E-invoicing as the Principal Driver of Change in B2X Letter Market Definitions

  • Doris HildebrandEmail author
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 50)


The postal service industry is experiencing significant changes in its fundamental features in light of rapid and consistent improvements in technology pushed by the broad availability of the internet. The growth in electronic means of communication has had an impact on traditional mail volumes. In particular, demand for addressed B2X mail is under pressure due to such developments as e-invoicing. This paper discusses whether the arrival of e-substitution might alter previous relevant market definitions. The focus of the analysis is whether the reduction in B2X demand follows from entry by a marginal substitute or a gross substitute, reflecting on Brennan and Crew (2014).


Price Increase Conjoint Analysis Relevant Market Postal Letter Monopoly Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Accenture. (2011). Achieving high performance in the postal industry: Accenture research and insights 2011. Accenture.Google Scholar
  2. An Post. (2012). Application for changes to charges for universal services weighing less than 50 g in accordance with the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act No. 21 of 2011. Dublin.Google Scholar
  3. AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v. European Commission, C 457-10/P (European Court of Justice, 6 Dec 2012).Google Scholar
  4. Buigues, P. A., & Rey, P. (2004). The economics of antitrust and regulation in telecommunications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Card, D., Hatzitaskos, K., & Howell, V. (2013). Guidelines on quantitative techniques for competition analysis. CRC America Latina.Google Scholar
  6. Cazals, C., Florens, J.-P., Veruete-McKay, L., Rodriguez, F., & Soteri, S. (2010). UK letter mail demand: A content based time series analysis using overlapping market survey statistical techniques. Toulouse School of Economics Working Paper Series. Toulouse.Google Scholar
  7. Ciciriello, C., & Hayworth, M. (2010, November). European e-invoicing guide for SMEs. Vienna: European e-business lab.
  8. Consumer Postal Council. (2012). Index of postal freedom. Arlington. http://www.postalconsumers. org/postal_freedom_index/images/2012_CPC_IPF_WEB.pdf.
  9. Copenhagen Economics. (2012). Pricing behaviour of postal operators.––Delivery.aspx.
  10. Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies. (2011). Role of mail 2020: Report prepared for the International Post Corporation.
  11. Crew, M. A., & Kleindorfer, P. R. (2010). Access and the USO under full market opening. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Heightening competition in postal and delivery sector. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Crew, M. A., & Brennan, T. J. (2014). Gross substitutes vs. marginal substitutes: Implications for market definition in the postal sector policy. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), The role of the postal and delivery sector in a digital age. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsche Post AG. (2013). Briefpreise in Europa. Bonn: Deutsche Post AG.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (1997). Commission’s notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of community competition law. Brussels: OJ C 272, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2002). Commission guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. Brussels: OJ C 165/6.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2010). Reaping the benefits of electronic invoicing for Europe. Brussels: COM (2010) 712 final.Google Scholar
  17. Fève, F., Soteri, S., & Veruete-McKay, L. (2011). Evaluating demand for letter price elasticities and technology impacts in an evolving communications market. Toulouse.Google Scholar
  18. Geroski, P. (2003). Identifying anti-trust markets. In: M. Neumann (Ed.), International handbook of competition. Edward Elgar. London.Google Scholar
  19. Hausman, J., & Sidak, G. (2007). Evaluating market power using competitive benchmark prices instead of the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. Antitrust Law Journal, 74(2), 387–407.Google Scholar
  20. International Post Corporation. (2012). IPC global postal industry report. International Post Corporation. Brüssel.Google Scholar
  21. Koch, B. (2014). E-invoicing & e-billing: International market overview & forecast. Billentis.Google Scholar
  22. Nikali, H. (2008). Substitution of letter mail for different sender-receiver segments. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Competition and regulation in the postal and delivery sector (pp. 89–109). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. O’Donoghue, R. P. (2006). The law and economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2012a). Economic evidence in merger analysis 2011. /EconomicEvidenceInMergerAnalysis2011.pdf.
  25. OECD. (2012b). OECD policy roundtables market definition. Paris.
  26. Ofcom. (2012, October 16). Review of postal users’ needs.
  27. Okholm, H. B., Winiarczyk, M., Möller, A. (2010). Main developments in the postal sector (2008–2010). Informed Decision. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  28. Postcomm. (2010). Business customer survey. London: ORC International.Google Scholar
  29. Postcomm. (2011). The building blocks for a sustainable postal service: Analysis of markets.Google Scholar
  30. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2013). The outlook for UK mail volumes to 2023.
  31. Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. (2004). Marktanalyseverfahren im neuen Rechtsrahmen. Vienna: RTR GmbH.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Brussels (VUB)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.EE & MCBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations