Mergers
diminish consumer TV choices
Our
view
The recent merger
of two of the most popular network stations, the WB and UPN, may, at first
glance, appear to be an innocuous, natural progression within the American
market. After all, they only rank fifth
and sixth in network ratings.
But by combining these two separate entities ultimately it is us, the consumers,
who will suffer.
It is extremely dangerous to entrust a small number of people with what is being
shown in the media, especially a medium as powerful as television. Most people
receive their news from watching television and it is the network producers who
decide which stories get shown and which ones get shelled. This grants them enormous
power over what people see and how they understand what is happening in the world
around them.
This power is so great it changes the way people interpret society. With only
a few large groups deciding what the American public watches, both for entertainment
and news, these people decide how many shows feature minorities, how they are
portrayed, how newscasters word things and how people, both at home and abroad,
understand the various cultures America is comprised of. Instead of the media
acting as a source for progressive thought and positive change toward stereotypical
images of minorities, often television perpetuates negative images of different
communities.
Another pitfall to media mergers is that creativity is stifled. With only a few
people controlling what is being shown on television, the possibility for differentiation
decreases. The programs available on television now are becoming increasingly
bland and similar as the number of different companies shrinks.
This is not the only recent merger that has left consumers high and dry; the
number of cell phone providers has also recently decreased. In oligopolies, such
as the one currently dominating the cell phone industry, the competing companies
no longer engage in price competition, but rather slightly differentiate their
products to entice potential consumers. It’s called non-price competition.
This allows the group of companies to fix the price much higher than it would
be in a price-competitive market with more companies so that they can maximize
their profits. An example of this would be Cingular’s RAZR versus T-Mobile’s
Sidekick. Both are competing for customers by featuring new flashy products rather
than service plans.
Also, in an oligopoly it becomes increasingly difficult for competition to enter
the market because dominant companies are so large and have achieved “economics
of scale” and smaller, less efficient companies are immediately squeezed
out of competition. So much for budding mom-and-pop shops.
Also, as companies begin to group together it is often the blue-collar, unskilled
workers who work as the company’s salespeople and maintenance workers who
are faced with temporary unemployment as the stores they once labored for close,
remodel or otherwise adjust to the new ownership.
For most people temporary unemployment is a minor inconvenience, but for those
living paycheck to paycheck, as some blue-collar workers do, it can become an
enormous obstacle in achieving financial security. Many people formerly working
for Robinsons-May have suffered major changes in their employment because of
the merger between Macy’s and Robinsons-May.
But, eventually the growth of large, all-encompassing companies will have to
slow down. There can’t be one giant company providing every service to
everyone. Hopefully, not too many people will get hurt in the process.
|
