大家好，周三经管来了,本来想把主题定为 talent show programme business,可是没有找到足够的文章 ，下次一定努力~
今天速度1、2、3来自一篇文章，4和5分别是一篇。希望大家喜欢~
PS.感谢猴哥这几周帮我发帖,猴哥大好人~[Part I: SPEED]
[Article 1: Check the title later]
The Economics of American Idol
Posted July 26, 2009
[Time 1]
The figures are stunning. Ryan Seacrest inks a three year, $45 million deal to continue on as host of the hit show. Shortly after, the executive producer, Ken Warwick, inked a similarly lucrative three year contract reportedly “well into the eight- figure range,” according to the Hollywood Reporter. The deals make their beneficiaries the highest paid host and producer in television history. Simon Cowell is also reportedly in active negations with Fox execs even though his contract does not expire until next year. All expectations are that his final deal will prove to be equally generous given Seacrest and Warwick’s treatment. There are already rumors that Cowell’s deal will eclipse his judging colleagues’ compensation although he quashed rumors that he is negotiating a deal in the $100million range.
Meanwhile, Paula Abdul and her newly hired manager, David Sonenberg, are left outside in the cold for now as the network has not opened any serious talks with the pop star despite an expired contract.
[163]
[Time 2]
Calculating " Priorities"
Despite the rather rude negotiating position the network has taken regarding Paula, this is likely a simple case of economic priorities for Fox. They may feel that they need to secure the most important components of the show first. That would explain why Seacrest, the face of Idol, wrapped up his deal first, and why the guy who keeps the trains running on time and who provides creative direction, reached a deal second, and why the most famous, most controversial judge is in line third. Whatever Fox will be able to offer Paula will not be apparent until they settle on Cowell’s contract. Paula and Kara, unfortunately will get the money left on the table after that( Randy is out of the equation this year since he has two years left on his contract. )
Understandably, securing a commitment from Paula is not on the top of the to-do list for Idol producers since the success of the Idol franchise worldwide proves that the winning formula does not center around the judging panel. Indeed, it is the talent and the competition itself that intrigues the millions if not billions of people around the world that watch Idol shows.
[200]
[Time 3]
Saving Paula
Over the last couple of weeks Paula’s quandary has played out in the media with rumors that she is asking for $20million but has been rebuffed by Idol Producers. Her manager has even gone so far to tell the press that “regrettably” Paula will “probably” not be continuing on with the show. A “Save Paula” campaign has sprung up on Twitter, with heavy hitters like Ryan Seacrest, Simon Cowell , and former Idol producer and judge of “So You Think You Dance,” Nigel Lithgoe, voicing their support. Adding to the drama, other rumors have surfaced that Fox producers offered British singer Cheryl Cole Paula’s seat but she declined. Whether the rumor is true or simply a negotiating tactic, it is clear what contract renegotiation priorities the producers believe makes the most economic sense.
While Paula Abdul may not be the most valuable player on the Idol team, she provides a definite, if not strange dichotomy of compassion and scandal to the show. Much has been written about her unintelligible ramblings and periodic lack of lucidity. But even if the rumors of her being an alcoholic or drug addict are true, she is quite possibly the cutest darn addict on television today. Vicious rumors aside, Paula is undeniably the judge that exudes the empathetic sensibility of an artist who has literally “been there,” in terms of the brutality of competition and making it in the music business. Fox execs undoubtedly have to put a price on Paula’s strange charm. Simon Cowell perhaps said it best in one of his most tender and sincere moments when he told an entire Los Angeles audience at a charity benefit that Paula is indeed “the heart and soul” of American Idol.
[288]
Source:karaoketraveler http://www.karaoketraveler.com/idoleconomics072609.html
[Article 2: Check the title later]
BT boosts sports TV business with FA Cup deal
[Time 4]
Telecoms provider BT will show English FA Cup football on its new British sports TV channels until 2018, boosting its programme line-up as it prepares to challenge BSkyB 's dominance of the sector.
As part of the deal, the publicly-funded BBC also gets the right to show FA Cup games from 2014 to 2018, replacing commercial broadcaster ITV .
Financial terms of the deal with the Football Association (FA) were not disclosed. BT will launch its new sports channels at the start of August. It has committed around 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion) to the project and already secured a share of Premier League broadcasting rights alongside BSkyB.
While competition for sports rights grabs the headlines, the underlying struggle is to win over consumers in the triple play market - the bundling of pay TV, telephone and broadband.
The entry of BT into the market as a deep-pocketed rival to BSkyB has driven up the value of sports rights.
"They have millions of customers and are shaping up to be a heavyweight player in the broadcasting world so the FA Cup is a fantastic asset for their growing portfolio of sports," FA Chairman Greg Dyke said in a statement.
BT had already acquired the FA Cup rights for the 2013-14 season after buying out ESPN's UK business. ITV shares the FA Cup rights under the contract that expires next year.
BSkyB has used sports rights to build a pay-TV business with more than 10 million subscribers over the past two decades.
BT, seeking to defend its leadership in the broadband market, has taken a leaf out of BSkyB's book with its aggressive entry into the sports rights market.
[290]
Source:Finance yahoo! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bt-boosts-sports-tv-business-105407167.html;_ylt=A2KLOzLJruZRODMAtsqTmYlQ
[Article 3: Check the title later]
Retail sales rise slightly, but show consumer weakness
[Time 5]
Slightly stronger retail sales show that the American consumer is continuing to spend -- though with some restraint.
Retail sales rose 0.4% in June, the Census Bureau said Monday. That's a slowdown from a 0.6% rise a month earlier, and weaker than expected.
A 2.1% gain in car sales was an important driver of the increase. Excluding auto sales, the June number came in flat.
The number was also boosted by a 2.4% increase in furniture shopping and a 2.1% rise at "nonstore" retailers, which mainly reflects online shopping.
Spending on summer clothes and gasoline also increased.
Related: Drivers, get ready for a gas price spike
Spending declined for many other retail sectors. Sales of building supplies and garden equipment fell 2.2%, even as home prices have continued to climb this year and new home sales hit a five-year high in May.
Restaurants, department and grocery stores, along with sales of electronics felt a pinch, as well.
"It was a gain, but it was a weak one at that," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets. "Despite steady job gains, homes that are worth more, record high stock prices, U.S. consumers are staying cautious when it comes to buying."
The monthly retail sales number is a closely watched one, since consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's overall economy. The June jobs report showed that the retail sector added 37,000 jobs in June, which means that retail sales can be a sign of overall economic growth.
[259]
Source：CNN http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/15/news/economy/retail-sales/index.html?iid=SF_E_River[Part II: OBSTACLE]
[Article 4: Check the title later]
How to get money away
Helping the poor in the most obvious way of all, through direct cash transfer, is starting to look attractive
What should the comfortably off of the world do to help the poor? We could build dams, railways and roads. We could fund education or public health. We could lower our tariffs and let them sell things to us. We could advise them on appropriate economic policies. (I know, I know.) Or we could leave them alone, on the grounds that our help may be doing more harm than good.
But here’s an alternative: why don’t we just give them money? For such a forehead-slappingly obvious plan, it’s received relatively little attention until the past few years. Until recently it has been hard to reach the very poor directly. Making sure that welfare payments go to all and only the right people is hard enough in the UK – it stands to reason that it will be a lot more difficult in Afghanistan.
So far we’ve settled for giving the money to the governments of poor countries instead, often with strings attached aimed at making sure the money is spent on good works. But those strings can be snipped. You may think you’re paying for a hospital, but if the health minister simply uses your aid money to build a hospital he would have built anyway, and steals the money from his own budget, you’re really just paying for his luxury apartment in Monaco.
Yet now we can simply stuff cash into the virtual pockets of the poor. Many very poor people have mobile phones, or access to phones. The government of India has embarked on a vast project to give everyone an ID number. GiveDirectly is a charity that passes donations straight to poor families in Kenya, using the well-established phone-banking system, M-Pesa.
But are direct cash transfers desirable? They may well be. The very deprivation that seems to make direct cash transfers challenging may actually simplify matters. To take the example of, say, Malawi: more than eight in 10 people there earn less than two dollars a day, even after adjusting for the lower cost of living in Malawi. If you give $50 to everyone in the country, and a few rich people are among those who benefit, what harm? And while reasonable people can argue about why poor people in Bristol or Barnsley are poor, there’s no doubt about why poor people in Malawi are poor: it’s because they live in Malawi. Given an extra dollar, the chance that they find some good use for the money seems high.
A number of studies have found that when poor entrepreneurs are given cash grants, they manage to achieve a high rate of return – a typical figure being 40 to 80 per cent a year. A new randomised trial has now been carried out in Uganda, which goes even further, giving cash to young rural people with no particular trade at all.
The study, now a working paper by Chris Blattman, Nathan Fiala and Sebastian Martinez, examined what happened when the Ugandan government handed out $10,000 to groups of young people, selected randomly. Per person, these grants were around twice the annual income of the young people in question. Blattman and his colleagues then looked at what happened over the subsequent four years, compared with the control group. Did they just spend the cash, or did they find a way to invest it?
The results were encouraging: these youngpeople often set themselves up in a new, skilled trade such as carpentry orhairdressing. Earnings rose sharply. The returns were particularly high foryoung women relative to their cash-constrained comparison group. And asBlattman points out on his blog, this isn’t just about helping a few poorpeople: it’s about funding a process of industrial transformation, shiftingfrom rural labouring to skilled crafts, one grant recipient at a time. Helpingthe poor in the most obvious way of all is starting to look attractive.
[670]
Source：http://timharford.com/
再PS.我还没编辑完，首页就没了，最新小分队人气很旺丫~ |
[复制链接]
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-7-17 23:35:13
收藏
收藏
