|
contact details |
Francisco Pinto Balsemão
Chairman, EPC
Chairman and CEO,
Impresa S.G.P.S.
Rua Ribeiro Sanches 65
1200 Lisboa
Portugal
Tel: +351 21 392 9782
Fax: +351 21 392 9788
Angela Mills Wade
Executive Director
c/o Europe Analytica
26 Avenue Livingstone
Bte 3
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +322 231 1299
Press Relations
Heidi Lambert Communications
heidilambert@hlcltd.demon.co.uk
Tel: +44 1245 476 265
|

© 1996 - 2010
European Publishers Council
All rights reserved
|
|
< back to issues: competition policy
Issues
Ad Hoc Alliance against unfair competition in the TV and new services
markets
Relevant markets in the broadcasting sector.
I. Introduction.
The outlining of a specific competition policy for a given sector requires,
as a starting point, a clear understanding of the nature of the business
concerned, and more specifically of the relevant product markets.
As far as the broadcasting sector is concerned, there is a strong feeling
amongst
the private operators, that the competition authorities have not yet acquired
a thorough knowledge of the relevant product markets, especially regarding
the output side.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual approach to this
debate.
II. The dual output of media products.
Like all other media types, television and radio share a unique characteristic;
that they address, with one single product, two different output markets.
a) The first output market of each media product is the consumer
market.
Every media product competes for the time of the consumers by offering
them content that consists of a mixture of information, service and
entertainment. This content is presented either against payment (e.g.
newspaper, magazines, pay-television, cinema,...), or for free (e.g.
free-sheets, free-to-air-television, radio, teletext, internet,...) In
the consumer market each media-type constitutes a relevant product market
of its own, since the degree of substitution between the different
media-types is rather low. Indeed, the specific characteristics of each
media-type determine not only the content provided to the consumer, but
also the way in which he gets access to it (read, listen or look) and
where (home, car, office) and when (morning, evening, all day) he uses it.
b) The second output-market of each media product is the advertising
market,
to which the media sell space so that the advertisers can reach the
consumers of the media product. The advertising market itself is
subdivided into different relevant product markets by function of the
nature of the publicity (display advertising, all sorts of classified ads,
sponsorship, sales promotion, and so on). The advertising market is in
essence the secondary output market of each media product. Indeed
advertisers will only buy space from a medium by function of the
quantitative and qualitative audience reach obtained by that medium in the
primary market. In other words, a market share in the consumer market (the
audience) is the conditio sine qua non for a market share in the
advertising market.
III. Misconceptions of competition policy vs the media-sector.
Those unique characteristics of the media (two output markets for a single
product, which is often available free to the consumer) explain two recurrent
misconceptions about competition policy versus the media-sector in general,
and the broadcasting sector specifically.
a) Firstly, one tends
to ignore that even free mediatypes are primarily focused on the consumer
market since audience is the pre-condition for access to the advertising
market.
As a result the economic activity of the free media-types is
erroneously reduced to the sole advertising market. In the HMG decision
for instance, the Commission states expressis verbis that it is doubtful
that the viewers market is an economic market strictu sensu, as there
doesn’t seem to be a direct commercial relation between the viewers and
the broadcasters. It remains an open question however to which other
market the viewers market is supposed to belong. In the VTM decision
the Commission totally ignores the viewers market by reducing the relevant
market of a broadcaster to the sole advertising market.
Given the fierce
competition between broadcasters to attract viewers or listeners there
is no doubt that this is a real primary market, even if it doesn’t generate
a direct income for the broadcasters. In addition it should be noted
that the viewers market is starting to generate revenues for the broadcasters
now that competition between the distributors of the signal (cable operators vs satellite platforms) is gradually increasing. This evolution also
underlines that the distinction the Commission still makes between free-to-air
television and pay-television as two separate relevant product markets,
is questionable.
b) Secondly, one tends to subdivide the advertising market by
way of the nature of the media types (which is correct for the consumer
market) rather than by function of the nature of the publicity itself.
This is clearly the case for television since the Commission defines its
relevant product market as the "television advertising market".
If the subdivision of the advertising market by function of the vector
would be the right conceptual approach, then there should also be
something like a "newspaper advertising market", whereas in reality it is
clear that newspapers carry different kinds of advertising messages, just
like local radio or television.
It is true that national television carries mainly display advertising,
but this is not sufficient reason to consider the "television advertising"
as a relevant product market on its own. Companies that invest in display
advertising have a vast choice of vectors available, be it media products,
or not (e.g. billboards, direct mail, sales promotion etc.) There exists a
large degree of substitution between those vectors, as witnessed by the
important shift in revenues in those market places where commercial
television or radio was recently introduced. This is certainly the case in
small geographic markets where almost all media types offer a national
reach.
IV. Consequences for competition policy vs public
broadcasters.
The misconceptions about the nature of media markets in general, and
the broadcasting market specifically, leads to a biaised approach when
it comes
to the problem of assessing the unfair competition of public broadcasters:
a) by ignoring the fundamental role of the
consumer market as the primary market,
DG IV considers there is only a problem of unfair competition in so far
public broadcasters enjoy dual funding through their access to the advertising
market;
in the case of unique funding, the Discussion Paper mentions there is
only an <<indirect competition>>, which is not explained.
However the competition on the primary market remains in both cases a
direct form of competition, and leads in any case to distortion in the
relevant input markets (e.g. sport rights, movies & series, formats),
regardless of whether public broadcasters enjoy unique or dual funding.
b) by basing its approach on the funding
of the public broadcasters, DG IV totally ignores the vast area of competitive
distortions caused by Regulations. This is all the more the case since
the member-states act in this respect as both legislator-regulator and
as shareholder-financier of the public broadcasters.
Christophe Convent
Secretary General
VTM
Belgium
On behalf of the Ad Hoc Alliance
December 1998
back
to top
|