Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Predatory Pricing shopping experience:

1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Predatory Pricing offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Predatory Pricing at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.

2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about

3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Predatory Pricing? Wrong! If the Predatory Pricing is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.

4. Questions - Got a question about Predatory Pricing then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....

5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Predatory Pricing? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Predatory Pricing and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.

6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Predatory Pricing wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.

7. Feedback - happy with your Predatory Pricing then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.

8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Predatory Pricing site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site

9. Contact - got a question about Predatory Pricing, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.

10. Payment - ready to pay for your Predatory Pricing, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.

Predatory pricing (also known as destroyer pricing) is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barriers to entry into the market for potential new competitors. If the other firms cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business. The predatory pricer then has fewer competitors or even a monopoly, allowing it to raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear.

In many countries, including the United States, predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive practices and is illegal under antitrust laws. However, it is usually difficult to prove that a drop in prices is due to predatory pricing rather than normal competition, and predatory pricing claims are difficult to prove due to high legal hurdles designed to protect legitimate price competition.

Concept Predatory pricing through sharp discounting is not beneficial to a business in the short run, as it may result in a price war and will cause loss of revenue and/or profits. Yet businesses may engage in predatory pricing because it may pay dividends in the long run.

This is because competitors who are not as financially strong as the predator will suffer even more, either due to loss of business or reduced profit margin caused by the aggressive price competition. The predation continues until the competitor is driven to failure and forced to leave the market. After the weaker competition has been driven out, the surviving business can raise prices above competitive levels (to "supra competitive pricing"). The business hopes to thereby reap revenues and profits that will more than offset the losses during the predatory pricing period.

In essence, the predator undergoes short-term pain for long-term gain. Therefore, for the predator to succeed, either it must have sufficient strength (financial reserves or other sources of offsetting revenue) to endure the initial lean period, or there must be substantial barriers to entry of other competitors.

The strategy may fail, however, if targeted competitors are not as weak as expected, or if competitors driven out are replaced by other competitors. In either case, this forces the predatory pricing period to become prolonged until possibly even the predator itself is forced to forfeit the expected gain. The strategy may also fail if the predator is not able to endure the short-term losses for as long as it expected.

Therefore, this strategy could hope to succeed only either when the predator is substantially stronger than the competition, or when barriers to entry of new competitors are high. Such barriers will prevent new entrants to the market from replacing others driven out, thereby allowing the supra competitive pricing to prevail for a sufficient period of time to more than make up for the short-term losses incurred by the predator.

Legal aspects In many countries, legal restrictions may preclude this pricing strategy, which may be deemed anti-competitive. In the United States predatory pricing practices may result in antitrust claims of monopoly or attempts to monopolize. Businesses with dominant or substantial market shares are more vulnerable to antitrust claims. However, because the antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the Supreme Court of the United States has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589 (1993) If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. In addition, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost.

In Canada, Section 50(1)(c) of the Competition Act prohibits companies from selling products at unreasonably low prices which is either designed or has the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor. Section 50(1)(b) of the Act prohibits selling products in one area of Canada at prices lower than in another area with the intent or the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor. The Bureau of Competition has established Predatory Pricing Guidelines defining what is considered to be unreasonably low pricing.

==Criticism==Some economists claim that true predatory pricing is rare because it is an irrational practice and that laws designed to stem the practice only inhibit competition. This stance was taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1993 case Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, and the Federal Trade Commission has not successfully prosecuted any company for predatory pricing since.

Proponents of the theory that predatory pricing is irrational argue that it must be a larger firm that engages in the practice, in order to be able to withstand the losses longer than its competitors. However, a larger firm will lose more money when it drops its prices below cost, because it has a larger market share with which to begin.

Opponents of the theory argue that this doesn't address the scenario where a large company attempts to break into a new market. Furthermore, it will not be able to recoup these losses because when it raises its prices to high levels, it provides a strong incentive for another firm to re-open the market and undercut it.

