3 ms·
> I am an economist and that is my field. I disagree with your take, if that is what you mean. This is a vertical merger. Vertical mergers are quite different i
by ignoramous 5y ago
> I am an economist and that is my field. I disagree with your take, if that is what you mean. This is a vertical merger. Vertical mergers are quite different in their welfare effects to consumers than horizontal mergers. Vertical mergers can frequently be welfare-improving to consumers.
Not saying you're lying (I am out of my depth here, for once), but your post reminds of this piece on noahpinion.substack.com, "Experts will lie to you": https://archive.is/ErWwa https://archive.is/ErWwa
- ghaff 5y agoI suppose it depends on how you view Amazon. They are a (primarily streaming) content distributor although they're also a (primarily TV) studio. It's a reasonable argument that a distributor acquiring a large back catalog of film IP is a vertical merger. Although to the welfare-improving point, giving that back catalog a straightforward route to consumers is not necessarily a bad thing.
- mnd999 5y agoIt is a bad thing for the consumer because it means more exclusive titles which is gives rise to a false market. It looks like consumers have a choice of platforms with content, but when that content is exclusive the consumer ends up having to pay for all the platforms to see the content they want to see. This in effect means more costs for the consumer and less choice.
- setr 5y agoIsn’t this already the mechanism in play? They’re all signing exclusivity deals between streaming companies, as the streaming companies strive to differentiate on really their only notable difference: their catalog. An MGM buy just further buys into the practice
- huitzitziltzin 5y ago> Not saying you're lying Thanks. You can read this material for yourself in any undergraduate industrial organization textbook!