Thursday, October 25, 2012
Get ready for Antitrust Marathon V: When in Rome
Invites for the March 18th Rome Antitrust Marathon will be going out sometime next week. Be sure to register for the actual race as well if you are so inclined. Regardless, be ready to discuss Pubic and Private Enforcement at Italian Competition Authority and carbo load with Phil and me as two of your co-hosts on Sunday evening the 17th at the conference dinner regardless of how much running you do earlier that day.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Funny sort of run yesterday
My plan was to run the long way to the car dealer to pick up the car with the winter tires on. I got up, went through my pre-long-run ritual of gels, caffeine, and liquids, and headed out the door. Then the thunder started rolling. I'm not afraid of a little run in a storm in a place other than the Rocky Mountains, but I'm not inclined to start running just when the storm is arriving.
I headed home and puttered around the condo to wait it out. A little home repair work, got started on the next step in the tiling project, and so on. The thunder and lightning stopped, so I started the ritual again. More calories, more water, more caffeine. Was lacing up the shoes when the sky opened up.
Same story two more times. I finally made it out at noon after four times preparing and standing down. Ended up with a nice 16-miler and a moderate car shop bill, with instructions to return soon for the rear brakes.
I headed home and puttered around the condo to wait it out. A little home repair work, got started on the next step in the tiling project, and so on. The thunder and lightning stopped, so I started the ritual again. More calories, more water, more caffeine. Was lacing up the shoes when the sky opened up.
Same story two more times. I finally made it out at noon after four times preparing and standing down. Ended up with a nice 16-miler and a moderate car shop bill, with instructions to return soon for the rear brakes.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
2 Weeks later
Turns out having your Fibia drop down from the patella and having all the associated muscle groups go out of whack is even less fun than I originally thought. Two weeks later I can walk ok but not run. Going down stairs is still dicey and bending down on my left leg is still not a very good idea. Treatment so far consists of chiropractic care about once a week, painful massage therapy as often as I can stand it, plus long soaks in the hot tub while stretching as often as I can find the time. It seems the muscle damage was far worse than the joint damage but eventually all subject to rehab. Yesterday I managed a not-painful 16 minutes on the elliptical set on an incline to focus on the gluts rather than quads. The dreaded pool "running" is next. This completely shreds my fall racing schedule but hopefully leaves me time to prepare for Rome or at least the first half.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Airline code-share pricing
An amusing discovery today when buying a ticket to Chicago for tomorrow's "Brands, Competition and the Law" conference at the Loyola-Chicago Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies:
United and US Airways offer the same flights at the same price, operated on United Express equipment. I could just pick which airline I preferred but it made not a whit of difference with regard to when or how I will fly (same times, same planes, same check-in counters). I went with US Airways just in case there is a bonus of some sort paid to the booking airline; my idea was to protect the one carrier still flying non-stop from Indianapolis to National.
You could buy the same itinerary on the same airplanes with United as the named airline going one way and US Airways as the named airline going the other. Once again, it matters not to the traveler, who still checks in at the United counter on both ends. But it costs $7 more for the trip if you have the dual-branded ticket. The $7 price difference held across at least two itineraries (I didn't look further).
I wonder why?
1. It's hard to think of a clearer example of perfect competition than two airlines both selling exactly the same flights on the same website; it would be difficult for either airline to realize a price premium on the basis of a brand unless the buyers were not utility maximizing. But that should hold for the dual-branded flights as well. That suggests that brand differences may be relevant for an uninformed or non-utility-maximizing group of infra-marginal consumers.
2. That should hold also for the dual-branded flights, though. The only difference I can see with dual branding is the greater likelihood of consumer confusion -- thus the possibility of a behavioral exploitation strategy at play.
3. It could be a screw up -- the sub-optimal conduct is on the part of the sellers, or their computer systems.
4. I wonder if it is a contract term? Perhaps there is a non-discriminatory rate term in the code-share agreements that is drafted badly enough to create a loophole for a dual-branded flight. (Even if so, that still means somebody is trying to benefit from a behavioral exploitation strategy, or is him/herself messing up the pricing.)
United and US Airways offer the same flights at the same price, operated on United Express equipment. I could just pick which airline I preferred but it made not a whit of difference with regard to when or how I will fly (same times, same planes, same check-in counters). I went with US Airways just in case there is a bonus of some sort paid to the booking airline; my idea was to protect the one carrier still flying non-stop from Indianapolis to National.
You could buy the same itinerary on the same airplanes with United as the named airline going one way and US Airways as the named airline going the other. Once again, it matters not to the traveler, who still checks in at the United counter on both ends. But it costs $7 more for the trip if you have the dual-branded ticket. The $7 price difference held across at least two itineraries (I didn't look further).
I wonder why?
1. It's hard to think of a clearer example of perfect competition than two airlines both selling exactly the same flights on the same website; it would be difficult for either airline to realize a price premium on the basis of a brand unless the buyers were not utility maximizing. But that should hold for the dual-branded flights as well. That suggests that brand differences may be relevant for an uninformed or non-utility-maximizing group of infra-marginal consumers.
2. That should hold also for the dual-branded flights, though. The only difference I can see with dual branding is the greater likelihood of consumer confusion -- thus the possibility of a behavioral exploitation strategy at play.