In addition, the competitors of a firm that engages in predatory pricing know that the predatory pricer cannot keep down their prices forever, and thus they need only game of chicken in order to remain in the market.

Thomas Sowell explains why predatory pricing is unlikely to work: Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small.

However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.

The Washington Post went bankrupt in 1933, though not because of predatory pricing. But neither its physical plant, its people, or its name disappeared into thin air. Instead, publisher Eugene Meyer acquired all three-at a fraction of what he had bid unsuccessfully for the same newspaper just four years earlier. In the course of time, the Post became the biggest newspaper in Washington. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html

Critics of the predatory pricing theory support their case empirically by arguing that there has been no instance where such a practice has led to a monopoly. Conversely, they argue that there is much evidence that predatory pricing has failed miserably. For example, Herbert Dow not only found a cheaper way to produce bromine but also defeated a predatory pricing attempt by a government-supported Germany cartel, Bromkonvention, who objected to his selling in Germany at a lower price. Bromkonvention retaliated by flooding the US market with below-cost bromine, at an even lower price than Dow's. But Dow simply instructed his agents to buy up at the very low price, then sell it back in Germany at a profit but still lower than Bromkonvention's price. In the end, the cartel could not keep up selling below cost, and had to give in. This is used as evidence that the free market is a better way to stop predatory pricing than government regulation such as anti-trust laws, though it should be noted that in this example the item—bromine—is a commodity as opposed to a value-added product, and that neither branded items such as athletic shoes or automobiles nor services such as dentistry or health care could be purchased and resold in the same way.

In another example of a successful defense against predatory pricing, a price war emerged between the New York Central Railroad (NYCR) and the Erie Railroad. At one point, NYCR charged only a dollar per car for the shipment of cattle. While the cattle cars quickly filled up, management was dismayed to find that Erie Railroad had also invested in the cattle-shipping business.Maury Klein. The Life and Legend of Jay Gould.

Thomas Sowell argues: It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases—punishment without proof.http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html

Support Since the early 1980s, economic models based on game theory and the theory of imperfect information have suggested that predatory pricing can be rational and profitable under certain circumstances. For instance, by increasing production and lowering price below costs, a firm may convince its competitors that it has achieved a lower cost of production than them—the competitors will see the firm's high volume and low price and may believe that the firm's price is not below its costs but rather the firm's costs are low because of its high volume—causing them to leave the market based on the conclusion that it would not be profitable for them to compete; this is known as low-cost signalling. Also, by pricing aggressively the incumbent firm will acquire a reputation for being "tough", this may deter potential entrants in the future.

Another explanation for predatory pricing may be where long term success will require a large market share from early on (e.g. market for computer operating systems), usually markets with significant switching costs. By pricing aggressively to start with, even pricing below cost, firms can ensure a base of customers in the future from whom to make a profit. Moreover, the criticism of predatory pricing theory suggests that competition will come flooding back in to profit from the irrational market pricing. This view is based on conventional market economics, but it overlooks that there may barriers to entry or other significant transaction costs that cannot be borne by smaller competitors in the short run or in some cases even in the long run.

Moreover, most criticism of predatory pricing is based on oversimplified models and demonstrably fallacious assumptions, which disregard the the fact that businesses which engage in predatory pricing (1) are typically able to buy in sufficient volume to negotiate lower costs and/or bypass one or more levels of the distribution chain through which their competitors must operate, (2) are typically diversified retailers, able to subsidize losses in some departments with profits in others, and (3) are typically chain retailers, able to subsidize a temporary overall loss at one location with profits from other locations. Once all competitors for a given product line are driven out of an area, prices on that product line can be raised to a point that is profitable (particularly with reduced costs), yet low enough to serve as a barrier to entry, at least for independent specialty merchants. Also frequently overlooked by critics is the fact that predatory retailers typically locate their stores far enough away from established local merchants to discourage their customers from patronizing the local merchants in the same trip. As local independent merchants are driven out of business, customer traffic in established retail areas (both traditional downtowns and shopping centers of various sizes and types) decreases, leaving the remaining merchants more vulnerable to being driven out.

Examples

References

See also

External links

Predatory pricing (also known as destroyer pricing) is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barriers to entry into the market for potential new competitors. If the other firms cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business. The predatory pricer then has fewer competitors or even a monopoly, allowing it to raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear.

In many countries, including the United States, predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive practices and is illegal under antitrust laws. However, it is usually difficult to prove that a drop in prices is due to predatory pricing rather than normal competition, and predatory pricing claims are difficult to prove due to high legal hurdles designed to protect legitimate price competition.

Concept Predatory pricing through sharp discounting is not beneficial to a business in the short run, as it may result in a price war and will cause loss of revenue and/or profits. Yet businesses may engage in predatory pricing because it may pay dividends in the long run.

This is because competitors who are not as financially strong as the predator will suffer even more, either due to loss of business or reduced profit margin caused by the aggressive price competition. The predation continues until the competitor is driven to failure and forced to leave the market. After the weaker competition has been driven out, the surviving business can raise prices above competitive levels (to "supra competitive pricing"). The business hopes to thereby reap revenues and profits that will more than offset the losses during the predatory pricing period.

In essence, the predator undergoes short-term pain for long-term gain. Therefore, for the predator to succeed, either it must have sufficient strength (financial reserves or other sources of offsetting revenue) to endure the initial lean period, or there must be substantial barriers to entry of other competitors.

The strategy may fail, however, if targeted competitors are not as weak as expected, or if competitors driven out are replaced by other competitors. In either case, this forces the predatory pricing period to become prolonged until possibly even the predator itself is forced to forfeit the expected gain. The strategy may also fail if the predator is not able to endure the short-term losses for as long as it expected.

Therefore, this strategy could hope to succeed only either when the predator is substantially stronger than the competition, or when barriers to entry of new competitors are high. Such barriers will prevent new entrants to the market from replacing others driven out, thereby allowing the supra competitive pricing to prevail for a sufficient period of time to more than make up for the short-term losses incurred by the predator.

Legal aspects In many countries, legal restrictions may preclude this pricing strategy, which may be deemed anti-competitive. In the United States predatory pricing practices may result in antitrust claims of monopoly or attempts to monopolize. Businesses with dominant or substantial market shares are more vulnerable to antitrust claims. However, because the antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the Supreme Court of the United States has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589 (1993) If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. In addition, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost.

In Canada, Section 50(1)(c) of the Competition Act prohibits companies from selling products at unreasonably low prices which is either designed or has the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor. Section 50(1)(b) of the Act prohibits selling products in one area of Canada at prices lower than in another area with the intent or the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor. The Bureau of Competition has established Predatory Pricing Guidelines defining what is considered to be unreasonably low pricing.

==Criticism==Some economists claim that true predatory pricing is rare because it is an irrational practice and that laws designed to stem the practice only inhibit competition. This stance was taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1993 case Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, and the Federal Trade Commission has not successfully prosecuted any company for predatory pricing since.

Proponents of the theory that predatory pricing is irrational argue that it must be a larger firm that engages in the practice, in order to be able to withstand the losses longer than its competitors. However, a larger firm will lose more money when it drops its prices below cost, because it has a larger market share with which to begin.

Opponents of the theory argue that this doesn't address the scenario where a large company attempts to break into a new market. Furthermore, it will not be able to recoup these losses because when it raises its prices to high levels, it provides a strong incentive for another firm to re-open the market and undercut it.

In addition, the competitors of a firm that engages in predatory pricing know that the predatory pricer cannot keep down their prices forever, and thus they need only game of chicken in order to remain in the market.

Thomas Sowell explains why predatory pricing is unlikely to work: Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small.

However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.

