The NFL and How Strategy Makes Them Successful

The economic principle I researched was because of scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost. My overall research question was how should NFL teams allocate scarce resources like payroll and draft picks to maximize their profitability and chances of winning?  Overall, I found that a good coach with a good strategy will maximize profit as well as winning games.

 The first and most important thing I learned from my research is that you need a good coach in order to be a successful team. All the good teams in the league replicate success through a good coach. For example, Bill Belichick of the patriots has been extremely good at creating a system of winning. He has shown over the years that you do not need the best players to always be the best team, he has great players but he does not have the most talented team every year. Bill Belichick has coached his Patriots to become the most feared team in football because he is that good of a coach. He is also paid around 10 million a year which is way less than what some of the superstar players get in the league. For what he is paid, he has great value and continues to show that year in and year out. The coach is the most important asset to a football team.

When a good coach is brought to a team, a good strategy also comes with it. Bill Belichick’s system has been similar yet different for every year he has coached. Overtime we see how great coaches play the game, some coaches are just good because they have one year where their system could not be stopped. A good coach will be able to implement the a different strategy for winning every year. The best coach is also the best at adapting, like Bill Belichick for example. He is great at changing his defensive game plan to destroy opponents but sticks with his hard and physical running game. This is a perfect example of a coach who sticks with one system but changes another to be successful, and that is what it takes in a coach to become great. It takes a man who knows that he must change, and does change in order to succeed.

Last FIFA

The Denver Post 

The economic principle I researched was: Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices. My overall research question was: What makes international soccer teams successful? How does FIFA ensure that teams are treated equally? Overall, I found that FIFA really helps to ensure that the game is fair by incorporating certain regulations that allows that sport to grow and prosper as well as acquiring for extra needed help. 

 When the game of soccer was started back in the 19th century, the game has come along way. From then, FIFA has added tournaments and designs to better improve the game. The recent addition of goal line technology helps to review undecided goals to see what the actual call should be. This was extremely beneficial in the 2014 and 2018 World Cup. As the sport continues to grow, so does the technology that helps to support the game. Another idea is one of how fast the game is growing.

With women, many prominent figures have been throughout the world to help inspire those of a younger age. These players include: Mia Hamm, Alex Morgan, and Carli Lloyd. Players want to increase their overall fan base to encourage their t
eam to win. Additions like new MLS teams as well as a female league throughout the US also inspire people to come out and support.

 This shows that the sport will continue to develop in new ways to ultimately help better the game of soccer.

Is New Snowboard Equipment Being Developed?

SOURCE: BURTON

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways. “

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is “Is new technology actively being developed for Snowboarding?”

 The article (SELECT ONE) published on Redbull titled “..[Check out the wildest new snowboard and ski tech gadgets for 2019 ]...” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing/showing whether new technology has been developed, whether it is useful, and the potential drawbacks of this technology.

 First, this article lists off six new products that have just surfaced in the snowboarding world. They range from classic snowboards, to new styles of bindings, and even different accessories with new benefits. One interesting revolution is the Capita FUS3D, also known as a board with 3D printed edges. This is very important for the snowboarding community because it will create less waste, and these new 3D printed edges will last longer than before. One of the other interesting inventions on this page is the Burton Step on Bindings. These are new bindings without straps in order to lock you feet in. One of the main hassles of snowboarding is having to strap into your bindings once you reach the top of the chairlift, and this gets rid of this issue. You simply step into them, as skiers do. And finally Oakley released a new type of goggles that allows the user to change the amount of light that gets through the goggles. Often, skiers have multiple pairs of goggles depending on the day. A lighter pair for a cloudy, snow filled day, and a darker pair for a clear sky. This eliminates the struggle of choosing what pair of goggles to bring on that day.

