I hardly need to say that the title is no reflection on England’s World Cup performance - or lack thereof. Instead, it relates to the opportunity for more people to watch the Premier League, which I’m sure most of you’ll agree is good news!

In 2007, BT, Virgin, Top up TV and Setanta complained about Sky’s dominance within the pay-TV industry. We considered Sky’s dominance and the subsequent investigation by Ofcom in a posting in March: Is the sky falling in?. Ofcom ruled that Sky would have to reduce the price it charged to other broadcasters to show its premium sports channels.

In more recent developments, there has now been a deal signed between Sky and BT, which will allow BT Vision customers to view Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 from August 1st 2010 (just in time for the start of the new football season, for those that are interested!) There are still ongoing debates about how much BT will charge for these new channels and it will depend largely on the outcome of the Sky’s appeal against Ofcom’s decision about the prices Sky has set. Although this may be good news to BT Vision viewers (excluding the fact that the deal does not include Sky Sports 3 and 4), there are many who agree on just one point: the regulator got it wrong. The Premier League could lose millions due to a loss of exclusivity and BSkyB argues that Ofcom didn’t even have the right to make the ruling.

These mini disputes are likely to go on for some time, but at least we can be certain about one thing: Ofcom’s decision can’t be any worse than Capello’s decisions in South Africa! Bring on the Premier League!!

Articles
Sky Sports 1 and 2 available to BT vision customers BBC News (28/6/10)
BT to offer Sky Sports in time for soccer season Reuters (28/6/10)
BT signs BSkyB deal to show Sky Sports channels BusinessWeek, Simon Thiel (28/6/10)
Sky forced to cut price of sports channels Telegraph (31/3/10)
New ruling lets fans see Premier League on TV for just £15 a month London Evening Standard, Jonathan Prynn (31/3/10)
Virgin media cuts Sky Channels prices Digital Spy, Andrew Laughlin (11/6/10)
BSkyB, BT and FAPL join Ofcom appeal Broadband TV News (11/6/10)
Sky wrongfoots rival BT by raising prices Guardian, Richard Wray (30/6/10)
BT charges £16.99 for Sports 1 and 2 BBC News (1/7/10)
BT launches cheap package to view Sky Sports Guardian, Lisa Bachelor (1/7/10)
BT Wades Into Pay-TV Sports Market Sky News, Nick Phipps and Emma Rowley (1/7/10)
Sky Sports broadcast costs set to rise BBC News, John Moylan (1/7/10)

Ofcom report
Delivering consumer benefits in Pay TV Ofcom Press Release (31/3/10)

In 2007, BT, Virgin, Top up TV and Setanta complained about Sky’s dominance within the pay-TV industry. Sky, who have an estimated 85% share of the market were investigated by Ofcom and a decision has now been made. Sky will be forced to reduce the price it charges to other Broadcasters for showing premium sport channels. The wholesale price of Sky Sports 1 and 2 (two of my favourite channels!!) will each be reduced by just over 23% to £10.63 a month each. The idea is that this decision will benefit consumers by increasing choice. However, Sky argues that it will be to the ‘detriment of consumers’ as incentives to invest and take risks will be blunted.

Furthermore, there are also concerns that it will mean less money going into sport. Rugby, football, tennis etc benefit from some very lucrative TV rights deals and if Sky is forced to reduce prices (it is appealing the decision), then the value of these deals is likely to decline, which may lead to less investment in grass-routes participation.

Whilst progress has been made within this area, critics argue that Ofcom have not gone far enough and should have extended their decision to more sport channels (not just Sky Sports 1 and 2) and even to the premium movie channels. This would again increase consumer choice and provide more people with access to premium TV. This would work alongside more innovation within the pay-TV industry, which has seen Sky being given permission to offer pay-TV services on freeview, which will open up pay-TV to millions more consumers. Whilst no action has been taken regarding Sky’s dominance of premium movie channels, this issue has been referred to the Competition Commission. Is Sky’s dominance over sporting events about to come to an end?

