On the day he came to office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders. One of these was to set in motion the process of withdrawing from the UN Paris climate agreement. Section 3(a) of the order reads:
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall immediately submit formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change. It was adopted on 12 December 2015 and came into force on 4 November 2016, 30 days after the point was reached when at least 55 countries accounting for at least 55% of global emissions had ratified the treaty.
Currently, all UN countries are signatories to the agreement and only Iran, Libya and Yemen are yet to ratify it. The agreement commits countries to limiting global warming to well under 2°C above pre-industrial levels and preferably to no more than 1.5°C. This would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or taking carbon absorbing measures.
Since 2020, each country has been required to submit its own emission-reduction targets, known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs), and the actions it will take to meet them. Every five years each country must submit a new NDC more ambitious than the last.
Rich countries are expected to provide finance to low-income countries. This is required to help poor countries adopt green technologies and to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change (e.g. through irrigation schemes and flood defences).
Countries set target dates by which emissions would be fully offset by carbon absorption measures (‘net zero’). The UN’s goal is to reach global net zero by 2050. According to the UN Climate Action site:
As of June 2024, 107 countries, responsible for approximately 82 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, had adopted net-zero pledges either in law, in a policy document such as an national climate action plan or a long-term strategy, or in an announcement by a high-level government official. More than 9000 companies, over 1000 cities, more than 1000 educational institutions, and over 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030.
The Paris Agreement has helped to cut emissions or slow their rate of growth in most countries. Although net zero by 2050 may be unlikely, warming will be less than without the agreement.
The USA and the Paris Agreement
In April 2016 the USA signed the Paris Agreement. As stated above, the Paris Agreement came into effect on 4 November 2016.
President Trump came to office for the first time in January 2017. In June 2017, he signed an executive order in which he announced that the USA would withdraw from the agreement, arguing that it undermined the US economy and put it at a competitive disadvantage. He claimed that global warming is a hoax concocted by China designed to undermine the competitive power of the USA.
However, despite Trump’s intention to withdraw from the agreement, its terms did not allow a country to begin a withdrawal procedure for at least three years after the agreement was ratified (i.e. not before 4 November 2019) and then a year’s notice has to be given. This notice was given on 4 November 2019. In the meantime, the USA had to abide by the terms of the treaty. During this period, US representatives at COP meetings used the opportunity to promote fossil fuels. Withdrawal took place on 1 November 2020, just one day after the presidential election and just over two months before the end of Trump’s first term of office.
On 20 January 2021, his first day in office, President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the agreement, which took place on 19 February 2021. He committed to cutting total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. To achieve this, his administration adopted a number of emissions-reducing measures, for example requiring all new passenger vehicles sold after 2035 to be emissions free, giving tax credits for clean electricity generation, providing federal funds for smart agriculture and setting greener appliance and equipment standards.
But, as we have seen, newly elected President Trump for the second time announced that the USA would withdraw from the Paris agreement and would prioritise fossil fuel production, under the mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill’.
The economics of climate change
Climate change is directly caused by market failures. One of the most important of these is that the atmosphere is a common resource: it is not privately owned; it is a global ‘commons’. Individuals and firms use it at a zero price. If the price of any good or service to the user is zero, there is no incentive to economise on its use. Thus for the emitter there are no private costs of using the atmosphere in this way as a ‘dump’ for their emissions and, in a free market, no incentive to reduce the climate costs.
And yet when firms emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there are costs to other people. To the extent that they contribute to global warming, part of these costs will be borne by the residents of that country; but a large part will be borne by inhabitants of other countries.
These climate costs are external costs to the firm and are illustrated in the figure. It shows an industry that emits CO2. To keep the analysis simple, assume that it is a perfectly competitive industry with demand and supply given by curves D and S, which are equal to the marginal private benefits (MPB) and marginal private costs (MPC), respectively. There are no externalities on the demand side and hence MPB equals the marginal social cost (MSB). Market equilibrium is at point a, with output at Qpc and price at Ppc. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Assume that the emissions create a marginal cost to society equal to MECc. Assume that the MEC increases as output and total emissions increase. The MECc line is thus upward sloping. At the market price of Qpc, these external climate costs are equal to the purple vertical line. When these external climate costs are added to private costs, this gives a marginal social cost given by MSC = MPC + MECc. The gives a socially optimal level of output of the product of Q* at a price of P*, with the optimum point of c.
