1.106037!160109 ezrachi presentation

Upload: samir4godson

Post on 06-Apr-2018

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    1/15

    Private Labels & Brand

    CompetitionDr Ariel Ezrachi,

    The University of Oxford Centre for Competition Law and Policy

    16 January 2009, CCP UEA

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    2/15

    Agenda

    Developments of Private Labels

    Competitive Effects

    Competition Law Enforcement

    EC Competition Law

    Article 82 EC

    Enforcement Choices

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    3/15

    Development of Private Labels

    Value versions in the UK since the1920s

    An increase in volume and range in the 1960s

    Today, around 50 per cent of sales in major UKsupermarkets are private labels.

    Influencing variables:

    Growth of retailers (national and international

    level); Increased market concentration;

    Move from local stores to supermarkets;

    Economic downturn.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    4/15

    Competitive Effects

    Starting point lower prices, greater choice,innovation and competitive pressure.

    Short term vis-a-vis long term effects.

    1. Lower Costs

    Short term loss.

    Economies of scale.

    Reputation umbrella.

    Lower risks, innovation follower.

    High profit margins.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    5/15

    2. Lower Prices

    Range from value to premium products.

    Competitive pressure on brands producers.

    Note the retailers control over pricing, the possible

    use of artificial price differentials and value

    destroying promotions.

    40 per cent of consumers who purchase privatelabels, do so due to the lower prices of goods. 30

    per cent see these labels as being a better valuethan brand equivalent.

    UK Competition Commission Grocery Market Inquiry, Working paper on the

    competitive effects of own label goods para 8(Final Report published 30.04.08)

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    6/15

    3. Restricts Brand Power

    Restricts the market power of dominant brands or amulti-product brands.

    Facilitates entry which otherwise will not bepossible.

    Lower prices, better quality, more innovation.

    4. Innovation

    (+) Pressure on brands.

    (+) Private label innovation.

    (-) Innovation follower.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    7/15

    5. Choice

    Wider choice?

    Profit margins and delisting.

    The elimination of slow selling brands.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    8/15

    6. Foreclosure and Access toShelf Control over distribution channel

    Preference for private label.

    Must stock brands and slower selling brands.

    The effects of one stop shop culture Switching

    costs between outlets increases retailers market

    power.

    A loss of 20% of sales for the manufacturerinvolves a serious risk of bankruptcy (UK Supermarketsreport (2000))

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    9/15

    7. Market Transparency

    Brand recognition.

    Private labels.

    8. Free Riding Innovation follower.

    Access to information.

    Copycat packaging

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    10/15

    9. Marketing and Advertising

    Reliability umbrella

    Internal references to private labels

    Control over in store marketing.

    Only 1/3 of grocery store purchases are planned inadvance.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    11/15

    Competition Law Enforcement

    Short and long term effects.

    Long term stability of private labels share?

    Self policing?

    Speculative nature of long term effects.

    Is intervention justified?

    Can traditional analysis reflect the combinedhorizontal/ vertical effects and the rise in marketpower?

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    12/15

    EC Competition Law

    ECMR

    Increased concentration.

    Spiral effect and increased consolidation.

    Buyer power.

    Article 81 EC

    Buying alliances.

    Agreements etc.

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    13/15

    EC Competition Law

    Article 82 EC

    -Dominance

    Case by case market definition.

    Market power below the threshold of dominance(asymmetry of information, in-store competition, control of shelfspace, foreclosure, dependency ...)

    -Collective dominance

    -Cumulative effects as alternative?

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    14/15

    EC Competition Law

    Goals

    Achieve lower prices, better quality and a widerchoice of new or improved goods and services.Guidance on the Commission's Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC

    Abuse ?

    Short term and long term effects.

    Self policing.

    Market constraints - Asda Essentials

    Establish competitive harm.

    Protecting competition or competitors?

    Abuse of a non-dominant position?

  • 8/2/2019 1.106037!160109 Ezrachi Presentation

    15/15

    Enforcement

    Internal analysis - If it aint broken, dont fix it

    External analysis - a new market reality?

    -Robert L. Steiner: Vertical competition exists

    -Rob Walton, Wal-Mart Chairman: The manufacturers

    price is something thats determined largely by negotiatingpower of retailers that carry his merchandise, ie byvertical upstream competition.