The Washington Post went bankrupt in 1933, though not because of predatory pricing. But neither its physical plant, its people, or its name disappeared into thin air. Instead, publisher Eugene Meyer acquired all three-at a fraction of what he had bid unsuccessfully for the same newspaper just four years earlier. In the course of time, the Post became the biggest newspaper in Washington. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html

Critics of the predatory pricing theory support their case empirically by arguing that there has been no instance where such a practice has led to a monopoly. Conversely, they argue that there is much evidence that predatory pricing has failed miserably. For example, Herbert Dow not only found a cheaper way to produce bromine but also defeated a predatory pricing attempt by a government-supported Germany cartel, Bromkonvention, who objected to his selling in Germany at a lower price. Bromkonvention retaliated by flooding the US market with below-cost bromine, at an even lower price than Dow's. But Dow simply instructed his agents to buy up at the very low price, then sell it back in Germany at a profit but still lower than Bromkonvention's price. In the end, the cartel could not keep up selling below cost, and had to give in. This is used as evidence that the free market is a better way to stop predatory pricing than government regulation such as anti-trust laws, though it should be noted that in this example the item—bromine—is a commodity as opposed to a value-added product, and that neither branded items such as athletic shoes or automobiles nor services such as dentistry or health care could be purchased and resold in the same way.

In another example of a successful defense against predatory pricing, a price war emerged between the New York Central Railroad (NYCR) and the Erie Railroad. At one point, NYCR charged only a dollar per car for the shipment of cattle. While the cattle cars quickly filled up, management was dismayed to find that Erie Railroad had also invested in the cattle-shipping business.Maury Klein. The Life and Legend of Jay Gould.

Thomas Sowell argues: It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases—punishment without proof.http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html

Support Since the early 1980s, economic models based on game theory and the theory of imperfect information have suggested that predatory pricing can be rational and profitable under certain circumstances. For instance, by increasing production and lowering price below costs, a firm may convince its competitors that it has achieved a lower cost of production than them—the competitors will see the firm's high volume and low price and may believe that the firm's price is not below its costs but rather the firm's costs are low because of its high volume—causing them to leave the market based on the conclusion that it would not be profitable for them to compete; this is known as low-cost signalling. Also, by pricing aggressively the incumbent firm will acquire a reputation for being "tough", this may deter potential entrants in the future.

Another explanation for predatory pricing may be where long term success will require a large market share from early on (e.g. market for computer operating systems), usually markets with significant switching costs. By pricing aggressively to start with, even pricing below cost, firms can ensure a base of customers in the future from whom to make a profit. Moreover, the criticism of predatory pricing theory suggests that competition will come flooding back in to profit from the irrational market pricing. This view is based on conventional market economics, but it overlooks that there may barriers to entry or other significant transaction costs that cannot be borne by smaller competitors in the short run or in some cases even in the long run.

Moreover, most criticism of predatory pricing is based on oversimplified models and demonstrably fallacious assumptions, which disregard the the fact that businesses which engage in predatory pricing (1) are typically able to buy in sufficient volume to negotiate lower costs and/or bypass one or more levels of the distribution chain through which their competitors must operate, (2) are typically diversified retailers, able to subsidize losses in some departments with profits in others, and (3) are typically chain retailers, able to subsidize a temporary overall loss at one location with profits from other locations. Once all competitors for a given product line are driven out of an area, prices on that product line can be raised to a point that is profitable (particularly with reduced costs), yet low enough to serve as a barrier to entry, at least for independent specialty merchants. Also frequently overlooked by critics is the fact that predatory retailers typically locate their stores far enough away from established local merchants to discourage their customers from patronizing the local merchants in the same trip. As local independent merchants are driven out of business, customer traffic in established retail areas (both traditional downtowns and shopping centers of various sizes and types) decreases, leaving the remaining merchants more vulnerable to being driven out.

Examples

References

See also

External links



 

Predatory Pricing



 
Copyright © 2008 Hintcenter.com - All rights reserved.
Home | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
All Trademarks belong to their repective owners. Many aspects of this page are used under
commercial commons license from Yahoo!