Month: October 2010

The Vancouver Canucks is a professional hockey team who has participated in the National Hockey League for forty years. In almost every game, from the old Pacific Coliseum to the new Rogers Arena, the hockey venue is sold out. A foreigner unfamiliar with Vancouver might deduce that the Canucks traditionally been a strong team who entertains their fans with wins and the occasional Stanley Cup. The first statement is generally true, but the second is unfortunately wrong. The Vancouver Canucks have been unable to crack the second round of the playoffs since the fabled run in 1994.

The same foreigner might wonder then why the Canucks are one of the most popular teams in the NHL, and why the Tampa Bay

Lightning, who won the Stanley Cup in 2004, find it hard to sell out in any game. The Lightning sells their tickets for an average of $35, while Canucks double that price, selling their average ticket for $70. The reason for this phenomenon is because the Canucks have no rivalry. Hockey holds a monopoly on the professional sports business, and they supply possibly the best form of sports entertainment in Vancouver. If consumers are unwilling to pay their exorbitant prices, then those consumers are going to be watching the game at home instead of in a packed, energy-charge arena. The Canucks are the only top level professional sport in Vancouver, with no viable substitute to compete for market share. The Lightning has professional baseball to contend with, and lower prices are there to entice consumers away from the Tampa Bay Rays. As well, the barriers to enter the professional sport business are extremely high, making it unlikely for investors to enter the market. Although the Canucks have been unable to win a Stanley Cup or even go deep into the playoffs, the lack of rivalry in the business has given Vancouverites little choice but to buy the tickets. That or Vancouver is simply just a hockey city whose thirst for excitement can only be sated with a good hockey game.

Most first year students (myself included) think that tuition is the only major financial burden associated with university. Sadly, we are mistaken, because there is a $300 to $700 cost for textbooks, with the average textbook costing $100. Just a few decades ago, a textbook could be bought for $3. Some blame inflation, but the rising price is still grossly disproportional to inflation costs, which means there are other factors to take into account.

The main factor is that students basically have two choices when it comes to university textbooks, buy the book and pass the course or opt not to and fail. The plight of university students is well-known to publishers and bookstores, and since their strategy is to take as much money from their customers as possible without inciting a boycott, they raise the price of books exponentially. However, this is not their only tactic to increase their bottom line. To coerce students into buying new textbooks instead of from their friends or online, they package CDs and online codes with the book that are “essential” to a student’s education. Another tactic they employ is to continually produce new editions of textbooks every few years, justifying that the newer books contain new and important material. How can an entry level math course need a new textbook when students have essentially been taught the same material for the past fifty years? The vicious cycle of university textbooks; professors coldly assign new editions to buy, students resentfully buy the textbooks, and bookstores greedily take the money. It is a wonder that the majority of our population want a higher education.

The new cellphone carrier, Wind mobile, has just recently entered the fast expanding wireless carrier market. To stand out from its many competitors, Wind has branded itself as a carrier with cheap plans and no contracts; as well as having a “we actually care about you, because we listen to you and actually implement your ideas” motto. However, the wind in Wind mobile’s sails (or sales) have just been taken out by Chatr, which materialized soon after Wind’s debut. In an attempt to take back some of the market, Rogers has created their own discount cellphone carrier. Unsurprisingly, Chatr is essentially a replica of Wind, copying their voice plans, benefits, and coverage zone idea.

In an attempt to stunt the growth of new wireless networks, Rogers and other big wireless brands have made “flanker” brands. People could say “all is fair in love and war”, but to is it fair for big wireless companies to blatantly copy younger carriers? Instead of trying to destroy new carriers to take back market share, Rogers should create flanker brands that capture new markets. Rogers should stop being the fat and lethargic king that quells a new upstart by “assassination” and instead create new ideas to capture or recapture their citizens’ hearts, or in this case, wallets.