In other words, other things being equal, the free market overproduces products with climate externalities. If the output is to be reduced to the social optimum of Q*, then the government will need to take measures such as those advocated in the Paris Agreement. These could include imposing taxes on products, such as electricity generated by fossil fuels, or on the emissions themselves. Or green alternatives, such as wind power, could be subsidised.
Alternatively, regulations could be used to cap the production of products creating emissions, or caps on the emissions themselves could be imposed. Emissions permits could be issued or auctioned. Only firms in possession of the permits would be allowed to emit and the permits would cap emissions below free-market levels. These permits could be traded under a cap-and-trade scheme, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Again, such schemes are advocated under the Paris Agreement.
Effect of the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and promoting fossil fuels will increase US emissions. Scientific consensus is that this will have a negative effect on climate change. Only part of these climate costs will be borne by the USA, although the severity of recent fires in California, fanned by strong Santa Ana winds, and more violent hurricanes are two examples of costs of climate change to the USA itself.
A bigger worry is whether the USA’s withdrawal will encourage other countries, such as Argentina, to do likewise. Then the climate costs of US withdrawal will be greater.
But all is not bad news. The transition to green energy is well advanced and the costs of solar and wind power are decreasing. Global investment in clean energy has increased by 60% since 2015. China is investing heavily in renewable energy technology, which is giving it a significant trade advantage. The EU has taken significant actions to promote green energy and technology. Similarly, industrial processes that economise on emissions are developing apace and it is becoming increasingly profitable for private companies to make climate-friendly investments without subsidies. In the USA itself, many Democratic states and local governments, and even some Republican ones, will continue to adopt climate-friendly policies.
In this environment, the Trump administration does not want to fall behind in the development of new technologies and markets. And with Elon Musk having a significant influence on Donald Trump, the USA’s investment in EVs and battery technology is likely to continue. This will help to reduce the price of green energy and transport.
Videos
Articles
- Trump vows to leave Paris climate agreement and ‘drill, baby, drill’
BBC News, Matt McGrath (20/1/25)
- What is the Paris climate agreement and why has Trump withdrawn?
BBC News, Esme Stallard and Mark Poynting (21/1/25)
- Six Trump executive orders to watch
BBC News (21/1/25)
- The real message behind Trump’s withdrawal of US from the Paris climate agreement
Sky News, Tom Clarke (21/1/25)
- Trump signs order to withdraw US from Paris climate agreement for second time
The Guardian, Dharna Noor (20/1/25)
- Explained: how Trump’s day one orders reveal a White House for big oi
The Guardian, Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor (22/1/25)
- Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out
The Guardian, Bill Hare (6/11/24)
Trump to pull US from Paris climate agreement: What could this mean for the environment?ITV News, Martin Stew (21/1/25)
- 10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action
The Conversation, Wesley Morgan and Ben Newell (8/11/24)
- Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example
The Conversation, Renaud Foucart (27/1/25)
Information
Questions
- Summarise the Paris Agreement.
- Using a diagram similar to that above, illustrate how the free market will produce a sub-optimal amount of solar power because the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal private benefit.
- How might game theory be used to analyse possible international decision making in the context of US climate policy?
- Is it in America’s interests to cease investing in green energy and green production methods?
- Go through each of the reasons (not specific to Australia) given in The Conversation article linked above why ‘Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action’. To what extent do you agree with each one?
In September 2023, UK mobile phone network operators Vodafone and Three (owned by CK Hutchinson) announced their intention to merge. At the time, in terms of total revenue from the supply of mobile phone services to consumers, Vodafone and Three had market shares of 23% and 12%, respectively.
In addition to Vodaphone and Three, there are two other major network operators – the BT Group (BT & EE) and Virgin-media 02, with market shares of around 31% and 23%, respectively, with other operators having a combined market share of 12%. As we shall see below, these other operators use one of the four major networks. Therefore, the merged entity of Vodafone-Three would become the market leader with a share of around 35% and there would only be three major network operators competing in the UK.
Not surprisingly, the UK competition agency, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), decided to conduct a detailed investigation into whether the merger would harm competition. However, in early December 2024 the CMA announced its decision to allow the merger to go ahead, subject to several important commitments by the merging parties.