Articles
BSkyB ordered to cut sports channels rates Reuters, Kate Holton (31/3/10)
Sky forced to cut price of sports channels Telegraph (31/3/10)
Consumers are big winners in BSkyB ruling Financial Times, Ben Fenton and Andrew Parker (31/3/10)
BSkyB should shake hands and move on Financial Times (31/3/10)
Sky told to cut wholesale prices by regulator Ofcom BBC News (31/3/10)
Ofcom v Sky BBC News blogs: Peston’s Picks, Robert Peston (31/3/10)
BSkyB ‘restricting competition’ BBC Today Programme (31/3/10)
Ofcom orders Sky Sports price cut Guardian, Mark Sweney (31/3/10)
Sky ruling: Culture Secretary challenges Tories to back Ofcom Guardian, Mark Sweney (31/3/10)
Sky forced to cut the price for top sports events: Q and A Telegraph, Rupert Neate (31/3/10)
New ruling lets fans see Premier League on TV for just £15 a month London Evening Standard, Jonathan Prynn (31/3/10)
Regulator sets the fuse for shake-up of pay-TV Independent, Nick Clark (31/3/10)

Ofcom report
Delivering consumer benefits in Pay TV Ofcom Press Release (31/3/10)
Pay TV Statement Overview (31/3/10)
Pay TV Statement Summary (pdf file) (31/3/10)
Pay TV Statement Full document (pdf file) (31/3/10)

Whilst the internet and technological developments provide massive opportunities, they also create problems. For some time now, newspapers have seen declining sales, as more and more information becomes available online. Type something into Google or any other search engine and you will typically find thousands of relevant articles, even if the story has only just broken. As revenue from newspaper sales falls, revenue has to be made somewhere else to continue investment in ‘frontline journalism’. The question is: where will this come from?

The Financial Times and News Corp’s Wall Street Journal charge readers for online access and we can expect this to become more common from May, when the Times and the Sunday Times launch their new websites, where users will be charged for access. Subscription to these online news articles will be £1 per day or £2 for weekly access. Whilst the Executives of the Times admit that they will lose many online readers, they hope that the relatively low price, combined with a differentiated product will be enough of an incentive to keep readers reading.

Critics of this strategy argue that this a high risk strategy, as there is so much information available online. Whilst the BBC does plan to curtail the scope of its website, the Times and Sunday Times will still face competition from them, as well as the Guardian, the Independent, Reuters, etc., all of whom currently do not charge for online access. However, if you value journalism, then surely it’s right that a price should be charged to read it. Only time will tell how successful a strategy this is likely to be and whether we can expect other online news sites to follow their example.

Times and Sunday Times websites to charge from June (including video) BBC News (26/3/10)
Murdoch to launch UK web paywall in June Financial Times, Tim Bradshaw (26/3/10)
Times and Sunday Times websites to start charging from June Guardian, Mercedes Bunz (26/3/09)
News Corp to charge for UK Times Online from June Reuters (26/3/10)
Murdoch-owned newspaper charges for content BBC News (14/1/10)

The government has been under a lot of pressure to tackle the culture of binge drinking. Figures for 2006/7 show that the cost to the NHS of binge drinking was £2.7 billion per year. In response, MPs are calling for a change in government policy towards the alcohol industry, arguing that at present the drinks industry has more control over policy than health experts. So what can be done?

In a report published in early January 2010, the House of Commons Health Select Committee proposed a minimum price per unit of alcohol, tighter controls on advertising and mandatory labelling. A minimum price, the Committee argued, would reduce demand by heavy drinkers who are looking for cheap alcohol. At present, many supermarkets have promotions that involve selling cider and beer at below cost, allowing people to ‘pre-load’ cheaply at home before going out drinking. The report suggested that a minimum price of alcohol of 50p per unit would save more than 3000 lives per year and a minimum price of 40p per unit would save 1100 lives.

Dr. Richard Taylor, an independent MP and member of the Commons Health Select Committee, said:

“The evidence we took showed that minimum pricing was the most effective way forward and at the moment you can sometimes buy beer cheaper than water. Our message is that the price would be put up but only by a little for moderate drinkers. Surely that is a sacrifice to pay for the good health of young people.”

