Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rise of lululemon analysis
Rise of lululemon analysis
Rise of lululemon analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rise of lululemon analysis
1) To me, market competition is the act of various different providers of goods and services trying to accomplish their goals. These goals can be to increase market share, profits, revenue etc…. I would say that street food hot dogs I recently bought in New York are a good example of perfect competition. The food is all priced relatively cheap, since they are price takers, the food is almost the same, buyers know what the price should be and the available substitutes, and there are very low barriers to entry/exit.
2) To me, a market monopoly is a good or service that has no available substitute. I think that since Monopolies are illegal in the United States, it is a hard to find a product that is a true Monopoly, but I think that Microsoft
…show more content…
I believe that both have pros and cons, and that both can be argued strongly. Monopolies do have benefits mainly that they can efficiently utilize available resources, and can benefit from economies of scale. However, they can also provide substandard service because they don’t have to fear competition. Perfect competition is the same way, there are pros and cons. The pros are that consumers get the best deal, and that anyone can sell the product. The main con is that low margins may prevent the product from advancing, as there will be minimal profit for research and development. Overall however, I tend to be for perfect competition and against …show more content…
As of 2015, Netflix is in 1/3 of American households, whereas Amazon Prime is only used by 13% of American Households. Moreover, when looking at market shares, Netflix has a 37% market share. In contrast, services such as Youtube have only 17% and Amazon has 4% market share (Fortune).
Lululemon Athletica dominants the yoga apparel sector, however, when it comes to general athletic apparel brands such as Nike, Under Armor, Adidas, Puma, ETC. all take a spot alongside Lululemon as top competitors. It’s for this reason that I don’t believe Lululemon could be considered a monopoly in the world of athletic apparel.
Sirius XM could be considered a monopoly in the world of satellite radio. Sirius XM seems to have the most prevalent presence in this industry. However, if there were a competitor for the radio itself Spotify and Pandora would likely be considered competition.
American Water Works could also be a monopoly in the public utility sector. This company has agreements with the government that allow them to be the sole provider of a necessary utility for the majority of the
Finally, Lululemon also faces competition from active-wear giants, like Nike. Nike has introduced a yoga line, which they are in the process of expanding (Lutz, 2013). Nike proves to be a major rival because they have a greater reach to customers than Lululemon (Lutz, 2013). According to the Nike website, they are selling their yoga pants for $100.
Consumers would lose-out from increased competition in the short-run, however in the long-run consumers would ultimately benefit from increased competition. High levels of competition prevent businesses from abusing their market power, such as setting prices above or below what a perfectly competitive market would dictate to be at equilibrium and also encourages businesses to be innovative instead of becoming complacent, relying on consumer’s lack of choices.
Since this debate still rages on, many people argue both sides of the story of the pros and cons. Many would argue that not breaking up monopolies actually increase the competition of companies that are attempting to break into some of the market share that the monopoly already has, more so than the free market that exists now. Proponents of the Sherman Anti-Trust act argue that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Martin, 1996) as originally quoted by Baron Acton. The idea that no competition within the business world establishes no risk and reward that is all part of the entrepreneur spirit of the U.S. spirit.
I believe that we have too many monopolies in Canada because monopolies give the consumer less choice, lower quality service, and products and services can be more costly to the consumer. In my opinion, a market-based economy with fewer monopolies will benefit the consumer because companies will compete to give you the best deal possible to retain your business. In this environment the consumer will benefit most as a consumer, I
An oligopoly is defined as "a market structure in which only a few sellers offer similar or identical products" (Gans, King and Mankiw 1999, pp.-334). Since there are only a few sellers, the actions of any one firm in an oligopolistic market can have a large impact on the profits of all the other firms. Due to this, all the firms in an oligopolistic market are interdependent on one another. This relationship between the few sellers is what differentiates oligopolies from perfect competition and monopolies. Although firms in oligopolies have competitors, they do not face so much competition that they are price takers (as in perfect competition). Hence, they retain substantial control over the price they charge for their goods (characteristic of monopolies).
There is much controversy about what a ‘good’ monopoly is and what a ‘bad’ monopoly is. Monopolies can have a positive impact on the market. One example is the history of telecommunications. The American Telephone and Telegraph “consolidate(d) the industry by buying up all the small operators and creating a single network—a natural monopoly” (Taplin). It became easier and more convenient for consumers to communicate. This is an example of a ‘good’ monopoly. Louis Brandeis, counselor of President Woodrow Wilson, agreed. He said it makes sense for one or a few companies to own‘“natural” monopolies, like telephone, water and power companies and railroads” (Taplin). The keyword here: natural monopolies. Natural monopolies are different from most of the monopolies in the market place today. A natural monopoly “refers to the cost structure of a firm” (lpx-group). A monopoly is “associated with market power and market share in particular” (lpx-group). Natural monopolies make
Perfect competition, also known as, pure competition is defined as the situation prevailing in a market were buyers and sellers are so numerous and well informed that all elements of monopoly
•Monopoly: This is when a company that has no competition in its industry. It decreases output to drive prices up and therefore rise to its own profits. By doing so, it produces less than the socially optimal output level and manufactures at a substantial high cost than some other competitive firms. For example companies that are perceived as monopoly companies are the rail way and postal companies e.g. Scot rail and fed-ex. Companies like Scot rail use this to its advantage because a lot of the train go to the Glasgow and ...
By law a monopoly is not allowed to exist in the US. It has been long debated whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not? Among other charges Microsoft was charged with "monopolizing the computer operating system market, integrating the Internet Explorer web browser into the operating system in an attempt to eliminate competition from Netscape, and using its market power to form anticompetitive agreements with producers of related goods" (SWLearning).
There are four major market structures; perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. Perfect competition is the market structure in which there are many sellers and buyers, firms produce a homogeneous product, and there is free entry into and exit out of the industry (Amacher & Pate, 2013). A perfect competition is characterized by the fact that homogeneous products are being created. With this being the case consumers have no tendency to buy one product over the other, because they are all the same. Perfect competitions are also set up so that there is companies are free to enter and leave a market as they choose. They are allowed to do with without any type of restriction, from either the government or the other companies. This structure is purely theoretical, and represents and extreme end of the market structure. The opposite end of the market structure from perfect competition is monopoly.
A Monopoly is a market structure characterised by one firm and many buyers, a lack of substitute products and barriers to entry (Pass et al. 2000). An oligopoly is a market structure characterised by few firms and many buyers, homogenous or differentiated products and also difficult market entry (Pass et al. 2000) an example of an oligopoly would be the fast food industry where there is a few firms such as McDonalds, Burger King and KFC that all compete for a greater market share.
A market structure are the characteristics of a market that significantly affect the behavior and interaction of buyers and sellers (Cabiya-an, 2014). This essay will describe the 4 market structures; perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly. I will compare and contrast the market structures in relation to benefits and costs to the consumer and producer.
Monopolies have a tendency to be bad for the economy. Granted, there are some that are a necessity of life such as natural and legal monopolies. However, the article I have chosen to review is “America’s Monopolies are Holding Back the Economy (Lynn, 2017)” and the name speaks for itself.
In a perfectly competitive market, the goods are perfect substitutes. There are a large number of buyers and sellers, and each seller has a relatively small market share. Perfect competition has no barriers to information regarding prices and goods, meaning there is no risk-taking behaviour – sellers and buyers are rational. There is also a lack of barriers for entry and exit.
A monopoly is “a single firm in control of both industry output and price” (Review of Market Structure, n.d.). It has a high entry and exit barrier and a perceived heterogeneous product. The firm is the sole provider of the product, substitutes for the product are limited, and high barriers are used to dissuade competitors and leads to a single firm being able to ...