How Major League Baseball Can Steal Profits Back From Ticket Scalpers Using the Right Pricing Solution

The National Baseball Hall of Fame recently inducted Ricky Henderson, one of baseball’s most prolific base stealers with a record 1,406 bases stolen in his career – yet, Major League Baseball has failed to deal with scalpers who steal millions in profits from their franchises every year. Scalpers have seized the lost opportunity where Baseball franchises lock in their ticket prices months before the season starts and choose not to adjust prices throughout the season. A more efficient secondary market thrives due to the scalpers’ ability to factor in several game variables (e.g. strength of opponent, seat type, starting lineup, weather conditions, etc.), as well as buyer-specific factors (e.g. age, attitude, clothing, jewelry, etc.) to determine the maximum (and therefore optimal from the seller’s perspective) price that each person is willing to pay. Another advantage for scalpers is their ability to immediately negotiate if the buyer doesn’t accept the first price, carefully moving the price down until both the buyer and seller agree upon a satisfactory price. To help reclaim these lost profits, the San Francisco Giants are now testing dynamic pricing software to help adjust ticket prices based on the expected consumer demand for each game. So what exactly is dynamic pricing, and is it powerful enough to replace the individualized pricing, negotiation, and sales effectiveness of ticket scalpers? Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Why Credit Doesn’t Matter to Maintain Competitive Advantage

Realizing I would be without a wireless connection on my train ride to NYC, I stopped to grab some light reading material at a kiosk in Union Station, where I found a plethora of headlines devoted to capital spending. I know that the loss of $50 Trillion in wealth in the last 18 months led to a severe credit crunch, but wasn’t that old news? Aren’t businesses starting to rebound with the distribution of the $700 Billion in TARP funds that helped prop up banks and car companies, along with another $2.5 Trillion spent to support the struggling financial system? I take a quick look through the daily business headlines, and they continue to reflect a particularly bleak outlook for businesses that are still struggling with low expectations for growth and profits, costly and scarce credit, weak consumer demand and a glut of production capacity. To compound matters, the current administration and Treasury Department will implement extensive financial regulations to curb future financial crises, and banks continue tightening their lending standards for all types of business loans. I hope these measures reduce the risk of another bubble market, but at what cost will these measures reduce the opportunity for many businesses to effectively compete in this economy? One thing is obvious: credit will no longer be a cheap commodity for businesses in the near future, period. But then again, is credit really necessary for businesses to stay competitive? Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

You are Not at the Mercy of the Market: You Have All the Power to Make Your Price

If figuring out how to maximize your revenues by charging the right price is hard when people actually need your product, imagine how much harder it is when they don’t need your product or don’t necessarily even need to pay to enjoy your product.  The lessons learned from how to maximize revenue in this regard, which is a much more formidable challenge, can profoundly impact your ability to maximize earnings in the less difficult situation where people have no alternate choice but to pay for your product.  In a stroll down a busy street, we will once in a great while receive a good that can stir our soul yet require no payment.  We receive this good from the ubiquitous street musician who earns his income as a mendicant who lets you set the price (which is often nil), rather than setting his own price for “services tendered.”

And then there are those rare occasions where we encounter a street musician whose music soars so high that we are forced to refer to him simply as a “musician,” for using the adjective “street” would be nothing short of a criticism.  About 2 years ago, this is what I encountered at one of Washington D.C.’s busiest Metro (subway) stations during the morning rush hour.  It wasn’t until much later in the day that I discovered the musician in whose masterly hands the violin “sobbed and laughed and sang” was the great virtuoso Josh Bell.  In the middle of the morning rush hour, 1,097 commuters passed by and all heard soul-stirring music at a price of their own choosing that just a few days earlier fetched more than $100 a seat at Boston’s Symphony Hall.  Josh Bell played to a rush hour herd, and demanded no price for priceless music.

His income depended not on the value he provided to those 1,097 passersby, but the overwhelming value he provided – for, if he failed to stir, we listless commuters would feel no compunction to pause and forfeit even a meager fraction of our purse.  And stir he did, with a masterly performance of Bach’s Chaconne from Partita No.2 in D Minor.  Of the almost 2,000 pedestrians that filed by, only 27 gave money for a total of $32.  In other words, for a performance that was described by the Washington Post as “pearls before breakfast,” less than 3% of us offered any payment (for “a man whose talents can command $1,000 a minute”).  Did the service deserve such scant payment, or was there more to the revenue than just the greatness of the service itself.  This is a question that goes right to the root of just how complex the endeavor of pricing can be. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

The Micro-Monopoly Phenomenon

Here’s an interesting market experiment that you can try without leaving your desk. Go to www.pricegrabber.com, choose a merchandise category, and then select a product that has more than a half-dozen or so different sellers. Sort the list by price, and compare the highest price to the lowest. Having just performed this for the HP Laser Jet 1022n laser printer, I see that I have the option to pay as much as $290.00 or as little as $115.00, plus a range of prices in between. That’s a lot of variance for the exact same product. The highest price is almost three times as high as the lowest. Yet all sales have not been captured by the lowest-price seller, nor has the most expensive retailer (which happens to be HP itself) gone out of business. Intuitively, you may already be rationalizing this phenomenon to yourself. People are willing to pay for things like the seller’s brand strength, return policy, warranty, service packages, availability, and so on, which is why different prices are charged. I didn’t bat an eyelash when I saw the price range on the screen, even though it seems to contradict the premise of market-clearing prices in perfectly competitive, transparent markets. We understand the reasons for these differences, but there is a deeper insight to be gleaned from this apparent oddity.

Let’s say hypothetically that this printer has 10 different attributes like the ones mentioned above on which every buyer places a value, even it happens to be zero. There is a segment of the printer-buying population that wants all 10 attributes, including the HP brand name of the seller, and that segment is willing to pay a higher price. No other seller can satisfy all 10 attributes, giving HP a monopoly on that attribute set. But as a seller, HP operates within constraints since other sellers offer the same exact printer at a lower price in return for providing fewer attributes. Thus, HP cannot set its prices as a pure monopolist, because an excessively high price will drive too much of the market to the next lowest price tier. HP’s competitive position is what I call a micro-monopoly (or “Micropoly” if you prefer the conflation, as I do). The explanation for this price dispersion is that every seller of this printer satisfies a unique mix of attributes demanded by a particular segment of the market. For that segment, the seller has a limited amount of micro-monopoly pricing power.

When viewed from this angle, it becomes easy to see why it makes more sense to set prices based on what your customers value rather than what your competitors charge. The reason is that one firm may compete only tangentially with another firm that sells the same products. The obvious question then is what happens when two firms fulfill the same exact mix of attributes. At this point, firms would then compete on price, but I think this logical extension can be somewhat misleading. In the real world, no two firms ever truly occupy the same attribute space. There will always be at least some differences in the total experience and feel that the customer gets from making the purchase, and thus the potential for price differentiation exists. Multiple optimum prices for the same product can exist in the marketplace. A profit maximizing firm’s objective should not be to race to the bottom in a low price battle with competitors, but rather to understand very clearly what its price ceiling is.

Subscribe   |