Today, the worst franchise in the NBA took back the former name from the team who bolted from Charlotte to New Orleans back in 2002. With the New Orleans changing their name to the Pelicans for the 2013-2014 season, the opportunity for Charlotte to reclaim their name was right in their palms. Or wings.
Either way, Michael Jordan, majority owner of the former Bobcats, recognized an opportunity to rebrand the team and potentially ditch the negative vibes of the worst team in the league. On the other hand, the past Hornets have failed to achieve higher bragging rights over the past few years themselves. But change is good. Change cannot hurt.
The small market teams in the NBA hang tight to the revenue sharing that is mandated by the league. These teams, including Charlotte and Cleveland, have had trouble sustaining high levels of interest in their teams. For a few, winning has been a formidable solution (Memphis). These standards, do not hold up throughout the Big 4 sports (Tampa Bay Rays) and are always questions of what will draw crowds to games.
All in all, this is by far the right move for the Bobcats. The team is definitely rising (take note they are not "on the rise"), but proper rebranding may help bring national interest to a team that has been nothing but an eyesore since 2004.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Revisiting Predictably Irrational: Beauty and the (Slightly Less Attractive) Beast
Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational is one of my favorite books that I have ever read. The topic combination of economics and the truth behind human nature was a match made in heaven. Today, I recall one study that Ariely specifically discusses: relativity.
The understanding that humans are bound to act against the rational decision making is tough for many stiff minded scholars to grasp. Sure, we can assume that all competitors will reach economies of scale, allowing the customer the lowest price at all times. In reality, the key for any goods and services does not matter in the grand scale of things, but more so what is going between you and the competitor in the vicinity. This delves into matters of recognizing the differences between Comparative and Absolute advantages.
Ariely's best relativity example in my opinion was the relativity of beauty. The main argument is that if you were to go out with one of your friends (preferably one who looks more or less alike), whoever is naturally more "attractive" will ultimately have an easier time finding a mate. Reasoning? Yes, justification exists.
Say you are set to compare 3 subjects. A and B would be both you and your closely (yet less attractive) looking friend. C, on the other hand, will be a person similar attractiveness to A, yet will look completely different (blonde hair and blue eyes, or vice versa to your own traits). Your admirer will look at all 3 of the potential mates, but find a natural base of relativity when judging A and B. Because there is a benchmark for A to be judged, the ability to recognize attractiveness is likely to ensue, allowing a higher probable victory over C.
While this will never be a 100% sure thing, I can state that the relativity theory will up the probability higher than a standalone challenge between A and C. For more information, purchase Predictably Irrational and enjoy the rest of the fun, exciting tests that Ariely runs on the guinea pig undergrads of Duke University!
Note: Ariely advises to never let your less attractive friend know your actions. I advise the same.
The understanding that humans are bound to act against the rational decision making is tough for many stiff minded scholars to grasp. Sure, we can assume that all competitors will reach economies of scale, allowing the customer the lowest price at all times. In reality, the key for any goods and services does not matter in the grand scale of things, but more so what is going between you and the competitor in the vicinity. This delves into matters of recognizing the differences between Comparative and Absolute advantages.
Ariely's best relativity example in my opinion was the relativity of beauty. The main argument is that if you were to go out with one of your friends (preferably one who looks more or less alike), whoever is naturally more "attractive" will ultimately have an easier time finding a mate. Reasoning? Yes, justification exists.
Say you are set to compare 3 subjects. A and B would be both you and your closely (yet less attractive) looking friend. C, on the other hand, will be a person similar attractiveness to A, yet will look completely different (blonde hair and blue eyes, or vice versa to your own traits). Your admirer will look at all 3 of the potential mates, but find a natural base of relativity when judging A and B. Because there is a benchmark for A to be judged, the ability to recognize attractiveness is likely to ensue, allowing a higher probable victory over C.
While this will never be a 100% sure thing, I can state that the relativity theory will up the probability higher than a standalone challenge between A and C. For more information, purchase Predictably Irrational and enjoy the rest of the fun, exciting tests that Ariely runs on the guinea pig undergrads of Duke University!
Note: Ariely advises to never let your less attractive friend know your actions. I advise the same.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
A Return to the Blog
Tomorrow will embark my return to the blognation. For many reasons, I have decided that I need to continue working on my writing abilities, while also keeping up with today's current events. Instead of my previous economics-only posts, I hope to diversify the blog out to matters related to anything that surrounds everything.
So, in essence, I will cover all that I feel like covering. Tomorrow is a new day. A new blog day indeed.
So, in essence, I will cover all that I feel like covering. Tomorrow is a new day. A new blog day indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)