sandbox is a bigger payday than the TOC gate.

Purely supposition on my part. As I mentioned, I know of no one who has disseminated the TOC revenue and profit separate from other DCI show revenue.