 Second, out of the three inventions that I listed, I believe that most of them are useful when compared to their counterpart. Each of them have their own uses and improve upon some of the flaws associated with these products. The new 3D printed edges on the snowboards allow them to reduce waste and create a board that lasts longer. I believe that this is the future of snowboarding, and it will allow them to save money, instead of buying a new board. The new Burton Step On boots are also a major innovation in the snowboarding community. These new bindings reduce one of the major drawbacks of snowboarding, and provide a binding with plenty of flexibility in the long run. It will allow snowboarders to complete more runs in the day, however, I am not sure that these bindings will become incredible popular. And finally the Oakley goggles that allow you to switch the tint of your goggles on the run. These will be useful for the fully dedicated snowboarders who are out riding for more than a week a year. Most intermediate snowboarders will only have one pair of goggles anyway, and these will not make a big difference. However, for people competing in competitions and who are snowboarding often, then these goggles are very useful. Personally, I only have one pair of goggles for the entire season.

 Third, I do not see there being any major drawbacks for the development of 3D printed snowboard edges, however, the other two options have a couple of major drawbacks. For the bindings, snow can get caked onto the bindings, preventing you from being able to clip into them at the top of the mountain. Also, in order to use these bindings you need to purchase a specific pair of burton boots. Currently there are only two pairs of boots available for these bindings, a stiff pair and a more flexible pair. The only drawback of the goggles I could see is if it were to break, and you were now stuck with either a very dark or very light pair of goggles. Also the price of these goggles is much higher than a standard pair.

Why People Should Understand Cars

ThinkLink

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People Benefit when they trade voluntarily”

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is “Why should people have an understanding of how cars work”

 The article published in The Good Men Project titled “5 Reasons To Learn and Teach More About Cars” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing/showing that you can understand the value of cars, Make your own repairs, and know how much repairs should cost

First, it would help you understand the value of cars. The author writes “While there are online calculators that can help you establish the value of your used car, you’ll still need some intuitive understanding of car value if you want to buy a used car affordably.” I agree with this because if you don’t know what makes a car cost what it does, you are a lot more likely to overpay.

Second, it would allow you to make your own repairs. According to the author, “You’ll need to cover several points of routine maintenance on your own car to keep it in working order, including rotating the tires, changing the oil, and replacing low fluids and windshield wipers. Knowing how to do these things can save you significant money (and can maximize the life of your vehicle). It may also come in handy if your car breaks down and you need to figure out what’s wrong.”

I think that he is right in saying this because it also could help out if something is wrong with the car when you are trying to sell it and need to fix it first.

Finally, it would teach you how much the repair should cost. According to the author, “customers who appear to know less about car repairs tend to receive higher quotes from auto mechanics than people who know a great deal.” Simply understanding how the car works and being able to show it means mechanics are less likely to charge you more because of your ignorance.

In my next blog post I will research the question: How does lack of knowledge lose people money when selling cars.

Psychology Advertisement: What are the psychological tactics that advertise workers use to persuade people?

source: udemy.com

The question that is asked in this post is very similar to the last post. There will be three more tactics that advertisers use to persuade their audiences to buy their products and there will be three more on the next post. 

This tactic is common from you seeing a lot of make up products and many other luxuries. People can use models in their commercials but there are certain relevance as to whether or not you should use a model to be part of your commercials. According to Nikolenda, the most relevance of using models is when you are doing certain types of luxuries such as art, beauty, health, and (as a mentioned before) make up. Sometimes, there are brands, that sell home decor, that use models to fit into their commercial, but those brands use models because it feels more natural and there is an artistic way of doing it. However, most of the brands with home decor don't use it as much. There is another way to use a model is clothing line such as Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister, Levi, and also Macy's. There are tons of other clothing brands that have models but I could only name a few of them for now.

According to Trampe in Nikolenda, the quote says this, "Didn't explain why you need relevance. But here's my guess: irrelevant products reveal your underlying motive." What he's basically saying is that when you put an attractive model on your commercial to a product that has nothing to do with the model, such as a laundry detergent with an attractive male/female, people know you are persuading them so they tried to resist the urge of trying to buy something rather than letting their shopping spree mood take over. It's what people that use advertisements have to careful of. 

souce: Nikolenda.com

Fun fact about this tactic is that models enhance your persuasion and not minimizing it. However, the catch of this is, again, that you need to disguise the tactic with the right product, that feels natural into the advertisement. 

There is an interesting tactic for advertising was when the image size matters. From the commercials that you see, there are always those large images that on the screen that take up the whole screen. According to Nikolenda, the larger the image, the more emotion it has to the image. A lot of advertisers would use large size words to create an emotional impact on the person who is viewing the ad. For example, say that you're watching TV and you see a Verizon Commercial. They would put bold letters on the price deals for data. They would most likely bold get unlimited amount of data today! At least somewhere along the lines of that. 

Not only to the large sizes of words would be able to convey emotion, they can also give you another benefit which is that the different sizes of text can make the viewer pay more attention to what is typed out on the screen in front of them. According to the writers, Pieters and Wedel, they said, ". . . .an increase in text surface size raises attention to this element much more than it simultaneously reduces attention to the brand and pictorial elements. . . .[so] advertisers aiming to maximize attention to the entire advertisement should seriously consider devoting more space to text." 

Source: Nikolenda.com

Advertisers would mention different features of the product they are selling. If you ever had viewed an advertisement about, let's say, Apple for example, then you would know that they would talk about the features of the new I phone or the new laptop that they had made in their factories. It is said by the sources that Nikolenda had cited that having to talk about the features of your product can persuade a person to buy whatever you are selling. However, the flaw about this tactic is that the consumer would question the usage of the product. Does it meet up the standards to what this ad is saying? They would much rather have less features then if they are questioning about the usage of the product. 

So the proper way to mention features, without overdoing it, is to mention only the highlights of the features you want to present. For example, Samsung has made a new phone in their commerical. They would show you the feature of using your phone as a charger for another person's phone when they are low on battery. That is a highlight feature that they want to present other than the touch pen that works with the phone. 

"Avoid describing the usefulness or practicality of features. Instead, mention that your product has the capability." This quote means that when you're describing about your product, you should not talk about how useful it is and then present the features. The right way to do this would be describing the features of the product. On the picture below, it shows you the right way to word out on how the text should be like if you're introducing the features of your product. 

source: Nikolenda,com

NBA GM´s on Tanking

NBA GM´s on Tanking

                                                                  Source: NBA

 The economic principle I’m exploring is because of scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost. My research question to help me study the economic principle is how do NBA teams use tanking to their advantage and what risks are involved. This principle is demonstrated In Danny Chao´s article from The Ringer, ¨Tanking Ain´t What It Used to Be¨ by demonstrating the new rules in tanking and the possible benefits and risks involved in it.

 What is tanking you may ask? Tanking is basically when teams intentionally don´t do the best they can during the season so that they can get the worst seed and a high draft pick. How the draft lottery used to work is that the worst team would have the greatest chance at having the #1 pick at 25%, then the next worst team at 19%, then 15% then 12% and so on. Now, the new rule for this draft is that the worst three teams have an equal chance at getting the #1 pick at 14%. Not only is this percentage less for the worst teams, but a teamś chance at getting a top 3 and top 5 player is also significantly less. So, this new rule is created to force teams to think twice about tanking, and if itś even worth it anymore.

 Before this new rule, tanking was huge; the better you tank the better draft pick you get. But the NBA administrators realized, why in the highest competitive level, should teams try to not compete at all? This is a big factor in the new tanking rule. Even though this new rule is in play, teams will still tank however. So when should a team decide to tank? When a General Manager knows their team isn´t going to make the playoffs and doesn´t see a bright future of success for the team then the GM may decide to start tanking, this is especially the case when they have a very poor record. So let´s say a General Manager does decide to tank, what do they have to do? A big one is resting your best players. When your best players aren´t in the game, chances are you are not going to win unless you have an amazing bench. Not only this, but veteran players might be traded away for fresh young players who have the potential to be good in the future.

 But a common misconception of tanking is that the players intentionally suck and miss shots and get turnovers. This is wrong. The players are definitely aware of what the GM´s are trying to do, but regardless they are still going to play hard, especially considering a lot of players put themselves before the team and only focus on their stats. The downside to tanking is that fans lose interest in coming to the games and watching the games. This adds up to big revenue losses. The number of tickets sold will decrease, less merchandise will be bought and no one cares about a bad team. So, GM´s have to consider if their tanking will be worth it for the future of the program and if the long term gains outweigh the short term losses. This relates back to my economic principle by proving that the GM´s have to make decisions. They have to evaluate the pros and cons and eventually come to a conclusion.
 
But again, with this new rule, you will see a lot less tanking in the years to come

In my next blog post, I will talk about the evaluation of GM´s

Why NFL Coaches are Valuable

Source: 670 The Score

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Because of scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost.”

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is “Who is the Most Important Asset In the NFL? ”

 The article Bill Barnwell wrote and is published on Grantland titled "The NFL’s Most Valuable Person"  demonstrates this economic principle by discussing the coach's value, what the coach actually does, and what separates a good coach from a bad one.

First, The most important asset in the NFL, is a good coach. In this case it is a coach. John Harbaugh and the author states, “San Francisco gave Harbaugh a five-year, $25 million deal to replace Mike Singletary and take over a franchise that had gone 46-82 since Steve Mariucci left town. Since then, with virtually the same roster Harbaugh inherited, the 49ers have gone 21-6-1. and made it within a premature whistle of making the Super Bowl. It’s the best decision a franchise has made of their own volition (e.g., without having an obvious choice fall into their laps) in recent memory. By acquiring Harbaugh, the 49ers created value for themselves in a way that is virtually impossible to match. They might, in fact, have the single most valuable asset in all of football.” Not only can a good coach change the record of a team, he can also change the culture. He brought San Francisco from losing seasons back to success and even a superbowl appearance.


Second, John Harbaugh is also a very good asset to have because of how valuable he is for what he gets paid. His contract is 25 million for five years, while some players make 25 million a season. Harbaugh wins and he does it in a much less expensive way than having to pay the players. For example the article states, “Jim Harbaugh is making $5 million per season to be, arguably, the best person in the league at his exceedingly important position. You know Panthers defensive end Charles Johnson? Maybe the 10th-best 4-3 end in the league? He received $34 million in compensation in 2011 alone. That’s more than Harbaugh will receive over the life of his entire deal, with $9 million left over for Johnson to write thank-you notes to Marty Hurney. A top-five head coach is being paid what an average cornerback would make in a given year. Doesn’t that seem wrong?” It is amazing to think that the most important position in the league is a coach. It is a position that does not require a lot of money, does not require supervision. It all depends on how gritty a person is and how much work they can put into winning.


Third, All along, I knew that a coach was the most important position for a NFL organization. It requires extreme focus and dedication to your craft in order to win, the greatest coaches are on the teams that win. Bill Parcells, John Gruden, and Bill Belichick are all mentioned in this article. They have all won a superbowl, but they have also dedicated their lives to the sport. They are successful because they are motivated by passion and a pure love for the game. Without these types of coaches leading the game, there is no way that teams would be as successful. To put it as analogy, if a NFL team was a car, the coach would be the engine that makes the car go.


In the next blog I will be completing a summary of my research.

Fossil Fuel's Other Cost

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.”

Union of Concerned Scientists

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “ What is the true impact that our current energy source of coal and oil on our environment?”

The article published in August 2016 titled “The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing/showing that these energy suppliers do great damage to our environment and while renewable energy sources are readily available, we still choose to use fossil fuels. 
 
   First, fossil fuels most definitely have one cost and that is money. Thousands of dollars on a rate that is steadily increasing year after year. This rate will keep increasing until the earth is destroyed and there is no more fossil fuels left to use. Solar power on the other hand, has a high installment cost but it is rate that trends downwards and actually saves money from year to year and doesn’t emit toxins into the environment. These are real costs but there are many hidden costs to fossil fuels as well.
 
   Second, there are many externalities to society as a whole when it comes to fossil fuels. These “are sometimes easy to see, such as pollution and land degradation, and sometimes less obvious, such as the costs of asthma and cancer, or the impacts of sea level rise.” These are some hidden costs and they are very easy to ignore because they barely affect any of us in our everyday lives.

   Third, even with these hidden costs and the increasing rate of fossil fuels we still continue stay steady with fossil fuels because they are the easiest way of life and they are not outside of the “norm”. They are what some might say “the backbone of our economy and it is one of our biggest trade items and funds millions of jobs across the world. In my next blog post I will research the question: How can switch happen and what year could it happen realistically?

In my next blog post I will research the question: How can switch happen and what year could it happen realistically?

The True Cost of Alternate Energy

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.”

EWG

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “ What are alternate sources of energy besides oil that are somewhat cost effective?”

The article published in January of 2019 by EWG titled “Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible for the US? Yes.” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing that it is almost impossible to switch energy sources in the next 2-3 decades because there isn’t a great alternative source that the american people could economically provide but it will eventually be possible.

    First, solar power is very costly but can provide adequate energy but with the current tax returns the government provides and the decreasing cost of solar power installment, it continues to grow and spread widely throughout the US. Combined with wind power as well its a very good choice and scientists say that “There’s more than enough solar, wind and hydro potential – 30 times more than business-as-usual forecasts for energy demand in 2050.” Still with this we continue to not shit towards alternate energy.

    Second, nuclear energy is another option but apparently they are causing more harm them good so it is important to stick strictly to solar, wind, and hydro. After the boom of nuclear plants because nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases” it is now smart to get rid of them because “they’re dangerous and obscenely expensive, and they generate mountains of radioactive waste.” Sometimes even clean energy sources aren’t 100 percent clean.

    Third, while it seems that 100 percent non renewable energy is really far out. It wouldn’t be if we cut funding towards certain energies and focused solely on non renewable. Doing this would make it more efficient and less expensive for the american people in the long run. Besides, were going to have to do sometime in the future anyways so why not do it now. In my next blog post I will research the question: What is the true impact that our current energy source of coal and oil on our environment?

The Way Rules Can Affect the Fans

MLB Stadium

The economic principle I’m exploring is Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.

My research question to help me study my economic principle is “How do new rule changes affect the fans?”

The article “How Bonkers are each of the proposed MLB rule changes ?” demonstrates this economic principle by showing how the rules of the game may change and who it affects.

One rule change that could happen and would affect some fans is the 20 second pitch clock rule. This rule would make pitchers pitch the ball before the 20 sec is up. This would speed up the game and it would affect the fans because they will be more engaged to the game. The game will be played at a much faster pace and would be even more entertaining to watch than it already is. Personally I wouldn’t be a fan of this rule if it were to come into place because I feel like sometimes you need more than 20 seconds in between pitches and if this rule were set than I think pitchers will be rushed and not perform as well possibly.

Another rule change that may happen in the near future is a universal designated hitter. This means that every team in the league will be able to use a DH, right now only teams in the AL use a DH. If this rule were to come into place then it would affect the fans because they would be able to see another good hitter play and not watch the pitcher hit, which would most likely make them more excited. Also this rule could make some games more high scoring. Personally I would be a fan of this rule because it would make the game much more interesting and fun to watch.

Last rule change that could come into effect is a rule where pitchers that come into the game must face at least 3 batters before exiting. This rule would affect the fans and keep the game at a faster pace and there will be less pitching changes. I would not be a fan of this rule because some pitchers come in to face one hitter for a certain matchup that favors their team. I think you should be able to put in pitchers whenever you want not after 3 batters.

In my next blog post I will research the question: Who were the most influential players of all time?

How NFL Players are Reacting to New Rules

Source: https://thenypost

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.”

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “What new rules and regulations have been put in to make the game safer for its players”

The article published on ESPN titled “The NFL's latest safety measures face resistance from players

” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing that the new rules implemented in the game can make the game safer, but can also restrict some of the players from playing their best.

First, the NFL has spent a lot of time, money, and effort to make the game safer for its players, but there’s one problem. A lot of the players don’t like some of these rules even though they do make the game safer. Example, Eric Weddle, safety for the Baltimore Ravens said,"You don't want to fault them for putting in the effort to finding the best helmets and keeping players safe and all that. But the biggest problem I have is this: How do you not consult with the players and have them agree with it? You make these changes. Well, we play the game. How are you going to make these cultural changes without asking us? They think that it's going to make the game better and safer. It's not." So the NFL put more regulations on helmets to help with concussions and everything because in the 2017-2018 season there were a total of around 290 concussions during that season. The problem with that and main argument that Weddle is saying is that the NFL should’ve talked to the people actually using the helmets, aka the players on what they should do to the helmets to make them safer to wear and more comfortable as well. VICIS helmets did what Weddle said to do, they talked to the players about it and made them as safe and as comfortable as possible.

Second, another rule that many players are hating is targeting. This evolved rule limits defensive players on hitting players in certain situations. Especially against quarterbacks, since they have the most value, they need to be protected the most. The problem with this is that players like Clay Matthews for the Green Bay Packers can’t hit players the same way and get flagged for most of the hits they apply on offensive players, especially quarterbacks.

Third, these two rules just take some of the fun out of the game and gives fans less to watch in the game. Since the players can’t hit people the same way as a couple years ago, they are more restricted in what they can and cannot do which means less big hits. Big hits are what a lot of fans, especially what I like to see. And since they have to play safe there is less excitement in the game of football and more and more fans and players are getting frustrated about these new rules.

In my next blog post I will research the question: How are parents reacting to the new rules and regulations being embedded to make football safer?

Pop Music in Advertising

     

SOURCE: We Heart It

     The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways” My research question to help me study the economic principle is “What role does product placement hold in music lyrics?”

     The article published in Mic Network Inc titled “Pop Music is More About Advertising Now Than Before - And Nobody Realizes It” demonstrates this economic principle by showing that advertising is extremely prominent in music through brand mentions in lyrics, artists are willing to include advertisements in their songs out of greed, and bribes are occasionally taken for the sake of an advertisement.

     First, in some songs, the lyrics will include the mention of a product. For most cases, a company is paying the artist to include their product in their lyrics. They believe that through this, the popularity of the song will correlate with the popularity of the product. An example of this can be seen through Chris Brown’s song “Forever”. The song’s lyrics,“prominently nods to the slogan of Wrigley's Double Mint gum in its chorus: "Double your pleasure / Double your fun and dance." Almost a year later, Wrigley's revealed that the song was actually part of a cleverly orchestrated branding move”. These lyrics were just another ad in a popular song.

     Second, artists are sometimes greedy enough to include a brand in their lyrics as an attempt to construct a deal with this brand. Their rationale is that they will “hopefully earn free products or sponsorships down the line”. This has happened in the past with Busta Rhymes with his song, “Pass the Courvoisier”. I personally think this is a really immoral thing to do, because an artist is taking an advantage of their position for the sake of money or free products.

     Third, offers and bribes are shown to artists in attempts to get them to include products in their lyrics. This goes to show how the world has become increasingly more corrupted by means of greed and wealth. It also means that other things outside of music are infiltrated by advertisements without the public knowing. If bribes are offered to artists, why not others. The article mentioned that one company, "blatantly offers to include product plugs in the lyrics of an upcoming album by boy band B2K.” The effects of advertisements have become widespread.

Growth in the Popularity of Soccer

Bloomberg.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is: Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is: What makes international soccer teams successful? How does FIFA ensure that teams are treated equally?

 The article published on Bloomberg titled “Soccer Is the World’s Most Popular Sport and Still Growing” demonstrates this economic principle by showing the popularity throughout the US and the world. 

 First, is the world’s most popular sport and won’t stop growing. Different players emerge and new teams are constantly being formed. In the US right now, there are 3 upcoming team being added to the MLS. These teams are being hosted in cities like: Nashville, Miami, and Cincinnati. According to Bloomberg, “4 out of every 10 people consider themselves soccer fans. 43 percent of people said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the sport.” This shows the popularity of the sport as it is now. Soccer is able to continue to grow due to the improvements that they are making.

 Second, the amount of money that FIFA is able to add to its marketing is crucial to be able to express soccer in a more global setting. This is important because we see commercials and advertisements that the organization has to pay for all around the world. This helps to get the name out for more people to see as well as marketing themselves as a group. Bloomberg had stated that: “Soccer’s global governing body is expected to take in $3 billion in media rights for the 2018 World Cup, an increase of $600 million over 2014. But to capitalize on its newest fans, FIFA, like most rights holder in sports, will need to figure out how to make money off mobile viewers: Among fans aged 11-20, some 25 percent plan to watch the 2018 World Cup via smartphone or tablet.” FIFA is making the games and news more accessible to a younger audience which is a good move as the younger generation is becoming more and more attracted to electronics.

