One could also choose to more broadly realise this (and all other so called "loyalty programmes") for what it really is - lock-in schemes to benefit the seller/service provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_program. They are behavioural power and control societal manifests. Do you buy a drink because its maker is running a competition of because you are thirsty? Similarly, do you buy at a particular supermarket or use a mobile operator service because of their best-offer market prices? The firms laugh upon noticing their consumer manipulation working to the extent that shifts conversation from call for best prices to fights over gratiutious (supposedly "free") offering. juu consumers waliingizwa kwa box:-)

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:06 PM, Kamotho Njenga <kamothonjenga@gmail.com> wrote:

Walu,

Point noted.

Going by the market shares, there is no significant difference between "the market" and "Safaricom" from where I sit. The dominance becomes more explicit as you move from data to voice to mobile money services. I subscribe to the naive notion that by fixing Safaricoms shortcomings, you are sincerely addressing the market failures. This is because other firms in an industry tend to emulate their apparently "successful" brother. If the firstborn is allowed to run amok, the siblings will also become rogue as they grow up.

Alternatively if we say that we fix market failures, its not sufficient to stop there. Let's demystify the term and highlight specific mechanisms of dealing with the failures head on.

Kamotho