However, those opposed to setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol argue that it would be unfair on moderate drinkers, that it wouldn’t work and that it could even be illegal. Instead, they argue that that government intervention needs to be smarter. It should not target everyone, but solely those groups consuming the most alcohol. The British Beer and Pub Association suggests that 10% of the population consumes 44% of all alcohol.

It appears that the government won’t be following Scotland’s minimum price on alcohol, but will instead impose bans on all-you-can-drink deals and introduce compulsory identity checks. However, supermarket deals don’t appear to have been targeted. Successive governments have failed to tackle this problem sufficiently, but with an election approaching, will this be a proposal that is promoted?

Raise alcohol price to save lives, MPs argue Telegraph, Rebecca Smith (8/1/10)
Commons committee backs minimum alcohol pricing BBC News (8/1/10)
Campagain to tackle cut price alchol The Arran Banner (8/1/10)
Wyre Forest MP calls for alcohol minimum pricing The Shuttle (8/1/10)
Should 50p be minimum price for a unit of alcohol? Have your say BBC News (8/1/10)
BBPA: minimum price would be ineffective Morning Advertiser, Ewan Turney (8/1/10)
Cost of binge drinking doubles for the NHS rises to £2.7 billion Mirror, James Lyons (2/1/10)
Bring in 50p minimum price for alcohol, MPs urge Guardian, Toby Helm (3/1/10)
All-you-can-drink pub offers facing ban BBC News (19/1/10)
Too much of the hard stuff: what alcohol costs the NHS THE NHS Confederation, Issue 193 January 2010
Minimum pricing for alcohol essential, says Health Committee Marketing Week, David Burrows (8/1/10)

Minimum alcohol pricing ‘will affect the poor’ BBC News, Kevin Barron and Gavin Partington debate (8/1/10)

Increasing traffic on the roads is observable by everyone and government policy is focused on reducing the demand for road space, rather than increasing its supply. One method has been to improve public transport and make it a viable substitute for car travel. Private costs of motoring have increased, but if there is no viable alternative, people will continue to demand car travel. Investment in buses and trains has improved their quality: they are more frequent, more reliable, arguably more comfortable and supposed to be part of an integrated transport policy. Local bus services provide a crucial link for local communities, but it is these services that are now facing problems.

In your economics lectures, you may have looked at local bus services, when you considered monopolies, oligopolies and possibly contestable markets. Oligopolies, whilst closer to the monopoly end of the market spectrum can be very competitive, but are also open to collusion and anti-competitive practices. The local bus sector has been referred to the Competition Commission by the Office of Fair Trading through complaints of ‘predatory tactics’ by companies. It is argued that local bus services, by limiting competition, are causing prices to rise and the quality of service to fall. One key issue is that those companies established in the market are alleged to be acting aggressively towards smaller bus companies and thus reducing competition in the industry. A low number of bids for supported service contracts in many areas, local bus routes dominated by a few large companies and predatory actions by incumbent firms are all complaints that this industry is facing.

This investigation is especially important, given the amount of public money that goes into the bus industry: £1.2bn. Investigations found that in areas of limited competition, prices were 9p higher. A number of take-overs have contributed to this situation. Two-thirds of bus services are controlled by only five operators. This limits competition in the market and hence is argued to be against public interest. Yet, industry representatives still argue that the market is competitive. Read the following articles and answer the questions about this issue. Was the OFT right to to initiate this investigation?