3. It could be a screw up -- the sub-optimal conduct is on the part of the sellers, or their computer systems.
4. I wonder if it is a contract term? Perhaps there is a non-discriminatory rate term in the code-share agreements that is drafted badly enough to create a loophole for a dual-branded flight. (Even if so, that still means somebody is trying to benefit from a behavioral exploitation strategy, or is him/herself messing up the pricing.)
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Wittenberg, NYRR and NYC Marathon
There is a long article in today's NY Times on Mary Wittenberg, CEO of the New York Road Runners, which boasts as its marquee event the New York Marathon. All in all it's not entirely flattering. Wittenberg comes across as someone with her heart in the right place who has probably overreached. The NY Marathon is huge -- even in comparison to its already large size 10 years ago, and it is expensive -- 3 times its cost 10 years ago. Putting it in perspective, the $250 entry fee for the NY Marathon exceeds the entry fee for an Ironman 70.3, which is comparably marketed but costs substantially more (on a per athlete basis) to run and almost certainly to insure.
One thing the article doesn't say is that Wittenberg has doubled the size of the NYRR enterprise during a period of dramatic growth of running and marathoning generally. Running is historically cyclical. A person running a business during an build cycle should put in place mechanisms to handle the inevitable decline. I'm intrigued, for example, that major city marathons like Boston and Marine Corps are not prohibitively expensive. Boston may not fill up on the first day of registration, but at $150 or so it will fill up. (Marine Corps costs less than $100, and it does fill up quickly -- 30,000 runners sign up in single-digit hours. Of course, MCM has the massive competitive advantage of limited opportunity cost in engaging labor.) I learned to my amazement that the London Marathon still charges an entry fee of 35 pounds; googling "London Marathon entry" demonstrates that running it is a scarce opportunity indeed. Those races will thrive even as fewer runners seek to race. But can New York maintain 50,000 runners at a cost of $250 per person? My bet is no. I wonder how NYRR will handle the change.
One thing the article doesn't say is that Wittenberg has doubled the size of the NYRR enterprise during a period of dramatic growth of running and marathoning generally. Running is historically cyclical. A person running a business during an build cycle should put in place mechanisms to handle the inevitable decline. I'm intrigued, for example, that major city marathons like Boston and Marine Corps are not prohibitively expensive. Boston may not fill up on the first day of registration, but at $150 or so it will fill up. (Marine Corps costs less than $100, and it does fill up quickly -- 30,000 runners sign up in single-digit hours. Of course, MCM has the massive competitive advantage of limited opportunity cost in engaging labor.) I learned to my amazement that the London Marathon still charges an entry fee of 35 pounds; googling "London Marathon entry" demonstrates that running it is a scarce opportunity indeed. Those races will thrive even as fewer runners seek to race. But can New York maintain 50,000 runners at a cost of $250 per person? My bet is no. I wonder how NYRR will handle the change.
8K Today
It's been a dream of mine to share race day with P__, attending in a capacity other than hauling me home. Today we ran the Race for a Cause 8K in Arlington VA. It was my second time on the course, on a nearly identical day to last year and I ran within 3 seconds or so of my time from last year. P__ ran as well, her first 8K (so a PR!) and arguably her best ever run of any distance. After a few back-slaps at the end, I jogged back down the course and enjoyed finishing a second time with P__. Next month we are scheduled to run the Veteran's Day 10K, and in early December the Jingle All the Way 8K. I can't wait!
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Lance -- Again
Two articles on Lance in today's NY Times. The first is a rather painful-to-read summary of the doping agency report concluding Lance was the ringleader of a sophisticated -- and forceful -- doping program surrounding his two TdF teams. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but it's depressing, and I lean toward true.
The second is a discussion of his luke-warm reception in triathlon. I've discussed that here before. The article includes interviews with a handful of pro triathletes and coaches who support his exclusion from sanctioned events. Statements in those interviews contain a certain subtextual discomfort with the painful fact that a top cyclist, even when he's far too old to race on his bike, is better than a top triathlete in his prime. Of course, it's easy to clothe any such complaint in worries about triathlon's remaining a clean sport.
Just had this thought as I stood here: assume Lance is/was a doper. Is his success in triathlon problematic because he is/was dirty, or is it problematic because of his high profile regardless of doping? It seems that to the extent triathlon is a "clean" sport (which is debatable anyway -- Ironman titles have been stripped before) it is primarily a function of triathlon's low profile rather than a function of triathletes' inherent morality. Introduce mass public appeal and the sponsorship dollars that come with it and you bring about overwhelming incentives to cheat. (Having written that, it seems more obvious than profound.)
The second is a discussion of his luke-warm reception in triathlon. I've discussed that here before. The article includes interviews with a handful of pro triathletes and coaches who support his exclusion from sanctioned events. Statements in those interviews contain a certain subtextual discomfort with the painful fact that a top cyclist, even when he's far too old to race on his bike, is better than a top triathlete in his prime. Of course, it's easy to clothe any such complaint in worries about triathlon's remaining a clean sport.
Just had this thought as I stood here: assume Lance is/was a doper. Is his success in triathlon problematic because he is/was dirty, or is it problematic because of his high profile regardless of doping? It seems that to the extent triathlon is a "clean" sport (which is debatable anyway -- Ironman titles have been stripped before) it is primarily a function of triathlon's low profile rather than a function of triathletes' inherent morality. Introduce mass public appeal and the sponsorship dollars that come with it and you bring about overwhelming incentives to cheat. (Having written that, it seems more obvious than profound.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)