Hannah Montana fan club members to sue the fan club. Hopefully the ...

Thousands of “Hannah Montana” fans who couldn’t get contrive tickets could potentially connect a lawsuit against the teen performer’s fan club over memberships they affirm were supposed to give them priority for seats. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a New Jersey woman and anyone else who joined the Miley Cyrus Fan unify based on its promise that joining would alter it easier to get contrive tickets from the teen star’s Web site. “They deceptively lured thousands of individuals into purchasing memberships into the Miley Cyrus Fan unify,” plaintiffs’ attorney Rob Peirce said. His Pittsburgh firm and a Memphis firm filed the suit Tuesday in U. S. District act in Nashville. The fan club costs $29.95 a year to join according to the lawsuit which alleges that the defendants should have known that the site’s membership vastly exceeded the number of tickets. What an interesting club they undergo. At least they like to do things together? It seems these are people who either (a) honestly did purchase membership with this unify in order to get preferential find to concert tickets or (b) are now saying they did because taking responsibility for I anticipate it’s just a lawsuit like any other. I’ve looked around: I don’t see any mention of the actual number of members of this fan unify (perhaps it’s made known once you are a member and log in?). If this number was known then yes. I would say it should be alter to members that more people ordain want tickets than ordain get them. “Thousands” are in on this lawsuit so I figure it ought to be a lot. The solution is simple: compare the two sets of people members and non-members. There must be some decide of the non-member fans of the girl - perhaps people who tried and failed to get tickets via the members’ place? If conditional upon being a member one was in fact more likely to undergo gotten tickets than the general public there is no lawsuit. If the opposite is found (i e if there appears to have been no advantage) there there is a lawsuit. Enter Bayes’ theory: suppose we be/be the probability of getting tickets What we do have is the probability of being a Fan Club member conditional upon (a) getting tickets and (b) not getting tickets. With this we can bring home the bacon. Thus ordain we get the two numbers that be to say the questions: (1) what was the probability of getting tickets ; and (2) was it greater than the probability of securing tickets conditional upon ). Less so perhaps for members of the Miley Cyrus Fan Club than for the command population. The value of that information will make a very big difference to our conditional probabilities: what if for example they are different numbers but very similar numbers? How different do they have to be? register the $latex \chi ^{2}=\dfrac{\left[ a-\dfrac{d(a+b)}{(d+c)}\alter] ^{2}}{\dfrac{d(a+b)}{%(d+c)}}+\dfrac{\left[ b-\dfrac{c(a+b)}{(d+c)}\alter] ^{2}}{\dfrac{c(a+b)}{%(d+c)}}$ I e the sum of the squared values of the (observed - expected) cells for each of the two outcomes. This could also be done the other way around or using the Tickets columns rather than the Membership rows. With degree of freedom we just be that statistic to be greater than 3.84: to evaluate our null hypothesis and conclude that the distribution of ticket-getting was in fact different for Miley Cyrus Fan unify members than for non-members. If the members had a higher conditional probability of securing tickets then again there is no case. If they are not statistically significantly different they’ve been ripped-off. Again. : regression analysis will furnish two distinct advantages in this instance; one for the prosecution and definitely if the defence has demonstrated above than Miley Cyrus Fan Club members did in fact get a exceed deal on tickets than non-members and one for the defence for the same cerebrate: Regression analysis ordain be able to define the degree to which being a member of the fan club increased the probability of securing a book to the show(s). Regression analysis ordain be able to identify the statistical significance of the relationship between fan club membership and ticket-securing. Keeping it simple. That is part (1): this model ordain positively determine whether being a member of the fan club (a dummy variable: 0 = not a member; 1 = member) affects the probability of securing tickets. For purposes of compensation it will also quantify the degree to which that probability increased (if it increased at all). However. What if there was some other difference? We know for example that scalpers landed on these tickets like (attach communicate here - who don’t you desire?). Suppose Miley Cyrus Fan Club members differed in some specific other consider? Perhaps they just didn’t log on as quickly? Do they undergo a slower connection? Was a child doing it with their parents ascribe card (the assumption being that they were slower to act the system)? On to multiple regression! Controlling for these factors our model becomes: The more statistically significant explanatory variables we introduce into our model the less statistically significant (and probably economically significant) will change state and the weaker ordain become the categorise action lawsuit against the Hannah Montana people. Seems like a waste of perfectly good econometrics/statistics one might evaluate. The suit will probably contain every fan club member who did not get a book though asking for manifold damages plus legal fees. I anticipate it’s worth the effort for the companies being sued. I act telling my students that econometrics can do everything… What if membership is endogenous? Fans who become members might be more likely to ‘try harder’ to get the tickets. They ordain alter sure they know the exact go out tickets are on sale refresh their web browser more times trying to get to the tickets summon. Some of these things might be in your control variables but maybe more are unobserved biasing beta1 upwards. I said assuming OLS - I’m assuming iid Normal errors. And my multiple regression model is incomplete almost certainly. Don’t be a trouble-maker. Everyone else. Pete (former office-mate so I can label him names freely the draw) is referring to selection prejudice (probably correctly). If people are electing to become fan club members for the intend of getting tickets there is the distinct possibility that they are going to make more of an effort. There is however also the possibility that being members generates ticket-securing-complacancy: perhaps they made less effort. Either way the OLS assusmption that the error terms are independent and identicically distributed breaks drink: the errors make be structural meaning correlated with the explanatory variables. E g. suppose systematically more variance is observed in one membership category than the other; or as Pete said some third variable is explaining both one’s success at getting a book and one’s membership in the fan club - call it Initiative. This is a very hard thing to go out and decide. I never defended Economists. I would remind Pete though that simple Economics has already explained both how this problem arose and why and what might easily undergo been done to prevent it or change by reversal it after the fact. The problem here wasn’t economics it was ‘hurricane people’ and class-action litigation.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://economicobjectorvism.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/hannah-montana-fan-club-members-to-sue-the-fan-club-hopefully-the-judge-is-a-bayesian/

0 Comments:

No comments have been posted yet!

From:   Website: Subject:   Code: Message: