MikeD Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 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. Similar to this...for decades the Hershey (Milton) and M&M Mars (Forrest, Sr.) companies had a "gentleman's agreement" that M&M would not create a plain chocolate bar, a la the Hershey Bar, while Hershey would not create sugar-shell chocolate nibs like M&Ms. Note that when Hershey did create a sugar-shell candy it was filled with peanut butter, Reese's Pieces.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 Similar to this...for decades the Hershey (Milton) and M&M Mars (Forrest, Sr.) companies had a "gentleman's agreement" that M&M would not create a plain chocolate bar, a la the Hershey Bar, while Hershey would not create sugar-shell chocolate nibs like M&Ms. Note that when Hershey did create a sugar-shell candy it was filled with peanut butter, Reese's Pieces.. Sure, but of course in both the chocolate case and the Mapex/Yamaha case the arrangement is for the benefit of both. If on the other hand Mapex can only sell in rural locations leaving Yamaha all the big markets, I'd expect a lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 At this point it might seem petty then, for a lower corps to challenge the TOC now unless there is a movement to expand the number of TOC shows. On the other hand, each TOC show denies several other shows a top corps or two. If there are six TOC shows, then could that add up quick. If I were a director of a smaller corps, I'd at least want to be able to contain the number of TOC shows, and having the antitrust card in my pocket would be a huge help. And of course, if even a single corps believes they lose revenue because of the TOC shows, they could presumably challenge it. Did DCI ever consider having prelims for the TOC shows? Let any corps compete earlier in the day, but only the top seven go on to the TOC final. They'd still get to have the same show without excluding anyone. I'm sure antitrust doesn't apply here because all of the voting members agreed to allow Seven-exclusive TOC shows. As I've said all along, the irony is that the smaller corps rely less on DCI largesse than do the Seven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That's what I thought. But this paper talks about the various categories of nonprofit antitrust lawsuits, and they seem to have little to do with consumer choice. The nonprofits are cheated, so they sue. As to your concert promoters example: Again, it's the difference between the promoter choosing the best acts, vs. some acts inducing the promoter to exclude other acts. I'm sure it happens, but it's probably illegal, right? Finally, as to DCI keeping some of the money: If the excluded corps are satisfied that they are not losing revenue/exposure/whatever, then they won't sue. But I doubt Oregon Crusaders are breathing a huge sigh of relief because DCI itself got a cut. Surely that paper isn't relevant in every aspect. Consider this (and I quote): The producer chooses output subject to the constraint that his consumption and costs cannot exceed unearned income, mo, and revenues earned on productive output (1) m + c(y)= mo + p(y)y. The output choice thereby induces a utility function over output alone (2) v(y)=u(mo + π(y),y). Now you can disagree with me, but I'm just not persuaded. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Now more to the point, the point of anti-trust regulation is impact on the consumer as in how does the merger of non-profit hospitals affect prospective patients in a given geography. The question in the case of drum corps would be: Are drum corps fans harmed by TOC shows. And the answer clearly is "no." It's not about the corps. It's about the people in the stands. And anyone who witnessed the huge audience for TOC in places like Nashville and Charlotte last year would know consumers were very happy. You'd be hard-pressed to make the case otherwise. HH 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 I'm sure antitrust doesn't apply here because all of the voting members agreed to allow Seven-exclusive TOC shows. As I've said all along, the irony is that the smaller corps rely less on DCI largesse than do the Seven. I would agree that DCI voting to create an elite division would presumably be fine. But if that vote only happened because the voters were responding to a perceived threat against them from the seven, then that's hardly a fair vote. At least, that would be the argument used by the corps that did not vote for the TOC but are forced to live with it. But yes, if the vote was truly in support of the TOC as a good idea without any coercion or "compromise", then it would be hard to challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 Now more to the point, the point of anti-trust regulation is impact on the consumer as in how does the merger of non-profit hospitals affect prospective patients in a given geography. The question in the case of drum corps would be: Are drum corps fans harmed by TOC shows. And the answer clearly is "no." It's not about the corps. It's about the people in the stands. And anyone who witnessed the huge audience for TOC in places like Nashville and Charlotte last year would know consumers were very happy. You'd be hard-pressed to make the case otherwise. HH I don't think this is right. If colleges can sue each other for charging tuition that is unfairly low (bottom of page 4 in the paper), then the premise clearly isn't that the students are being hurt. It's that the college itself is being hurt. The phrase "adverse social consequences" is mentioned, but not specifying consumers. Consider the kids in corps that go under due to loss of revenues. The lack of a place for them to march certainly constitutes adverse social consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sure, but of course in both the chocolate case and the Mapex/Yamaha case the arrangement is for the benefit of both. If on the other hand Mapex can only sell in rural locations leaving Yamaha all the big markets, I'd expect a lawsuit. So are you insinuating that there is zero benefit for fans to not go to a TOC show and/or to go to a non-TOC show? IDK: it really feels like you're reaching for something that doesn't exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I don't think this is right. If colleges can sue each other for charging tuition that is unfairly low (bottom of page 4 in the paper), then the premise clearly isn't that the students are being hurt. It's that the college itself is being hurt. The phrase "adverse social consequences" is mentioned, but not specifying consumers. Consider the kids in corps that go under due to loss of revenues. The lack of a place for them to march certainly constitutes adverse social consequences. I can assure you that, for example, Glassmen did not fold due to lack of revenue because of TOC shows. Corps generally fold because they are run poorly. Really appears you're looking for something that isn't there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) I don't think this is right. If colleges can sue each other for charging tuition that is unfairly low (bottom of page 4 in the paper), then the premise clearly isn't that the students are being hurt. It's that the college itself is being hurt. The phrase "adverse social consequences" is mentioned, but not specifying consumers. Consider the kids in corps that go under due to loss of revenues. The lack of a place for them to march certainly constitutes adverse social consequences. I'm sorry. I think you're missing the point. DCI is a cooperative. Its members don't compete against each other in the anti-trust sense. On the contrary, they cooperate to produce revenue for the cooperative in which they share. That's the main reason why there is no case here. HH Edited November 21, 2014 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.