Local buses to be re-regulated BBC News (27/9/09)
OFT refers UK bus market to Competition Commission Dow Jones Newswires, Kaveri Nihthyananthan (7/1/10)
Office of Fair Trading prompts probe into bus services Guardian (7/1/10)
Trasport groups fear OFT competition probe over buses Telegraph, Alistair Osborne (4/1/10)
Bus industry competition queried BBC News (20/8/09)
OFT refers bus industry on poor service and prices Times Online, Francesca Steele (7/1/10)
Inquiry into local bus market ‘may delay investment’ Scotsman, Hamish Rutherford (5/1/10)

Whether or not you admit it, most people are aware of what’s happening in the X factor. With massive viewing figures, the X Factor remains one the most highly viewed entertainment programmes, so it’s hardly surprising that demand for advertising slots is so high especially when people are waiting for news about the contestants. The X Factor pulls in £8000 per second from TV adverts and it is estimated that the charge for a 30 second advertising slot is a staggering £190,000, expected to rise to £250,000 for the live final. It looks like the recession has had little impact on those wanting to sponsor the X Factor.

Nevertheless, there has been some controversy this week. Every Monday morning we see stories about the contestants and this week was no exception. But, it wasn’t so much about the contestants this week, but rather it concerned the voting. Following the episodes over the weekend of 7th and 8th November 2009, both the ITV and Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, received thousands of complaints as Simon Cowell gave his support to ‘Jedward’ over Lucie Jones, even though in earlier episodes, he had said he would ‘leave the country if they won’.

However, Ofcom has said that the X Factor won’t be investigated, as the regulator only investigates voting irregularities and the treatment of contestants and not the outcome of the programme. Meanwhile, speculation is rife that Simon Cowell either wants to keep Jedward on the show, because of their viewer ratings, or that by voting Lucie off, the public will rebel and vote Jedward off this week and Simon will avoid looking like the bad guy.

Who knew that the world of entertainment could be analysed using economics!!

Ofcom won’t investigate X Factor ITN (11/11/09)
750 complain to Ofcom over Lucie’s X Factor exit Wales Online (12/11/09)
£8k a second bonanza for X Factor ads as ITV chiefs cash in on Jedward mania Mail Online (11/11/09)
Watchdog rules out X Factor probe BBC News (10/11/09)
Thousands complain to ITV and Ofcom over X Factor ATV Network News, Doug Lambert (10/11/09)
X Factor: Simon Cowell is an evil genius and we love him Telegraph, Liz Hunt (11/11/09)
Simon Cowell’s evil genius rules The X Factor Guardian, Marina Hyde (13/11/09)
Resistance is futile in the face of this master of psychology Independent, Matthew Norman (12/11/09)
Jedward: X Factor twins John and Edward help ITV rake in advertising Telegraph (11/11/09)
The X Factor becomes the ‘British Superbowl’ as advertising fees soar Tines Online, Dan Sabbagh (11/11/09)

The Ofcom site can be found at:
Ofcom (Home Page)

The housing market has been very volatile over the past year or so. House prices crashed, but then appeared to stabilise. Since then, however, different sources have given very different opinions and predictions about future movements. According to Nationwide Building Society, house prices have increased by an average of £53 a day during September, but others suggest that they remain stable and that they may fall again in 2010.

Not only are house prices important to those buying and selling, but the state of the housing market is also crucial for the recovery of the economy. For example, the construction industry has suffered over the past year and, as of the 2nd October 2009, unemployment in this sector stood at 17.1%. As more and more workers lose their jobs, their disposable income falls and hence demand in the economy is affected. With the possibility of an election debate between the party leaders, many will be waiting to see what their strategies are to revitalise a struggling economy.

House prices rise an average of £53 a day’ Daily Record, Clinton Manning (3/10/09)
Mortgage approvals dip in August BBC News (29/9/09)
Construction contracts at slowest pace for seven months Construction News, Nick Whitten (5/5/09)
House sales ‘stalled’ in August BBC News (22/9/09)
Housing market needs ‘feel-good’ factor to recover City Wire, Nicholas Paler (26/6/09)
Double whammy for first-timers as prices stabilise and loans dry up Scotsman, Jeff Salway (3/10/09)
Head-to-head view on house prices BBC News, Kevin Peachey (27/8/09)
UK construction industry still contracting, says Cips Guardian, Kathryn Hopkins (2/10/09)
House prices see ‘slight decline’ BBC News (28/9/09)
House prices ‘back to 2008 level’ BBC News (2/10/09)
Construction unemployment rises to 17.1% HomeTown Sources (2/10/09)
House prices up - but so are insolvencies Management Today (2/10/09)
Financial shadow cast by city apartments BBC News (8/10/09)

