f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

The Washington Post‘s Steven Pearlstein has an interesting column, today,

on the changes that technology has forced on the entertainment business,

by giving consumers more choices and control over what they see and when

they see it.  “Prime Time Gets Redefined,” (Nov. 9, 2005)  The industry has

told us for decades that it prospered only when it gave consumers what

they wanted.  But, Pearlstein argues that video-on-demand has shown us

“what a big lie it was.”  He notes:

“Thanks to TiVo and other Internet-based technologies, people

not only can watch what they want when they want to watch it,

but they can also do so without having to watch commercials.

Suddenly, the whole concept of a prime-time lineup has been

tossed out the window, along with an economic model that’s

been around since Geritol decided to sponsor the Ted Mack

amateur hour.”

 

                                                                                   

The column tells how the economics of the industry will change. “Much less

of what we think of as television will be paid for by advertisers, and more by

viewers.”  Networks will lose market share and power.  Hollywood studios

will become “indifferent about how you choose to get a movie.”  Price will

depend on the timing of your selection, the popularity of the movie, and medium

chosen.  The studios “that do best will be those that make, or buy, a wider

 range of well-done movies for a variety of niche audiences reached through

targeted marketing and distribution channels.”

 

Pearlstein concludes:  “There are many ways to describe this new entertainment

industry. The ones I like are competitive, efficient and consumer-driven.”

mid-argument
the touch of a child’s hair
soft from rain

Matt Morden  Morden Haiku (Nov. 9, 2005)

 

After spending yesterday among scores of antitrust-minded lawyers and

economists (looking at the real estate brokerage business), Pearlstein’s column

is another strong wake-up call for me — a reminder that I’ve been ignoring my

competition-consumer advocate alter ego  and need to re-connect again here 

on this weblog.

 

As our original About page stated, when ethicalEsq was launched here in   “oilcanHFs”

May 2003, the dozen years that I spent immersed in antitrust law and competition

policy at the Federal Trade Commission left me with two beliefs:

First, professional organizations, and the ethical codes they write

and purport to enforce, often needlessly stifle competition under the guise of

protecting clients. And,

 

Second, as with any other product or services, the consumers of law-

related services are best served when there is healthy competition among

providers, a broad array of options and prices, and sufficient information to

permit intelligent choices. There needs to be a very good reason for depriving

law clients the benefits of competition, and increasing the wealth of lawyers

doesn’t quite make the grade.

Furthermore, the next decade practicing “main street law” left me with the “lasting

impression that the average consumer of legal services is often both shortchanged

and overbilled — with too little respect, information and choice offered by the legal

profession, and too little protection from those running the disciplinary systems that

oversee lawyers.”[For more on my attitude toward antitrust law and competition policy

as tools for consumer sovereignty and consumer protection, see our prior posts: 

“Happy Birthday Sherman Act,” and “The Link Between Antitrust, Monopolization and

Our Microsoft Security Woes.”] 

mid-argument–
a bumblebee
stumbles in clover

   Matt Morden – The Heron’s Nest (Oct. 2001)

 

“oilcanHNs”  In 2003, I declared that July 2, the “birthday” of the Sherman Act (1890) can be seen

as Consumer Independence Day — offering American consumers freedom from monop-

olist and cartel activities that would raise prices and limit choices, even those done from

a sense of paternalism or noblesse oblige.  Like all rights, of course, they need to be

vigorously guarded and asserted in order to survive and serve their purpose. 

 

From now on, the f/k/a gang, is going to do more guarding and asserting of the consumer’s

right to competition, technological innovation and efficiency, and the information needed to

make informed choices — the right, that is, to a consumer-driven marketplace.  Lawyers

and members of other professions and pseudo-professions, who couch their restrictions

on competition in terms of consumer protection will receive special attention, of course.

 

 

at the height

of the argument   the old couple

pour each other tea

 

 

George Swede –

Almost Unseen (Brooks Books, 2000) 

 

mid-argument

the senior partner

has a senior minute

 

 

 

 

mid-argument –

opposing counsel crosses

her legs

 

   dagosan [Nov. 9, 2005]

 

                                                                                                              from D.C.