 Third, even in the US the sport is growing. FIFA is continuing to add to the MLS which is making the sport much more enjoyable to watch. The MLS is currently attracted to more well known names like Wayne Rooney and Zlatan Ibrahimvić. These two figures have been crucial to their team’s success. However, the MLS still has some work to do on their views and attendance as they are not as heavily involved in the sport in comparison to other countries. According the Bloomberg, “in the US, 32 percent of those polled expressed interest in the game, with young people much more likely to follow soccer when compared to their parents.” This is very promising to upcoming generations because parents will have a positive influence on their children. This will continue to help the sport flourish.

Industry Giants

SOURCE: DC Shoes

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways.

“My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How Profitable is Snowboarding as a sport”

 The article (SELECT ONE) published in [The Richest] titled “..[The Biggest Snowboard Companies on the Slopes]...” demonstrates this economic principle by arguing/showing net profit for companies, comparing different companies profits, and analyzing their success. 

First, The website displays a list of the ten most profitable snowboarding companies. At number one is DC, a skate and snowboarding company. They made $498 million in 2012, making nearly $200 million more than the second company, Volcom. Volcom made $332 million in revenue in 2012, which places them at second in most profitable. And finally in third place is Burton, with a revenue of $100 million. While this article was written in 2012, and Burton has risen to the top over the past seven years, it is interesting to see how the power dynamic has changed. With DC making over 400 million dollars more than Burton in 2012, I wonder what happened to DC. 

Second, when comparing the profits of each company, there is clearly something to learn from DC, considering they made $200 million more. I believe that part of their success has to come with branding and appeal. In my experience, DC is a very reliable snowboard company. Their boots last a while, and their boards are crafted well. I believe that their success comes from focusing on quality with a cheap price. Volcom on the other hand tends to focus on design and appeal, instead of build quality. Volcom also tends to spend a lot of money on marketing and normal street apparel. While I believe that Burton equally focuses on appeal and how well the board rides. 

Third, between these three companies, the most profitable one was a company that focused on producing snowboarding boots, because of their reputable past with shoes. Prior to producing snowboarding boots, they produced skateboarding shoes. The article states that DC is “One of the largest snowboarding companies in the world, due to their strong marketing campaigns, their parent company, Quicksilver, and great business practices.” For the second most profitable company, Volcom, snowboarding is simply a side job for them. Volcom heavily focuses on clothing and producing apparel for extreme sports. Their boards are known for being “flash and functional” and are very respected in the industry. The third company, Burton, was the company that started the snowboarding craze. They were one of the first companies to massively produce these boards and have great success selling them. Like Volcom, Burton makes most of their money from their clothing brand, yet, snowboarding would not be the sport it is today without Burton. 

 In my next blog post I will research the question: Is new technology actively being developed for Snowboarding?

The Fraud of Enron

The Fraud of Enron 

 You may be wondering, how was Enron so successful as a company and how did they make so much money? But you will actually learn that Enron was far from a successful company, they were a company of Fraud. 

 Mark to Market Accounting 

 One of Enron's most efficient profit schemes was Mark to Market Accounting. Essentially what the Enron Accounting Function would do is hide their losses of business operations by reporting the projected earnings that the company was going to make, not the actual earnings. There was a deal with Blockbusters where they developed new technology that would supposedly help Blockbusters in a deal worth millions. The executives including Aurthor Anderson and Jeffrey Skillings would then open it up to the public saying how great it was going to be and with the Mark to Market Accounting they would put the projected earnings in the books. This would then lure a boatload of investers into the company because of how "great" Enron was doing. But little did the public know that these business operations sometimes weren't even making a dime, and the technology actually failed miserably with the blockbusters deal. Using this tactic, Enron's stock soured 32% in just two days at one point. This accounting method of hiding their losses was all a huge factor in keeping the bottom line of the company high. 

