Will Xbox Gold be Set Free? Doubt It.

This post today on Gizmodo, It’s Time for Xbox Live Gold to Be Free by Brian Barrett:

Why would I go to the club that has a cover charge when there are three right next door—each almost exactly identical—that'll let me in for free? Xbox 360 might offer great streaming, but it's also got a hell of a moat.
Yes, your Xbox Live Gold membership includes online gaming. And Microsoft is totally within its rights to charge for that; it's an added value experience unique to its ecosystem...
But the calculus has changed. Microsoft is so focused on making the Xbox the beating heart of your home theater, it's even convinced Comcast to stream its on-demand offerings through it. You can watch ESPN live, 24 hours a day, without ever signing out of your Xbox Live account. And when SmartGlass arrives later this year, you're going to route every piece of content you own through your Xbox.
All of which is wonderful. It's a beautiful future, and one that's never going to happen if Microsoft keeps a velvet rope up around all those wonderful services. It's frustrating enough to pay once for things that used to be free. Xbox Live Gold makes you pay twice.
So let's try this, Microsoft: Forget subsidizing a cheaper Xbox with a more expensive Xbox Live plan. Go ahead and charge a monthly fee for online gaming. Do it in Xbox Live points or yuan or mustard green bushels for all I care. But leave the services your customers are already paying good money for—and that every other set-top box serves up for them free—out of it.

A noble sentiment but not likely to happen. Looking at Microsoft's annual shareholder report tells the story.

In 2010, out of $62.4 billion in revenue, Microsoft took in $6.2 billion from their Entertainment and Devices Division, which includes the Xbox and Xbox gold. That same year, it was estimated that Xbox Gold subscriptions pulled in over $1 billion for Microsoft, or 1.6% of their overall revenue.

Sounds small in comparison to the total, but that Xbox Gold revenue matters a lot: operating and R&D costs to keep it running are relatively low compared to Microsoft's other divisions, I would guess. Also, revenue in the Entertainment and Devices Division grew by 40% between 2010 and 2011, much faster than any of Microsoft's other four divisions.

Don't expect Microsoft to kill the goose now that it's started laying golden eggs. Roku can try to compete with its cheaper offerings, but the Xbox still has a relatively slicker interface and better multimedia integration, so I don't think Microsoft is under much pressure.

Microsoft is also starting to offer Gold subscriptions at retail outlets rather than just online. All signs suggest that Xbox Gold is almost certain to stay a paid service.

Cigarettes, a case study in price discrimination (China vs. U.S.)

Economists predict there will be price discrimination when there is a monopolist supplier (or at least some degree of market power) and arbitrage between different groups of customers is costly. The United States tobacco market meets one of the two conditions - re-selling cigarettes without a license is barred by law - but the industry is still competitive between the large tobacco companies. In China, by contrast, both conditions are met because the China National Tobacco Company has a de facto monopoly on all cigarettes sold.

There is strong evidence of price differences between types of cigarettes sold in China. This paper by Li, et al, finds

...the price differential among brands is large. The self-reported cigarette price ranged from 0.70¥/pack to 100¥/pack, which gives smokers more choices in the price of cigarettes. In other words, Chinese smokers have more flexibility in choosing different prices of cigarettes than most Western smokers.

There are two, potentially complimentary stories to explain the wide difference in price of Chinese cigarettes. First is price discrimination to take advantage of different elasticities of demand between smokers; one person may value the marginal pack of cigarettes less than another. Charging lower prices for "inferior" brands of cigarettes will enhance monopoly profits, by selling a higher quantity at a lower price.

This type of price discrimination doesn't rely on direct knowledge about consumer preferences; the tobacco company can set a variety of prices, then smokers self-segregate according to their willingness to pay. Such a strategy would be less effective in the U.S. because cigarette taxes are so high, the relative price difference between brands is always comparatively small.

Another possibility is social signaling. In the United States, smoking is not a symbol of high status, in fact quite the opposite: it's more common that poor and uneducated people will be the ones who smoke. In China, gifts of tobacco are common and socially accepted, and expensive cigarettes are used to demonstrate affluence. By offering a wide range of prices for cigarettes, more different levels of social status can be signaled. One might expect that as general affluence in China increases, new forms of social signaling will become more popular instead.

Netflix original programming: trying to stay ahead of the competition?

Netflix has been through some hard times lately, and the industry is evolving in ways that will continue to challenge their core business model. A combined deal between Redbox and Verizon has been struck in order to offer streaming video. Redbox is also buying out DVD kiosks owned by Netflix' old rival, Blockbuster, to expand their on-the-ground presence.

Netflix is already in a market with big-name competitors for streaming video - Hulu, Apple, Amazon and Walmart, to name a few - as well new outfits such as Zediva (which offered rock-bottom prices, but ran into legal troubles due to avoidance of content licensing fees). Netflix sets itself apart with the DVD mailing program, but Redbox is now well-positioned to compete on that front as well.