For house price data see:
Nationwide House Prices
Halifax House Price Index from the Lloyds Banking Group
Housing Market and House Prices from the Department of Communites and Local Government

It’s probably one of the most recognisable names in the world – Disney. Well, as if the company wasn’t already established enough, it’s just got a bit bigger, with a $4bn deal with Marvel Entertainment, Inc. Characters such as Mickey Mouse, Cinderella and Donald Duck have now been joined by some more masculine characters including Spider-Man, Iron Man and the X-Men. Much of Disney’s recent success has come from films appealing to girls, but in-house Disney franchises appealing to boys are fewer and further between. “We would love to attract more boys, and Marvel skews more in the boys’ direction, although there is universal appeal to many of its characters” said Bob Iger, Disney chief executive. “Marvel’s is a treasure trove of characters and stories, and this gives us an opportunity to mine characters that are well known and characters that are not well known.”

This new deal is likely to have major repercussions for Warner Bros and all of the major Hollywood studios, as well as those with a vested interest in Marvel. It is also hoped that this deal will restore some of Disney’s profits, which have been reduced through the current economic downturn. The following articles consider this deal and the likely results.

Weaker sales dent Disney profits BBC News (30/7/09)
Disney to buy Marvel in $4bn deal BBC News (31/8/09)
Walt Disney buys Marvel Entertainment in £2.5billion deal Mirror News (1/9/09)
Disney take-over of Marvel Telegraph, Paul Gent (2/9/09)
Disney’s Marvel Deal Forces DC’s Hand Defamer, Andrew Belonskey (10/9/09)
Disney deal puts Marvel online slots at risk for Cryptologic Online Gambling News (9/9/09)
Disney’s picl-up of Marvel not so super: Citi FP, Trading Desk (4/9/09)
Disney to buy Marvel in $4bn deal (video) BBC News (1/9/09)
Of mouse and X-men Economist (3/9/09)
Disney buys Marvel, Now in Business with every studio in Hollywood Defamer, Brian Moylan (31/8/09)

For Disney’s announcement of the take-over, see:
Disney to acquire Marvel Entertainment Disney Corporate News Release

Tea prices have soared in recent months. Explanations can be found on both the demand and supply side. But while this might be bad news for tea drinkers, the news is more mixed for tea growers. So just what are the causes and consequences of the price rises? The following linked articles look at the issues.

Tea prices hit record high as supplies tighten Financial Times (19/8/09)
No break for Britons as tea price set to soar Scotsman (19/5/09)
Tea prices hit record high (video) BBC News (21/8/09)
Price of cup of tea goes up (video) BBC news (17/8/09)
Africa Tea Prices Climb to a Record on Dry Weather Bloomberg (20/8/09)
Kenya Tea Prices Hit Record High Before Ramadan FlexNews (19/8/09)
African tea prices ‘to extend gains’ China People’s Daily Online (18/8/09)
Sri Lanka to revive all closed tea factories ColomboPage (24/8/09)
Land usage should be flexible: Tea panel The Economic Times of India (24/8/09)

For tea price data see:
Tea Monthly Price Index Mundi

The recession of the past few months has taken its toll on organic farmers. Until recently, the industry was booming as consumers switched to products perceived as greener, healthier and more ethically produced. Now, as many consumers are feeling the pinch, they are switching to cheaper foodstuffs. The resulting decline in demand for organic food has turned profit into loss for many organic farmers. According to the first of the linked articles below, at least two organic farmers are leaving the movement each week.

But what will happen as the economy recovers and people start turning back to organic products? Given that it takes some two years to convert to organic standards, there could be supply shortages next year.

As UK shoppers tighten their belts, organic farmers feel the squeeze Guardian (11/4/09)
United Kingdom-Organic slowdown Farming UK (12/4/09)
Can the organics survive the current economy? Limerick Post (10/4/09)