Opinion ID: 327946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court's View of the Relevant Market

Text: 26 The parties agreed that the geographic market is nationwide. Both presented testimony that college students, who constitute one-third of the 18-24 age group, comprise a distinct market for goods and services. As to the college student group, the court found: 27 They have substantially different interests, and, in many cases, live in different environments and have different life styles from their noncollegiate peers. Generally, the students have a broader and more critical range of tastes and will spend more than people their age who are not in school. 374 F.Supp. at 801. 28 It was also undisputed that college newspapers constitute a distinct communications medium. Apparently a higher percentage of college students read their college newspapers than any other publication with the possible exception of local commercial newspapers, which may reach as many college students. NEAS claims that college newspapers are the most reliable and effective medium to use to reach the college market. 374 F.Supp. at 801. 29 Having thus recognized the special nature of the individual consumer market that college newspapers effectively reach, the court examined the nature of the service involved in this case and the relevant market for that service. The court's view of the crucial issues in the case can be gleaned from the following passages from its opinion: 30 The critical dispute concerns the service or product market. Thus, the question is whether the business of representing college newspapers for the placement of national advertising is a type of service that constitutes a relevant market such that domination thereof makes out a 'part' of commerce within the meaning of the Sherman Act. 31 This case involves a single service publicizing a national advertiser's product or service to the college market. And the evidence indicates that, in this effort, college newspapers are in direct competition with a number of other communication methods.The attitude of national advertisers toward college newspapers vis-a-vis other advertising media was illustrated by the testimony of Mr. Philip Murtaugh, a long-time employee of a national advertising agency. (Emphasis added; 374 F.Supp. at 800-801.) 32 The court's reason for being concerned with the attitude of national advertisers is made clear in a footnote to the last sentence quoted above, footnote 9: 33 9. The attitudes of the national companies on this issue must be examined, for, as the Seventh Circuit has noted, 'any test which ignores the buyers and focuses on what the sellers do, or theoretically can do, is not meaningful. ' L. G. Balfour Co. v. F. T. C., supra (442 F.2d) at 11, quoting United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 168 F.Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y.1958). At this stage of the analysis, the buyers are the national advertisers; they are purchasing the advertising space offered by the college papers. (Emphasis added; 374 F.Supp. at 801.) 34 The court noted that although the advertising industry considers college newspapers to be a separate avenue of communication, it also considers them to be in competition with a number of other communication methods in bringing national advertising to college students, such as television, radio, commercial newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail advertisements, posters, student directory advertisements and advertising samples. However, the district court did acknowledge, as plaintiff's expert witness had testified, that certain national advertisers' use of college newspapers may be price-inelastic. 374 F.Supp. at 802. 35 Finally, the district court set forth its definition of the relevant market in the conclusion of its opinion, noting that Cass and NEAS 36 are in very real rivalry with other publications and media and their representatives for all or part of the national advertising dollars directed toward the college market. 37 (T)he court has determined that the relevant market must be defined to embrace all modes of competition used to present national advertising to college students. Since no evidence was offered to show defendant's possession of monopoly power in that market, there is no basis upon which the court can reasonably conclude that defendant has violated the antitrust laws. (Footnote omitted; 374 F.Supp. at 803.) 38