CMA’s phase 1 findings
The CMAs phase 1 investigation raised several concerns with the merger (see fifth CMA link below).
First, it was worried that retail and business customers would have to pay higher prices for mobile services after the merger.
Second, in addition to the four mobile network operators, the UK market is served by a number of mobile ‘virtual’ network operators (MVNOs), for example Sky Mobile and Lyca Mobile. As we saw above, these suppliers account for around 12% of the consumer retail market. The MVNOs do not own their own networks and instead agree wholesale terms with one of the network operators to access their network and supply their own retail mobile services. The CMA was concerned that since the merger would reduce the number of networks competing to host these MVNOs from four to three, it would result in MVNOs paying higher wholesale access prices.
Vodafone and Three did not offer any remedies to the CMA to address these competition concerns. Consequently, the CMA referred the case to phase 2 for a more thorough investigation.
CMA’s phase 2 findings
The CMA’s analysis in phase 2 confirmed its earlier concerns (see linked report below). It was still worried that because the merged entity would become the largest network operator, retail customers would face higher prices or get a poorer service – for example, a reduced data allowance in their contract. In addition, the CMA remained concerned that the MVNOs would be negatively impacted and that this would lessen their ability to offer the best deals to retail customers.
However, during the phase 2 investigation, the merging parties put forward various efficiency justifications for the merger. They argued that the merger would provide them with much needed scale and investment capacity to improve their network and roll-out 5G technology. The CMA recognised these claims but questioned the merging parties’ incentives to go through with the investment once the merger was approved. Furthermore, it was concerned that if they did invest, this would be funded by raising the prices charged to consumers.
As a result, the CMA only agreed to allow the merger once Vodafone and Three accepted remedies that would address these concerns.
The remedies necessary for the merger to proceed
First, the merged entity must cap a range of tariffs and data plans it offers in the retail market for three years.
Second, again for three years, it must commit to maintain the wholesale contract terms it offers to MNVOs.
Finally, over the next eight years, the merged entity must deliver the network upgrade plans that it claimed the merger would allow. The CMA believes that in the long run this network development would significantly boost competition between the three remaining mobile network operators.
The acceptance of remedies of this nature was unusual for the CMA. Typically, like other competition agencies, the CMA has favoured divestment remedies in which the merging parties are required to sell-off some of the assets or capacity acquired. In contrast, the remedies in the Vodafone-Three deal impact on the merging parties’ behaviour.
One clear disadvantage of such remedies is that they require the merged firm’s actions to be monitored, in this case for eight years, to make sure it adheres to the agreed behaviour. One reason why the CMA may have been willing to accept this is that the communications industries regulator, OFCOM, will be able to assist with this monitoring.
It was also surprising that the CMA was willing to allow the number of network operators to decrease to three. Previously, there had been a perception that it was important to maintain four networks. This was certainly the view in 2016 when Three’s attempted merger with O2 was prohibited. This decision was made by the European Commission (EC). However, the CMA raised serious concerns to the EC and when the merging parties offered behavioural remedies argued that these were:
materially deficient as they will not lead to the creation of a fourth Mobile Network Operator (MNO) capable of competing effectively and in the long-term with the remaining three MNOs such that it would stem the loss of competition caused by the merger.
Why has the authorities’ attitude towards the merger changed?
So why has there been a change of stance in this latest attempted merger in the mobile phone sector?
One explanation is that the market has fundamentally changed over time. The margins for network operators have declined, network usage has grown and there has been a lack of investment in expensive 5G technology. This would certainly fit with the CMA’s desire to use the remedies to facilitate network investment.
A second possible explanation is that the CMA has recently faced criticism from UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer (see third Guardian article below). In a speech at the International Investment Summit in London in October 2024, he said that
We will rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment and we will make sure that every regulator in this country take growth as seriously as this room does.
In response to this, the CMA has indicated that in 2025 it will review its approach to mergers, ensuring that only truly problematic mergers don’t proceed, and reconsider when behavioural remedies may be appropriate (see final CMA link below).
The CMA’s decision in the Vodafone-Three case certainly demonstrates that it is now willing to accept behavioural remedies when there is a regulator in place to support the subsequent monitoring.
It will be interesting to see how this merger affects competition in the mobile phone market and, more generally, whether the CMA starts to implement behavioural remedies more widely, especially in markets where it would have to do all the subsequent monitoring.
Articles
CMA reports, etc
Questions
- Why is it beneficial to have MVNOs in the market for mobile phone services?
- Why is it important that MVNOs have a choice of mobile networks to supply their retail mobile services?
- How do you think the other mobile network operators will react to the Vodafone-Three merger?
- Compare the relative benefits of blocking a merger with requiring merging companies to adopt certain remedies.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we live and work, with many of us knowingly or unknowingly using some form of AI daily. Businesses are also adopting AI in increasingly innovative ways. One example of this is the use of pricing algorithms, which use large datasets on market conditions to set prices.
While these tools can drive innovation and efficiency, they can also raise significant competition concerns. Subsequently, competition authorities around the world are dedicating efforts to understanding how businesses are using AI and, importantly, the potential risks its use may pose to competition.
How AI pricing tools can enhance competition
The use of AI pricing tools offers some clear potential efficiencies for firms, with the potential to reduce costs that can potentially translate into lower prices for consumers.
Take, for instance, industries with highly fluctuating demand, such as airlines or hotels. Algorithms can enable businesses to monitor demand and supply in real time and respond more quickly, which could help firms to respond more effectively to changing consumer preferences. Similarly, in industries which have extensive product ranges, like supermarkets, algorithms can significantly reduce costs and save resources that are usually required to manage pricing strategies across a large range of products.
Furthermore, as pricing algorithms can monitor competitors’ prices, firms can more quickly respond to their rivals. This could promote competition by helping prices to reach the competitive level more quickly, to the benefit of consumers.
How AI pricing tools can undermine competition
However, some of the very features that make algorithms effective can also facilitate anti-competitive behaviour that can harm consumers. In economic terms, collusion occurs when firms co-ordinate their actions to reduce competition, often leading to higher prices. This can happen both explicitly or implicitly. Explicit collusion, commonly referred to as illegal cartels, involves firms agreeing to co-ordinate their prices instead of competing. On the other hand, tacit collusion occurs when firms’ pricing strategies are aligned without a formal agreement.
The ability for these algorithms to monitor competitors’ prices and react to changes quickly could work to facilitate collusion, by learning to avoid price wars to maximise long-term profits. This could result in harm to consumers through sustained higher prices.
Furthermore, there may be additional risks if competitors use the same algorithmic software to set prices. This can facilitate the sharing of confidential information (such as pricing strategies) and, as the algorithms may be able to predict the response of their competitors, can facilitate co-ordination to achieve higher prices to the detriment of consumers.
This situation may resemble what is known as a ‘hub and spoke’ cartel, in which competing firms (the ‘spokes’) use the assistance of another firm at a different level of the supply chain (e.g. a buyer or supplier that acts as a ‘hub’) to help them co-ordinate their actions. In this case, a shared artificial pricing tool can act as the ‘hub’ to enable co-ordination amongst the firms, even without any direct communication between the firms.
In 2015 the CMA investigated a cartel involving two companies, Trod Limited and GB Eye Limited, which were selling posters and frames through Amazon (see linked CMA Press release below). These firms used pricing algorithms, similar to those described above, to monitor and adjust their prices, ensuring that neither undercut the other. In this case, there was also an explicit agreement between the two firms to carry out this strategy.
What does this mean for competition policy?
Detecting collusion has always been a significant challenge for the competition authorities, especially when no formal agreement exists between firms. The adoption of algorithmic pricing adds another layer of complexity to detection of cartels and could raise questions about accountability when algorithms inadvertently facilitate collusion.
In the posters and frames case, the CMA was able to act because one of the firms involved reported the cartel itself. Authorities like the CMA depend heavily on the firms involved to ‘whistle blow’ and report cartel involvement. They incentivise firms to do this through leniency policies that can offer firms reduced penalties or even complete immunity if they provide evidence and co-operate with the investigation. For example, GB eye reported the cartel to the CMA and therefore, under the CMA’s leniency policy, was not fined.
But it’s not all doom and gloom for competition authorities. Developments in Artificial Intelligence could also open doors to improved detection tools, which may have come a long way since the discussion in a blog on this topic several years ago. Competition Authorities around the world are working diligently to expand their understanding of AI and develop effective regulations for these rapidly evolving markets.
Articles
Questions
- In what types of markets might it be more likely that artificial intelligence can facilitate collusion?
- How could AI pricing tools impact the factors that make collusion more or less sustainable in a market?
- What can competition authorities do to prevent AI-assisted collusion taking place?
In many countries, train fares at peak times are higher than at off-peak times. This is an example of third-degree price discrimination. Assuming that peak-time travellers generally have a lower price elasticity of demand, the policy allows train companies to increase revenue and profit.
If the sole purpose of ticket sales were to maximise profits, the policy would make sense. Assuming that higher peak-time fares were carefully set, although the number travelling would be somewhat reduced, this would be more than compensated for by the higher revenue per passenger.
But there are external benefits from train travel. Compared with travel by car, there are lower carbon emissions per person travelling. Also, train travel helps to reduce road congestion. To the extent that higher peak-time fares encourage people to travel by car instead, there will be resulting environmental and congestion externalities.
The Scottish experiment with abolishing higher peak-time fares
In October 2023, the Scottish government introduced a pilot scheme abolishing peak-time fares, so that tickets were the same price at any time of the day. The idea was to encourage people, especially commuters, to adopt more sustainable means of transport. Although the price elasticity of demand for commuting is very low, the hope was that the cross-price elasticity between cars and trains would be sufficiently high to encourage many people to switch from driving to taking the train.
One concern with scrapping peak-time fares is that trains would not have the capacity to cope with the extra passengers. Indeed, one of the arguments for higher peak-time fares is to smooth out the flow of passengers during the day, encouraging those with flexibility of when to travel to use the cheaper and less crowded off-peak trains.
This may well apply to certain parts of the UK, but in the case of Scotland it was felt that there would be the capacity to cope with the extra demand at peak time. Also, in a post-COVID world, with more people working flexibly, there was less need for many people to travel at peak times than previously.
Reinstatement of peak-time fares in Scotland
It was with some dismay, therefore, especially by commuters and environmentalists, when the Scottish government decided to end the pilot at the beginning of October 2024 and reinstate peak-time fares – in many cases at nearly double the off-peak rates. For example, the return fare between Glasgow and Edinburgh rose from £16.20 to £31.40 at peak times.
The Scottish government justified the decision by claiming that passenger numbers had risen by only 6.8%, when, to be self-financing, an increase of 10% would have been required. But this begs the question of whether it was necessary to be self-financing when the justification was partly environmental. Also, the 6.8% figure is based on a number of assumptions that could be challenged (see The Conversation article linked below). A longer pilot would have helped to clarify demand.
Other schemes
A number of countries have introduced schemes to encourage greater use of the railways or other forms of public transport. One of these is the flat fare for local journeys. Provided that this is lower than previously, it can encourage people to use public transport and leave their car at home. Also, its simplicity is also likely to be attractive to passengers. For example, in England bus fares are capped at £2. Currently, the scheme is set to run until 31 December 2024.
Another scheme is the subscription model, whereby people pay a flat fee per month (or week or year, or other time period) for train or bus travel or both. Germany, for example, has a flat-rate €49 per month ‘Deutschland-Ticket‘ (rising to €58 per month in January 2025). This ticket provides unlimited access to local and regional public transport in Germany, including trains, buses, trams, metros and ferries (but not long-distance trains). This zero marginal fare cost of a journey encourages passengers to use public transport. The only marginal costs they will face will be ancillary costs, such as getting to and from the train station or bus stop and having to travel at a specific time.
Articles
- Why a pilot scheme removing peak rail fares should have been allowed to go the distance
The Conversation, Rachel Scarfe (8/10/24)
- Return of peak rail fares a costly blow for commuters and climate, Scottish Greens say
Bright Green, Chris Jarvis (6/10/24)
- Commuters react to return of peak train fares in Scotland
BBC News (1/10/24)
- Perth peak rail fares to Edinburgh rise by almost 60 percent as pilot scheme ends
Daily Record, Alastair McNeill (4/10/24)
- Ditch peak-time rail fares across UK, campaigners say
iNews, Adam Forrest (30/9/24)
- Train fares reduced by up to 20% in East Yorkshire
Rail Advent, Roger Smith (26/9/24)
- Deutschland-Ticket: Germany’s popular monthly transport pass will soon be more expensive
Euronews, Angela Symons (24/9/24)
- Fare Britannia: a new approach to public transport ticketing for the UK
Greenpeace report, Leo Eyles, Tony Duckenfield and Jim Steer (19/9/24)
- Ministers urged to trial monthly ‘climate card’ in North of England to save rail commuters money and cut emissions
About Manchester, Nigel Barlow (20/9/24)
Questions
- Identify the arguments for and against having higher rail fares at peak times than at off-peak times
- Why might it be a good idea to scrap higher peak-time fares in some parts of a country but not in others?
- Provide a critique of the Scottish government’s arguments for reintroducing higher peak-time fares.
- With reference to The Conversation article, why is it difficult to determine the effect on demand of the Scottish pilot of scrapping peak-time fares?
- What are the arguments for and against the German scheme of having a €49 per month public transport pass for local and regional transport with no further cost per journey? Should it be extended to long-distance trains and coaches?
- In England there is a flat £2 single fare for buses. Would it be a good idea to make bus travel completely free?
On Saturday 31 August, tickets for the much-heralded Oasis reunion tour went on sale through the official retailer, Ticketmaster. When the company sells tickets, the acts or their promoters can choose whether to use a static pricing system, where each type of ticket is sold at a set price until they have all been sold. Or they can use a dynamic pricing system (‘in-demand’ or ‘platinum’ tickets, as Ticketmaster calls them), where there is a starting price quoted, but where prices then rise according to demand. The higher the demand, the more the price is driven up. Acts or their promoters have the option of choosing an upper limit to the price.
Dynamic pricing
The Oasis tickets were sold under the dynamic pricing system, a system previously used for Harry Styles, Bruce Springsteen, Coldplay and Blackpink concerts, but one rejected by Taylor Swift for her recent Eras tour. Standing tickets for the Oasis concert with a face value of around £135 were quickly being sold for over £350. There were long online queues, with the prices rising as people slowly moved up the queue. When they reached the front, they had to decide quickly whether to pay the much higher price. Some people later suffered from buyer’s remorse, when they realised that in the pressure of the moment, they had paid more than they could afford.
Dynamic pricing is when prices change with market conditions: rising at times when demand exceeds supply and falling when supply exceeds demand. It is sometimes referred to as ‘surge pricing’ to reflect situations when price surges in times of excess demand.
Dynamic pricing is a form of price discrimination. It is an imperfect form of first-degree price discrimination, which is defined as people being charged the maximum price they are willing to pay for a product. Pricing in an eBay auction comes close to first-degree price discrimination. With dynamic pricing in the ticket market, some people may indeed pay the maximum, but others earlier in the queue will be lucky and pay less than their maximum.
Ticketmaster justifies the system of dynamic pricing, saying that it gives ‘fans fair and safe access to the tickets, while enabling artists and other people involved in staging live events to price tickets closer to their true market value’. The company argues that if the price is below the market value, a secondary market will then drive ticket prices up. Ticket touts will purchase large amounts of tickets, often using bots to access the official site and then resell them at highly inflated prices on sites such as Viagogo and Stubhub, where ticket prices for popular acts can sell for well over £1000. The day after Oasis tickets went on sale, Viagogo had seats priced at up to £26 000 each!
Oasis and Ticketmaster have tried to stamp out the unofficial secondary market by stating that only tickets bought through the official retailers (Ticketmaster, Gigsandtours and SeeTickets) will be valid. If fans want to resell a ticket – perhaps because they find they can no longer go – they can resell them on the official secondary market though Ticketmaster’s Fan-to-Fan site or Twickets. These official secondary sites allow holders of unwanted tickets to sell them for anything up to the original face value, but no more. Buyers pay a 12% handling fee. It remains to be seen whether this can be enforced with genuine tickets resold on the secondary market.
Examples of dynamic pricing
Dynamic pricing is not a new pricing strategy. It has been used for many years in the transport, e-commerce and hospitality sectors. Airlines, for example, have a pricing model whereby as a flight fills up, so the prices of the seats rise. If you book a seat on a budget airline a long time in advance, you may be able to get it at a very low price. If, on the other hand, you want a seat at the last minute, you may well have to pay a very high price. The price reflects the strength of demand and its price elasticity. The business traveller who needs to travel the next day for a meeting will have a very low price sensitivity and may well be prepared to pay a very high price indeed. Airlines also learn from past behaviour and so some popular routes will start at a higher price. A similar system of dynamic pricing is used with advance train tickets, with the price rising as trains get booked up.
The dynamic pricing system used by airlines and train companies is similar, but not identical, to first-degree price discrimination. The figure below illustrates first-degree price discrimination by showing a company setting the price for a particular product.
Assume initially that it sets a single profit-maximising price. This would be a price of P1, at an output of Q1, where marginal revenue (MR) equals marginal cost (MC). (We assume for simplicity that average and marginal costs are constant.) Total profit will be area 1: i.e. the blue area ((P1 – AC) × Q1). Area 2 represents consumer surplus, with all those consumers who would have been prepared to pay a price above P1, only having to pay P1.
Now assume that the firm uses first-degree price discrimination, selling each unit of the product at the maximum price each consumer is willing to pay. Starting with the consumer only willing to pay a price of P2, the price will go on rising up along the demand with each additional consumer being charged a higher price up to the price where the demand curve meets the vertical axis. In such a case, the firm’s profit would be not just the blue area, but also the green areas 2 and 3. Note that there is no consumer surplus as area 2 is now part of the additional profit to the firm.
Although dynamic pricing by airlines is similar to this model of first-degree price discrimination, in practice some people will be paying less than they would be willing to pay and the price goes up in stages, not continuously with each new sale of a ticket. Thus, compared with a fixed price per seat, the additional profit will be less than areas 2 + 3, but total profit will still be considerably greater than area 1 alone. Note also that there is a maximum quantity of seats (Qmax), represented by a full flight. The airline would hope that demand and its pricing model are such that Qmax is less than Q2.
Dynamic pricing also applies in the hospitality sector, as hotels raise the prices for rooms according to demand, with prices at peak times often being considerably higher than off-season prices. Rather then pre-setting prices for particular seasons, dates or weekends/weekdays, many hotels, especially chains and booking agents, adjust prices dynamically as demand changes. Airbnb offers property owners what it calls ‘Smart Pricing’, where nightly prices change automatically with demand.
Another example is Uber, which uses dynamic pricing to balance demand and supply location by location. In times of peak demand on any route, the company’s algorithm will raise the price. This will encourage people to delay travelling if they can or use alternative means of transport. It will also encourage more Uber drivers to come to that area. In times of low demand, the price will fall. This will encourage more people to use the service (rather than regular taxis or buses) and discourage drivers from working in that area.
Where dynamic pricing varies with the time or date when the purchase is made, it is sometimes referred to as inter-temporal pricing. It is a form of second-degree price discrimination, which is where a firm offers consumers a range of different pricing options for the same or similar products.
Another example of dynamic pricing, which is closer to first-degree price discrimination is the use of sophisticated algorithms and AI by Amazon, allowing it to update the prices of millions of products many times a day according to market conditions. Another is eBay auctions, where the price rises as the end date is reached, according to the willingness to pay of the bidders.
Attitudes to dynamic pricing
Consumers have grown accustomed to dynamic pricing in many industries. People generally accept the pricing model of budget airlines, for example. What makes it acceptable is that most people feel that they can take advantage of early low-priced seats and can compare the current prices on different flights and airlines when making their travel plans. Pricing is transparent. With the Oasis concert, however, there wasn’t the same degree of price transparency. Many people were surprised and dismayed to find that when they got to the front of the online queue, the price had risen dramatically.
People are familiar of dynamic pricing in the context of price cuts to shift unsold stock. Supermarkets putting stickers on products saying ‘reduced for quick sale’ is an example. Another is seasonal sales. What is less acceptable to many consumers is firms putting up prices when demand is high. They see it a profiteering. Many supermarkets are introducing electronic shelf labels (ESLs), where prices can be changed remotely as demand changes. Consumers may react badly to this if they see the prices going up. The supermarket, however, may find it a very convenient way of reducing prices to shift stock – something consumers are hardly likely to complain about.
Returning to the Oasis tour, the UK government responded to the outrage of fans as ticket prices soared. Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, announced that the government will investigate how surge pricing for concert tickets is used by official retailers, such as Ticketmaster. This will be part of a planned review of ticket sales that seeks to establish a fairer and more transparent system of pricing.
