Why CCS is investigating SISTIC

After their triumph over coach operators for price-fixing over coach prices to Malaysia, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) is now investigating SISTIC, a ticket service provider, for anti-competitive practices.

SISTIC it seems has cornered the market, leaving the other ticketing services with crumbs.

Its near-monopolistic stranglehold means consumers are left with little choice but to accept its terms and ticket prices. For example, in January 2008 it raised booking fees by 50 per cent to $3.00.

SISTIC prices always appear high to me, and consumers have no choice but to book through them. But so far, I’ve resolutely boycotted them. There’s no question of affordability but I’d like a choice.

Kudos to CCS once again (read my earlier posts on CCS action against the coach operators). Clearly, it’s going about its mission with crusading zeal.

CCS must ensure that those found guilty of anti-competive practices do not hoodwink the public again under other guises.

Whistle-blowers could also be encouraged to come forward.

Expect fireworks in CCS vs SISTIC!

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Why CCS is investigating SISTIC”

  1. but do you effectively “get what you pay for”? in the grand scheme of things, how much is $3 really (or rather $1, since that’s the absolute increase)? and what do you get for that extra dollar?

    • You get nothing really. Inserting unwarranted fees and charges here and there is the way to maximise your profit when you have cornered 90% per cent of the market. Who suffers? The consumers. It’s called hidden costs, isn’t it?

      • true. i’m just not overly optimistic that we, the consumers, will see any real change. SISTIC was quick to lawyer up, and other than a few murmurs in the dark, the MSM have dropped the story with naught but shallow, token reportage.

        what is SISTIC’s annual revenues? when did these exclusive arrangements take place? before or after SISTIC shareholders divested, and what’s their liability? did the new shareholders, Esplanade and Sports Council, inherit this monopoly?

        and with both entities being beneficiaries of the state’s indulgence, to the tune of millions, how likely is it that the state is going to find against, effectively, itself?

      • Thanks for the background. No matter how labyrinthine the case is I’m pretty confident CCS has had it unravelled, and has sufficient evidence to make its charges stick. Let’s wait and see.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: