Price monitoring relieves PO
Free newspaper association considers building a competing service
Association of free newspapers considers setting up a competing offerBy Markus Knöpfli According to the price watchdog, PrintOnline's (PO) prices for digital ad delivery are not abusive. But the Association of Swiss Free Newspapers (VSGZ) does not agree. It is considering setting up a second transmission company.
In its statement of May 18, the Price Monitoring Department (PW) stated that it could "currently find no indications of abusive pricing in the charges levied by PrintOnline". However, it would continue to monitor the market and review the charges at a later date, it added.
This verdict undoubtedly exonerates PrintOnline (PO). However, this is still no reason to rejoice, as PW qualified its statement with the addition of the words "currently". In addition, it stated at the outset that it too assumed "that PO has a dominant position in the market for the digital transmission of print originals." This statement had previously been made by the secretariat of the Competition Commission (Weko).
The reaction at the PO, in which Ringier, TA-Media, NZZ and Publicitas each hold a 25 percent stake, is cautious. "We welcome the conclusion that PrintOnline's prices are not abusive. However, the assumption that PO has market power is not correct," says PO Managing Director Kurt Obrist. He does not want to comment further on the PW statement. For PO, the issue is closed and it's back to business as usual.
Free newspapers dissatisfied with PW opinion
The VSGZ, however, is not satisfied. Last year, the VSGZ appealed to the PW and the Weko against PrintOnline (WW 2/00). They will not give up yet, said VSGZ President Willy Grüninger, and further legal steps are under consideration. Above all, however, VSGZ is considering setting up a competitor to PO. A competitor's offer for the digital transmission of advertisements has already been obtained, and it turned out to be more favorable than PO's offer.
However, Grüninger did not accept the argument that two intermediaries could complicate the placement of ads and that the VSGZ would thus do a disservice to print as a whole. Media planners are also likely to have a certain interest if there are two competing intermediaries on the market, he said.
In its complaint to the Competition Commission and the Price Monitoring Authority last year, the VSGZ had claimed that PrintOnline represented a quasi-monopoly in the digital transmission of artwork and that PrintOnline prices were not transparent. In addition, it was up to the advertisers and not the publishers to bear the costs for the (digital) transmission of advertisements.
However, PW did not address this last point, and even credits PrintOnline with offering two different tariffs that publishers could choose between: A (relatively expensive) rate based on individual orders and a (cheaper for large volumes) rate with a fixed connection fee. A breakdown of costs shows that customers with the first tariff do not cover PO's costs with their fees.
Price supervisor for circulation-based tariffs
Conversely, PW also says it pointed out to PO that there could be "massive price differences" in the two tariffs, depending on volume. It therefore proposed a circulation-based tariff structure, which PO rejected. Legally, it was "not possible to force PO to make this tariff structure change," PW wrote.
In its statement of May 18, the Price Monitoring Department (PW) stated that it could "currently find no indications of abusive pricing in the charges levied by PrintOnline". However, it would continue to monitor the market and review the charges at a later date, it added.
This verdict undoubtedly exonerates PrintOnline (PO). However, this is still no reason to rejoice, as PW qualified its statement with the addition of the words "currently". In addition, it stated at the outset that it too assumed "that PO has a dominant position in the market for the digital transmission of print originals." This statement had previously been made by the secretariat of the Competition Commission (Weko).
The reaction at the PO, in which Ringier, TA-Media, NZZ and Publicitas each hold a 25 percent stake, is cautious. "We welcome the conclusion that PrintOnline's prices are not abusive. However, the assumption that PO has market power is not correct," says PO Managing Director Kurt Obrist. He does not want to comment further on the PW statement. For PO, the issue is closed and it's back to business as usual.
Free newspapers dissatisfied with PW opinion
The VSGZ, however, is not satisfied. Last year, the VSGZ appealed to the PW and the Weko against PrintOnline (WW 2/00). They will not give up yet, said VSGZ President Willy Grüninger, and further legal steps are under consideration. Above all, however, VSGZ is considering setting up a competitor to PO. A competitor's offer for the digital transmission of advertisements has already been obtained, and it turned out to be more favorable than PO's offer.
However, Grüninger did not accept the argument that two intermediaries could complicate the placement of ads and that the VSGZ would thus do a disservice to print as a whole. Media planners are also likely to have a certain interest if there are two competing intermediaries on the market, he said.
In its complaint to the Competition Commission and the Price Monitoring Authority last year, the VSGZ had claimed that PrintOnline represented a quasi-monopoly in the digital transmission of artwork and that PrintOnline prices were not transparent. In addition, it was up to the advertisers and not the publishers to bear the costs for the (digital) transmission of advertisements.
However, PW did not address this last point, and even credits PrintOnline with offering two different tariffs that publishers could choose between: A (relatively expensive) rate based on individual orders and a (cheaper for large volumes) rate with a fixed connection fee. A breakdown of costs shows that customers with the first tariff do not cover PO's costs with their fees.
Price supervisor for circulation-based tariffs
Conversely, PW also says it pointed out to PO that there could be "massive price differences" in the two tariffs, depending on volume. It therefore proposed a circulation-based tariff structure, which PO rejected. Legally, it was "not possible to force PO to make this tariff structure change," PW wrote.