The problem is that, with some fans being prepared to pay very high prices indeed to see particular acts and with demand considerably exceeding supply at prices that fans would consider reasonable, some way needs to be found of rationing demand. If it is not price, then it will inevitably involve some form of queuing or rationing system, with the danger that this encourages touts and vastly inflated prices on the secondary market.
Perhaps a lesson can be drawn from the Glastonbury Festival, where prices are fixed, people queue online and where security systems are in place to prevent secondary sales by ticket touts. The 2024 price was set at £355 + a £5 booking fee and purchasers were required to register with personal details and a photo, which was checked on admission.
Update
On 5 September, the CMA announced that it was launching an investigation into Ticketmaster over the Oasis concert sales. Its concerns centred on ‘whether buyers were given clear and timely information, and whether consumer protection law was breached’. This followed complaints by fans that (i) they were not given clear and timely information beforehand that the tickets involved dynamic pricing and warned about the possible prices they might have to pay and (ii) on reaching the front of the queue they were put under pressure to buy tickets within a short period of time.
Meanwhile, band member stated that they were unaware that dynamic pricing would be used and that the decision to use the system was made by their management.
Videos
Articles
- Oasis ticket sales – everything you need to know about reunion
BBC News (27/8/24)
- Ticketmaster demand-based pricing system criticised
BBC News, Annabel Rackham (10/10/22)
- I loved Oasis – until I saw Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing
Metro, Issy Packer (2/9/24)
- A supersonic swindle: my £1,423 Oasis Ticketmaster hell
The Guardian, Josh Halliday (1/9/24)
- Bands urged to oppose dynamic pricing of concert tickets after Oasis ‘fiasco’
The Guardian, Josh Halliday and Rob Davies (1/9/24)
- Oasis tickets: what is dynamic pricing and why is it used for live music?
The Guardian, Rob Davies (1/9/24)
- Viagogo defends reselling Oasis tickets for thousands of pounds as ‘legal’
City A.M. (31/8/24)
- Oasis fans face ‘eye-watering’ resale ticket prices
i News, Adam Sherwin (30/8/240
- Would you really pay €500 for an Oasis ticket?
RTE Brainstorm, Emma Howard (3/9/24)
- When ‘dynamic pricing’ works – and when it doesn’t
Investors’ Chronicle, Hermione Taylor (11/12/23)
- The pros, cons and misconceptions of dynamic pricing for retailers
Computer Weekly, Glynn Davis (20/6/24)
- Dynamic Pricing (Taylor’s Version)
Linkedin, Economic Insight (10/7/23)
- Dynamic pricing: successful companies that use this pricing strategy
PriceTweakers, Simon Gomez (25/5/24)
- Five lessons for businesses investigating dynamic pricing
FT Strategies
- Inflated Oasis ticket prices ‘depressing’ – government promises review of dynamic pricing
Sky News (2/9/24)
- Lisa Nandy hits out at ‘incredibly depressing’ Oasis ticket sale and orders probe into surge pricing
Independent, Archie Mitchell (2/9/24)
- Oasis ticket row: How Ticketmaster’s owner has grip on UK live music scene
BBC News, Chi Chi Izundu and James Stewart (4/9/24)
- CMA launches investigation into Ticketmaster over Oasis concert sales
CMA Press Release (5/9/24)
- Revealed: the touts offering Oasis tickets for thousands on resale sites
The Guardian, Rob Davies, Hannah Al-Othman and Tiago Rogero (7/9/24)
Questions
- What is the difference between dynamic pricing and surge pricing?
- What is buyer’s remorse? How could dynamic pricing be used while minimising the likelihood of buyer’s remorse?
- Distinguish between first-degree, second-degree and third-degree price discrimination. Do the various forms of dynamic pricing correspond to one or more of these three types?
- Distinguish between consumer and producer surplus. How may dynamic pricing lead to a reduction in consumer surplus and an increase in producer surplus?
- Should Ticketmaster sell tickets on the same basis as tickets for the Glastonbury Festival?
- Is Oasis a monopoly? What are the ticket pricing implications?
- Are there any industries where firms would not benefit from dynamic pricing? Explain.
- What are the arguments for and against allowing tickets to be sold on the secondary market for whatever price they will fetch?
- How powerful is Ticketmaster in the primary and secondary ticket markets?