 Insider Trading 

 So how did they make money? By the tremendous amount of value from the stockholders and something that's called insider trading. The executives obviously knew confidential information about the company so they would illegally buy and sell stocks. Some of the big time Enron Traders that made unbelievable profits were Ken Rice who made 53 million, Ken Lee, 300 million, Jeff Skilling 200 million, and Cliff Baxter 35 million. Insider trading is illegal, because the executives know when the stick prices will rise and fall. And this was very present in Enron and you can see why it is illegal based on their profits above.

 Other Revenue

 One of the early successes for Enron was the oil gambling tactics. This is one of the most riskiest methods due to how unpredictable it was. You can even lose ten times as much money as you put in. But Enron found high success in this business. The Enron executives loved taking risks. Also, the Enron executives fired a lot of employees to maximize individual profit, a very selfish move. Another reason for this is because they had were hiding their frauds for years, so they didn't want their schemes to be figured out by the wrong people. So, we can clearly see that Enron was never really a successful company. They were successful at committing fraud. 

 Vincent Zelisko, John Malincus

Constant Contact

The economic principle I’m exploring is: Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is What makes international soccer teams successful? How does FIFA ensure that teams are treated equally? 

 The article published on Johan Cruyff Institute titled “FIFA presents its plan 2.0: the future of football” demonstrates this econ
omic principle by showing the improvements the organization, and the increase in the involvement of women.

 First, the goal the FIFA wants to further dive into is expansion. They want to “increase overall participation in football from 45% to 60% of the world population, at all levels (players, coaches, referees and fans).” This would ultimately be beneficial to FIFA as their name would be able to travel further and faster. This would allow for the organization to gain more support and followers which could lead to more sponsorships and endorsements. This plan has been names FIFA 2.0 as it plans to restore confidence in the group and build a future that includes the sport to a higher extent.

 Second, the involvement of women in the sport is a market that has not yet reached its full potential. FIFA wants to increase their involvement in the World Cup. “We need to increase the World Cup to 40 teams and give eight more countries the opportunity to participate in FIFA’s number one tournament and, at the same time, give many more countries the chance to compete in the qualifying stages in a stronger way.” This would be very beneficial to the sport because it would help the younger generations to find their spot in life. I think that this is a great idea. Women’s soccer has brought up so many influential players that are found as models already and this can be continued through their program.

 In my next blog post I will research the question: How has the popularity of the sport grown and what were the influences?

Popular Incentives in Music

SOURCE: Music Ally

     The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways” My research question to help me study the economic principle is “What incentives do music advertisements offer?”
   
     The article published in Econsultancy titled “Science of Sound: How Music Makes Advertising More Memorable” demonstrates this economic principle by showing that the popularity of a song gives people an incentive to buy their product, product placement plays a large role in the music industry, and music helps people remember products more.

     First, when advertisers decide to include music in an advertisement, sometimes they’ll stray towards including a popular song in their ad. By using popular songs, the advertisers create an incentive for viewers to pay closer attention. One example of this can be found in Microsoft’s “Start Me Up Ad”, which includes, “the iconic and instantly recognizable Rolling Stones song of the same name.” Microsoft specifically chose to include this song because of its immense popularity.

     Second, product placement has a very strong influence over the music industry. By placing products into the lyrics of popular artists, another incentive is created to listen to the “advertisement”. In some cases, the public isn’t even aware that they’re listening to an advertisement. For example, in 2003 McDonald’s “enlisted the Neptunes to produce, and Justin Timberlake to record its new song ‘I’m Lovin’ It’”. Despite the fact that the song shared the same name as the classic McDonald’s slogan, it was released into the public without them knowing there were ties between the song and McDonald’s. This takes incentivizing a step further, because the public has an incentive to listen to Timberlake’s song due to its popularity, and people aren’t turned away from it because they don’t know it’s an ad.

     Third, these incentives drive a better memory of the product. When a person actually wants to listen to an ad(possibly due to popular song choice), they are much more likely to remember it. In a study by Neurosight, they proved that ads with music are much more likely to be encoded into your long term memory. Combined with incentivizing, music proves to be extremely important in advertisements today.

     In my next blog post I will research the question: What role does product placement hold in music lyrics?