Howdy, A big thanks for those who replied.
--- Christopher Auld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Classic winner-take-all markets, no?" Um, I don't know. I live in a village of 1,500 people with a library to match, and I couldn't find much on the internet. There were references to Beta v. VHS, from which I'll make the ex pede Herculem leap and ask, "what market is Britney Spears taking that she can keep out Normandie Shields (thanks, Anton)?" Is she dominating the "shockingly callipygian, good dancing but with a questionable voice and a face-to-neck proportion that gives a creepy E.T.-in-a-wig vibe, blonde" market? My intent there was not to be rude to you, Chris, but to illustrate the specificness of the market she would fill. In the "cute blonde teen singer" market we have Christina Aguilera at one end (voice oriented, incidently sexy) through Mandy Moore and Jessica Simpson to Britney Spears (bad voice, aggressively sexy). I think there's even a few more out there (I haven't been watching MTV lately). To put it more plainly, no single artist is dominating the cute-blonde market and I don't know what market Britney actually owns. I would like to read more on how Britney is the victor of a winner take all market. I'm not saying she ain't, but my guess says otherwise. But that's just a guess. Dan Lewis profitably compared Britney & Normandie's positions with a baseball metaphore. (He also reminded me of the pleasure of language and the beauty of a good throw-away line.) Unfortunately I don't know baseball and the AAA & AA references are greek to me. However, I think it is telling that the baseball metaphore was used, since baseball is notable for being a decidedly noncompetitive industry. (Off the field.) Surely it's true that a Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Ingemar Stenmark, or Pele would be a relative superstar regardless of the nature of the market. That's why I chose Britney and not The Beatles or Dave Brubeck or Bob Marley or Elvis or The Beastie Boys. Britney is no Michael Jordan; regardless of what her sympathetic bio may assert, she amounts to a pre-fab entertainment act. Yet she is hugely successful, while Normandie Shields is left out in the cold. It could be marketing. But why not add a Normandie Shields and make a little more money? The market for baseball players if fixed by the number of teams, right? But that's not the case for the cute-blonde singer. Consider another metaphore: American Idol. The final ten, if not the final fifty, were virtually indistinguishable. Yeah, individual differences existed, but they were just variations on a theme. One wins, but that's the contest rules. What rules make Britney such a big winner? Why not squeeze Normandie into the cute-blonde market with Christina, Jessica, Mandy, and Britney? It makes me question the baseball metaphore, but only slightly. My meditation leads me to think that maybe the cute-blonde market is a Cournot game. There's an optimal number of cute-blondes on the market and the record industry has found the equilibrium. Huh. Could we take the number of cute-blondes & number of recording firms and work backwards to the rest of the parameters of the game? Would that tell us anything worthwhile? Curiously your, jsh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