How to stay ahead of the curve? Netflix just introduced their first offering of original programming, Lillyhammer, with more shows planned in the next year.  Now, with Netflix moving toward an "HBO model" of producing and distributing their own content, their core business will be changing.

There is some clear logic to this decision: instead of paying extravagant licensing fees to stream content (the deal with DreamWorks is estimated to place a $30 million price tag on each film) new shows can be produced internally. New exclusive content could also pull in subscribers drawn to a particular actor or show; this may explain why Netflix is rumored to be producing Arrested Development Season 4.

During the short-lived introduction of 'Qwikster', some speculated that Netflix was drifting away from its core expertise. It's not immediately clear how DVD mailing translates to streaming content. Now, the company is shifting its role once more, and one is left to ask whether film production is also part of the Netflix tool kit.

Vertical integration in the entertainment industry is hardly a new phenomenon. But, most television networks started off producing content, and then acquired more means for distributing it. Netflix got into the distribution business first, and now is trying to backpedal into producing as well.

It's unclear whether the few big-name offerings which Netflix will produce are enough to distinguish them from the other streaming services. But, facing stiff competition in both physical and online distribution channels, moving up the content production chain may be the only choice they have in order to stay relevant.

The American Entertainment Industry's Death Rattle

It's obvious that the circumstances which allowed so much wealth to be accumulated in Hollywood by major record labels have changed, but the people at the top don't want to change with them. The industry's demise (at least in its current form) is evidenced by the great efforts being made to legislate demand for their products - through the SOPA/PIPA legislation in Congress, which led to a blackout of many popular sites yesterday, and today's effort to shut down Megaupload.com as a copyright infringer.

Piracy is not really the problem here, but a symptom of a larger issue: the entertainment industry wants to charge more for their products than people are willing to pay. Maybe people used to be willing to pay $15-20 for a CD, but no more. With digital distribution, artists can sell their music to fans directly, without the entertainment edifice standing in between. This is a better deal for both musicians and fans, but makes most of the music industry obsolete. The same is not exactly true in Hollywood - someone has to finance big-budget action flicks - but digital services such as Netflix Watch Instantly are changing the game there too. Why would I go pay $12 to see a movie in a theater, when I can pay $8 per month for more streaming content than I can watch in a lifetime?

Even if online piracy were eliminated completely, it wouldn't address the bigger issue facing the entertainment industry: substitution. Consumers have an increasing variety of entertainment options to choose from, many of which are free or extremely cheap. Now that online distribution is easy, there's really no need for the big industry surrounding content distribution. They can kick and scream all they want, but the entertainment industry as we know it is functionally doomed. It just doesn't realize that yet (or is trying desperately to deny the obvious).

Ultimate Cakeoff, Econometrics, and Causality Questions

For reality television and competitive cooking enthusiasts the show Ultimate Cakeoff, produced by TLC, is a real tour de force. The premise: top cake artists and decorators are brought together to compete in creating a cake for some high-profile event. The judges evaluate their efforts based on technical difficulty, adherence to the theme, and aesthetic value, then choose a winning team to receive the $10,000 prize.

Each team has nine hours to produce their ultimate cake. In order to keep the competition interesting and generate some much-needed drama, each episode is broken up by one or two smaller challenges designed to test the team leader's technical skill and speed at a particular cake-related task (such as piping, decorating, carving, etc.) The winner of each mini-challenge can choose one of the other two teams to sit out for thirty minutes.

Nine hours is already a short timeframe to create an award-winning cake - many wedding cakes can take up to a week to construct - so it would seem like losing 30 minutes to an hour would be a serious disadvantage. But, after watching two seasons of Ultimate Cakeoff (a dirty job, but someone had to do it) I noticed something strange: teams forced to sit out didn't seem to lose with any greater frequency. In fact, they often went on to win the competition!

This counter-intuitive trend sparked my curiosity, so I decided to put the question to a statistics program. After collecting data on every episode to find the characteristics of each team, who was forced to sit out, and who won each competition, I was able to find some results. The first regression found that being forced to sit out due to a challenge would increase the chance of winning by about 24%, a statistically significant result. After controlling for the individual attributes of of each participant the statistical significance vanished, and being forced to sit out had no measurable impact on the chance of winning at all (Click here to view the regressions performed, in STATA output format).

What might explain these findings? It would seem that less working time would result in a lower-quality cake, that was less likely to take the prize. Discovering the opposite result is somewhat surprising.

Of course, cake artists forced to sit out were not chosen randomly. The most common reason when choosing who to give a penalty was some variation of "(s)he looks way ahead! Take a break and slow down!" Apparently, cake artists are pretty good at judging each others' progress, and the team that is ahead partway through the competition is often the most talented. Trying to stall them with a penalty may even the field slightly, but not enough to overcome superior cake skills and design.

