Re: Non-Price Effects

[antimonopoly@juno.com (Ralph Anspach)]

 I am
>interested in cases where a monopoly or cartel might find it more
>advantageous to lower product quality or restrict product variety
>than to raise price.

Lowering product variety was the name of the game for Hasbro's
monopolization strategy.  When it acquires a competitor,  it drops much
of its line and concentrates on the winners or staples.  In addition,  it
terminates all intra-competition of games in the same general category
which existed before the acquisition by keeping the strongest seller and
dropping the rest.  In addition,  development of new stuff is made the
lowest priority while the company concentrates on linked goods to movies
etc. 

              As the FTC judge pointed out, the bilateral monopoly
arrangement between TRU and Hasbro was for Hasbro to stop selling choice
items to the price clubs while TRU stops ordering items competitive to
Hasbro items which are called "knock-offs" -  actually they call
"knock-off"  any competing items.  End result:  less variety. 
 
Ralph          



_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]