I was one of many who were fooled into attending UVA's condoned celebration of winning the NCAA basketball championship in Scott Stadium. But, I was one of the few who reaped a positive externality of the situation as well.
For those who aren’t familiar with the situation, the football stadium was opened for a few hours, and the attention span of attendants was handed directly to advertisements. City officials spoke, athletics’ partners ads ran on the jumbo-tron, merchandise tents were set up, and of course the snack bars were open. The incentive that was offered prior to this event was a commemorative poster, which cost the University pennies, if that. They made out like bandits economically speaking. For pennies a head, athletics played off of the emotions of the community, creating a captive audience.
Quickly, I determined my opportunity cost of leisure was too high. I then made my escape on a death machine known as a lime. The entire city must have been in the stadium, as the roads were a ghost town at 2pm on a Sunday. Sure, I would have taken the lime and driven precariously between cars over a 30 minute walk back to my apartment, but the lack of traffic created by this “celebration” optimized my travel. My utility increased, as the cost of the ride is measured in time (which decreased), and I was able to make the ride safely using Jefferson Park Avenue, a public good.
I’m curious if other consumers realized the event was a marketing ploy in pursuit of marginal revenue, if they would have also taken a lime scooter home.
3 comments:
Hi Brandon. I enjoyed reading your blog, but was a little confused when you said you "reaped a positive externality from the situation." Is the commemorative poster the positive externality to which you're referring or is it the event as a whole? Either way, I wonder whether the poster (or the event) could really be described as conferring a positive externality. I'm guessing that you're thinking of it (the poster or the event) as a positive production externality through which "production benefits parties other than the producer and yet the producer is not compensated." (Gruber p. 122) If UVA is the producer in this situation, it appears that UVA actually is compensated by the ones who reap the benefits of the event. After all, you suggest that UVA made a lot of money because of all the publicity created by so many people attending the event. So, I would argue that the attendees actually did compensate UVA for putting on this event even though they did not pay an event fee. Without all the fans in attendance, UVA wouldn't have been able to achieve such a great marketing victory. I wonder if perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the celebration without the language of externalities: as an arrangement which benefited both the university and UVA basketball fans. Please correct me if I've simply misunderstood your argument!
I realize that I wasn't as clear as I could have been regarding the positive externality. I mentioned the celebration in detail to explain why the community was drawn to the event, and how I found athletics' spin on the event to be unethical. However, the event itself was not what I had in mind as an externality.
Because the overwhelming majority of the community participated in this event (similar to an instance of a large percent of the population receiving vaccines) those who did not take place in this event were able to enjoy the public roads without traffic. For example, the alumni of Virginia Tech who live in Charlottesville (with preferences that do not suggest they would choose to attend the celebration) would be able to enjoy this positive externality. Due to the interaction of two other parties, they reap an unintended benefit of the occasion. As someone who attended the event and then chose to leave early, I may not be the best example in this moment as I could be mistaken as someone who took part in the transaction; but, because I left early I was able to recognize this unintended effect that Virginia Tech fans could enjoy.
Thanks for clarifying! I did misunderstand your original blog post. Your analysis makes sense now!
Post a Comment