The Big Three: Blowing away competitors

Last week, a friend of mine bought a prepaid plan to Wind Mobile. Living in the suburbs, we expected the signal to be fairly weak, but figured that it’d be alright. When we got home, however, the phone wouldn’t work at all. No wonder nobody recommends Wind, right?

Telus, BCE (Bell Canada EnterpLogos taken from vancouverdesi.comrises), and Rogers, nicknamed the Big Three, have dominated the Canadian phone industry for years. While small, independent companies such as Mobilicity and Wind Mobile have struggled to survive, the Big Three have expanded to cover the majority, if not all of Canada. Meanwhile, smaller companies lack the resources to gain cellular coverage over large areas.  In a recent article, the Big Three acknowledge that a fourth competitor could emerge, but they would likely struggle to match their quality of signal.

Clearly, emerging companies would struggle when pitted against such large corporations. While in the past, these companies had been given a large amount of assets free from the Canadian government, competitors are given a small advantage against the Big Three. According to the Huffington Post, when Verizon considered entrance to Canada, they would have gotten the opportunity to bid for two of four blocks of spectrum in an auction, compared to the one each of the Big Three. The Big Three, of course, protested this, posting campaigns over television and the internet. A bit unfair, seeing as a good amount of starting spectrum had come to them free.

While Canada is not the most expensive country in terms of wireless service, the addition of competitors could help lower prices, and possibly provide more jobs. Of course, the Big Three will likely hold their stake on the Canadian wireless market for a while yet.

The large overtaking the small. Problem?

According to an article from Quartz, many people are upset about General Mills buying Annie’s Homegrown, an organic and natural Mac and Cheese company. With a large amount of scrutiny on large corporations such as General Mills, Annie’s Homegrown is expected to lose a few customers.

“I’ll never buy @annieshomegrown ever again! They’ve sold their souls to the devil and let @GeneralMills take over.” are some of the comments online from previous Annie’s customers.

This is likely because many consumers today cherish the “underdog”. They dislike the large corporations that are often considered immoral for their pursuit of profits and domination of the industry. In this case, General Mills.  One could consider what seems to be fraudulent competition unethical. Referencing this chart, two companies, such as Ruffles and Lays, both owned by Pepsico, seem to be competing brands yet are part of the same conglomerate. Thus, this false competition is in a way manipulation of the customer.

However, is this unethical?

While one may be against these large companies taking over small, independent companies, it can be argued that the take-overs are beneficial to all stakeholders involved. Being absorbed into a larger company often gives the niche brands an opportunity to grow, “without compromising the quality of their product”, benefiting from the added funding and support. On the other hand, the conglomerate has a new aspect and both the tangible and intangible assets involved in the niche brand. Customers still receive the quality of the product they receive. Stock holders of the conglomerate gain due to the rising large company. Employees can benefit from the experience of working for a more well-known company.

Thus, while belonging to a large “power-hungry” company can have negative connotations, it has the possibility of being beneficial for the stakeholders involved.