Stephen Vasciannie
THE OBSERVER newspaper has indicated that it is now more widely read than The Gleaner, and that, with the exception of Mondays, it has more readers on every weekday than The Gleaner. The Observer has based this claim on a survey conducted by a market research company of note. The Observer report that made these claims also stated that copies of the survey could be purchased, through a certain telephone number.
I called the number advertised with a view to purchasing a copy of the full report. "The report costs $87,500," a calm, polite voice stated on the other end of the line. Now, to be fair, the voice may have said $82,000 or $85,000, so I do not wish to be taken to court for saying, "$87,500." Quite frankly, after the 80-something figure registered, my thoughts may have interfered with my hearing!
OVERPRICED
Neither my curiosity nor my desire to assess The Observer claim will cause me to spend an exorbitant sum for the survey report. The last time I had a similar jolt on the pricing of intellectual output was in 1997 or thereabouts when I sought to purchase the ninth edition of Oppenheim's International Law, which came in at $39,663.80 (for a two-volume set).
Now, Oppenheim's Inter-national Law, is the leading practitioner's text in the field, and the ninth edition was edited by Sir Robert Jennings, Q.C., the then president of the International Court of Justice, and Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., a former chief legal adviser to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The ninth edition is 1,333 pages in length, and, in a serious way, builds on the work of previous leaders in International Law, including Oppenheim himself and Sir Hersch Lauterparcht, both former Whewell Professors of International Law at Cambridge. Even though the ninth edition comes with almost a century of scholarship, in hard covers from Longmans publishers, its 30-odd thousand dollar price tag was criticised by some book reviewers.
VALUE FOR MONEY
Let us assume, for argument's sake, that $30,000 in 1997 is roughly equivalent in purchasing power to $80,000 in 2005. It seems clear to me that Oppenheim will be better value for money than the media survey in most intellectual contexts. But, does this automatically demonstrate that the survey is stratospherically overpriced?
Those who priced the media survey would probably argue that the collection, organisation and analysis of the information for the survey required hundreds of hours of effort. They would also argue that the market for the survey is extremely small: only 10 or so media houses, and the occasional busybody, will actually want to purchase a study on who is noticing media output at different hours of day and night.
So, the argument might run, the publishers of the survey have to charge a high price to cover their costs, in the context of a very small market. There is some value in this line of argument, but the issue may go further.
MARKET
Those who priced the survey also know that the results of the survey will rapidly grow stale, so they need to recover on their costs as quickly as possible. Moreover, they may believe that the media houses are able to absorb the price of $80,000 to acquire the survey. Add to this, too, the fact that the media houses will need to purchase the survey to understand market dynamics, and you will probably have the main components of the pricing strategy employed.
In other words, the pricing strategy employed is not incoherent; rather, it is in keeping with the sound business principle of profit maximisation. On the other hand, it results in an awkward situation. For one thing, the 'winners' in the survey can publicise their achievements, but they are under no duty to demonstrate the extent of their achievement, or even the elements of that achievement.
SEARCH FOR TRUTH
For another, readers of newspapers, television viewers, and radio listeners, are given no opportunity to assess whether the claims made about the success of this or that medium are sensible. The high price of the survey effectively prohibits verification, or even just a broad assessment of whether the results are outlandish.
This point should not be underestimated: whenever media surveys are done, the various media houses present claims about their success, primarily as a means of attracting advertisers. That's all right, for media houses have to make money. But, some media houses have displayed a pronounced tendency to bend the statistical information beyond breaking point to suit their interests.
Independent observers cannot shout 'foul', unless they are prepared to pay $87,500 (plus GCT at 16.5 per cent) to get the report. That is problematic.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a consultant in the Attorney-General's chambers.
