Stories
Stories
Patrick Moreton
Moreton Photo by Jennifer Silverberg |
An expert on competition in telecommunications and new technologies, Patrick S. Moreton (MBA 91) takes the long view. Despite congressional efforts to tighten controls over media ownership and the current public outcry against media consolidation, Moreton says, In the end, I believe deregulation will carry the day.
An assistant professor of organization and strategy at Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis, Moreton has focused his research on economic and organizational models of business strategy, competition in telecommunications and new technologies, and price discrimination and product bundling.
After graduating from HBS as a Baker Scholar, he worked as a Charles M. Williams Research Fellow at the School from 1991 to 1993, writing more than a dozen cases on finance, business ethics, and business-government regulation. He was the founder and managing partner of Moreton & Moreton Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from 1987 to 1989 and a management consultant at Edgar, Dunn & Conover in San Francisco from 1983 to 1987.
Moreton earned his Ph.D. in business policy and strategy at the University of California, Berkeley in 2002. A self-described erstwhile Californian, he is a graduate of the University of California, San Diego. An avid long-distance runner and a voracious reader, Moreton also enjoys sailing, hiking, skiing, and other outdoor activities.
The Federal Communications Commission relaxed media ownership rules in June, and a bipartisan furor ensued. The House has voted to overturn some of the agencys decision.
Whats going on?
Until June 2, FCC rules decreed that no television network could own local stations that, in aggregate, reached more than 35 percent of the national audience market. The federal courts, responding to legal challenges by the media companies, have repeatedly ruled that the FCCs constraints were, in effect, arbitrary and capricious. So the FCC was forced to either ease the rules or offer a stronger justification for them. On June 2, the agency chose to relax the ownership cap, to 45 percent.
What was its reasoning?
It argued that the marketplace has changed because new technologies such as cable, the Internet, and satellite TV facilitate new and diverse sources of information and content. The competition they provide, the FCC asserted, makes ownership caps outdated. Not everyone agrees with this perspective, of course, and Congress, which makes the laws within which the FCC operates, is trying to overturn the new rules.
Congress established the FCC in 1934. Why?
Radio was the big broadcast medium of the time, and Congress feared there might be chaos among the users of the airwaves. It decided that there had to be a regulatory body to bring coherence to the allocation of spectrum so there wouldnt be interference from over-lapping users.
Was serving the public interest by ensuring a diversity of voices also a concern?
Because the spectrum is a public resource, the FCCs mandate requires that the spectrums users satisfy the communication needs of the public. In recent decades, the FCC has interpreted this mandate, in the context of the radio and television industries, as requiring a degree of localism and diversity in their content. That means offering programming that addresses local issues with a range of opinions.
Were there other aspects to the public interest?
In the early years of radio, one of the FCCs interests was to develop that industry by encouraging people to use the spectrum. It saw that as being in the public interest making sure that the nascent industry became established so that Americans had an opportunity to use the spectrum and enjoy its benefits. When television came along, the largest radio networks were given a privileged opportunity to enter the fledgling industry because they were thought to be in the best position to actually develop the new technology. The downside to this strategy is that it gives up some of the benefits of competition. The upside is that theres a better chance a technology (radio, TV, the telephone) will be established as a viable, inexpensive service thats widely available to the public.
So its a balancing act?
Yes, and it continues to this day. In the media industry, I think were seeing something like the Wal-Mart effect on small rural communities. Consumers love Wal-Marts low prices and its one-stop shopping. At the same time, they know those things have hurt local businesses and small towns. But Wal-Marts success suggests that the benefits of this type of consolidation efficiencies related to being big outweigh its costs, at least in the eyes of individual consumers, who apparently see it as a net gain. Should we worry about consolidation in the media if we tolerate it in many other areas? If you go down your supermarkets cereal aisle, youll see there are three companies that basically dictate what types of cereal you can have for breakfast. Youll also see that theres still a huge range of products, even though theres only a handful of companies making them. So its not clear that consolidation necessarily limits consumer choice.
But if news or opinion is sold like supermarket cereal, theres only room on the shelves for what most pleases most people.
Ideally, the public interest would probably be best served if relevant, objective, and deeply thought news programs were also the most popular. But that kind of program will only be popular if consumers place enough value on those attributes relative to others. The flavors of news offered at any point in time have always been those that are the most popular. Thats the nature of commercial broadcasting. As for shelf space, it might actually increase under relaxed ownership rules. Under consolidated ownership, more TV stations might be viable in some markets because their programming costs would be lower. Presumably, that would create more opportunities for diversity in programming.
What do you see happening in Washington?
Broad political opposition to the new rules has gotten Congresss attention and, with an election year coming up, probably the Presidents, too. That increases the chances for a return to something closer to the old rules. Meanwhile, consumers continue to vote with their eyeballs in the television industry. Theyre moving from local, independent content to nationally produced content, presumably because its a better viewing experience. That ultimately will decide this matter. And as the benefits of bigness in program distribution continue to grow, the pressure increases to again relax the ownership caps. Its really just a matter of time.
Post a Comment
Related Stories
-
- 15 Dec 2023
- Skydeck
The Musts of 2023
Re: Allison Phillips (MBA 1988); Marcus Wedner (MBA 1988); Kelly Mackey (AMP 199); Brian Crombie (MBA 1988); Munir Merali (AMP 184); Teresa Clarke (MBA 1988); Jagruti Oza (MBA 1988); Karen Hung (MBA 1998); Scott O'Neil (MBA 1998); Guy Spier (MBA 1993); Jeff Brown (MBA 1983); Mike Depatie (MBA 1983); Elizabeth Pulver Castleman (MBA 1993); Linda Cardillo Platzer (MBA 1978); Roberta Sydney (MBA 1983) -
- 15 Aug 2023
- Forbes
Twelve Alumnae Named to Forbes 50 Over 50
Re: Lisa Tatum (MBA 1998); Depelsha Thomas McGruder (MBA 1998); Sarah Harden (MBA 1999); Suzanne Strassburger (OPM 53); Gina Bartasi (OPM 33); Tanya Lombard (AMP 199); Jessie Woolley-Wilson (MBA 1990); Geeta Aiyer (MBA 1985); Mala Gaonkar (MBA 1996); Aileen Lee (MBA 1997); Purnima Puri (MBA 1997); Deborah Quazzo (MBA 1987) -
- 22 Feb 2022
- HBS Alumni Bulletin
Breaking News
Re: Elizabeth Hansen (PHDOB 2019); Jonas Heese (Marvin Bower Associate Professor); By: Jen McFarland Flint; illustration by Dana Smith -
- 15 Aug 2021
- New York Times
You’ve Never Heard of the Biggest Digital Media Company in America
Re: Ricardo Elias (MBA 1994)