Admittedly, this is a pretty trivial application for a powerful statistics program. But, there may be some broader lessons for social scientists generally. When human choice is involved few events are truly random, which would be the ideal in an experimental setting. Economists can find some clever ways to mimic a true experiment, but perfect success in that regard still remains elusive. Examining how the data are collected and what selection effects are present is crucial to interpreting statistical results... Otherwise one might be inclined to believe that a shorter work-time makes a better wedding cake!

How to Gain Twitter-Fame for Penny Stock Advice, with no Skill, Knowledge (or Profits) Required.

Along with upcoming rappers, Bieber fans, and ad-bots there’s a rash of penny stock advice to be found on Twitter. At first I dismissed it as one of many eccentricities of the platform, but after seeing a few dozen assorted “penny stock” accounts I started to wonder. What could explain these accounts peddling advice on securities that most investors wouldn’t line a litter-box with?

So-called "penny stocks" may range in cost from a few dollars to a fraction of a cent. For example, instead of buying one share of IBM at $164.68, it would be possible to instead purchase 4,450 shares of Double Eagle Gold Holdings (DEGH) at $.037 per share (amusingly, both stocks are currently near their respective peak historical values). DEGH had been running at an average price of about $.003 for most of the last year. If an investor had a crystal ball and could foresee this recent ten-fold run up in price, there would have been a lot of money to be made; therein lies the temptation of penny stocks.

Of course, anyone who actually had that crystal ball and put it to use in the market would be far too rich to bother with running a Twitter account. So why are there hundreds of penny stock tweeters out there? To explain, here is a theory of how ANYONE can appear blessed with penny stock clairvoyance.


The Five-Step Guide to Achieving Twitter-fame with Penny Stock Advice:

Step 1: Pick out 100 penny stocks at random, and buy $10 worth in each of them for a total cost of $1,000 plus brokerage fees (or, if you’re cheap, just consistently follow the prices of 100 penny stocks).

Step 2: Wait. As is normal for inexpensive and highly volatile stocks, the price of some will go up dramatically and others down equally dramatically.

Step 3: Ignore the stocks that go down. Out of the 100, by random chance you’re almost assured to see one go up every now and then. Get on Twitter and brag about how well your picks in the stocks that went up are going.

Step 4: Construct self-promotional statistics to describe how well an investor could have done if they had known exactly when these volatile stocks would move up and down, then tweet about anyone can generate “POTENTIAL 237% PROFITS!!!” based on your expert advice.

Step 5: Bask in fame and adulation. If you are lucky, people will buy a subscription to your newsletter. Or, if they follow your advice, it will drive up the price of penny stocks you own. Then sell off the penny stocks that went up due to your “wisdom” and leave your followers to eat the losses as the stock shifts back down. 


I can’t verify that every penny stock tweeter uses this self-serving strategy. However, it’s the only way I can think of making money off penny stocks, so I’d guess that a large ratio of those Twitter accounts have something like this in mind.

In the time it took me to write the above, DEGH – which I noticed as a result of a penny stock tweet – has dropped 35%. IBM, on the other hand, changed 0.30% in that hour. In a nutshell, this is why investing in penny stocks is probably not a good idea: you get all the risk of stock market speculation without much stake in any real value (or else why is the stock so cheap?). Markets tend to be efficient and integrate available information into stock prices, so when a stock costs a fraction of a cent, it’s probably because many people rate its investment value somewhere near a lottery ticket.

The DEGH rollercoaster, courtesy of Google Finance. Notice the peak, then sudden drop at the end.

To make matters even worse, even if you successfully buy low and sell high with penny stocks – a difficult proposition, given how quickly the values change – you’ll be eaten alive in brokerage fees. For the example above, even if one used a discount brokerage like Scottrade, the cost of each purchase would be a $7 flat fee – making a $1,000 investment cost a total of $1,700. It would take a crystal ball, extraordinary luck, or loads of self-serving information delivered to a mass audience in order to generate enough returns to cover that cost. When you see someone giving investment advice on Twitter, mentally ask which of those three categories you think they fall into.



Note: for entertainment purposes only. I’m not dispensing investment advice; the stocks named were solely for example purposes, not as endorsement. If you’re reading this and run a penny stock service I’m sure you’re the exception to the above, and love children, flowers, kittens and your advisees all equally and would never pull such a scam on them. I’m just writing about your competition. But I would awfully like to peak at your crystal ball sometime when you get a chance.

Big money selling free computer games

Video game producers have been accused of many things, from greediness to promoting Satanism, so it was a surprise yesterday when software development company Valve released a new, professionally-made game free of charge. That's right, Alien Swarm (a top-down, cooperative shooting game) is available to play for the click of a button. To really shock and amaze, Valve also released the full source code for others to emulate or modify.