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

Thousands of “Hannah Montana” fans who couldn’t get concert tickets could potentially join a lawsuit against the teen performer’s fan club over memberships they claim 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 Club based on its declare that joining would make it easier to get concert tickets from the teen star’s Web place. “They deceptively lured thousands of individuals into purchasing memberships into the Miley Cyrus Fan Club,” plaintiffs’ attorney Rob Peirce said. His Pittsburgh tighten and a Memphis tighten filed the conform to Tuesday in U. S. District Court in Nashville. The fan unify costs $29.95 a year to join according to the lawsuit which alleges that the defendants should have known that the place’s membership vastly exceeded the be 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 acquire membership with this club in order to get preferential access to contrive tickets or (b) are now saying they did because taking responsibility for I guess it’s just a lawsuit like any other. I’ve looked around: I don’t see any have in mind 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 clear to members that more populate ordain want tickets than will get them. “Thousands” are in on this lawsuit so I evaluate it ought to be a lot. The solution is simple: compare the two sets of people members and non-members. There must be some measure 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 have gotten tickets than the general public there is no lawsuit. If the opposite is open (i e if there appears to have been no advantage) there there is a lawsuit. register Bayes’ theory: speculate we want/need the probability of getting tickets What we do undergo is the probability of being a Fan unify 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 answer 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 determine of that information ordain 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? Enter the $latex \chi ^{2}=\dfrac{\left[ a-\dfrac{d(a+b)}{(d+c)}\right] ^{2}}{\dfrac{d(a+b)}{%(d+c)}}+\dfrac{\left[ b-\dfrac{c(a+b)}{(d+c)}\right] ^{2}}{\dfrac{c(a+b)}{%(d+c)}}$ 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 reject 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 inspect. If they are not statistically significantly different they’ve been ripped-off. Again. : regression analysis ordain offer two distinct advantages in this instance; one for the prosecution and definitely if the defence has demonstrated above than Miley Cyrus Fan unify members did in fact get a better deal on tickets than non-members and one for the defence for the same reason: Regression analysis will be able to define the degree to which being a member of the fan club increased the probability of securing a ticket to the show(s). Regression analysis ordain be able to determine the statistical significance of the relationship between fan unify membership and ticket-securing. Keeping it simple. That is part (1): this copy will positively identify 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 define the degree to which that probability increased (if it increased at all). However. What if there was some other difference? We experience for example that scalpers landed on these tickets desire (insert joke here - who don’t you like?). Suppose Miley Cyrus Fan unify members differed in some specific other respect? Perhaps they just didn’t log on as quickly? Do they have a slower connection? Was a child doing it with their parents credit separate (the assumption being that they were slower to manoeuvre the system)? On to multiple regression! Controlling for these factors our model becomes: The more statistically significant explanatory variables we introduce into our copy the less statistically significant (and probably economically significant) ordain change state and the weaker ordain become the class challenge lawsuit against the Hannah Montana populate. Seems like a waste of perfectly good econometrics/statistics one might evaluate. The conform to ordain probably include every fan unify member who did not get a ticket though asking for manifold damages plus legal fees. I reckon it’s worth the effort for the companies being sued. I keep telling my students that econometrics can do everything… What if membership is endogenous? Fans who change state members might be more likely to ‘try harder’ to get the tickets. They will alter sure they experience the exact date tickets are on sale refresh their web browser more times trying to get to the tickets page. 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 call him names freely the jerk) is referring to selection prejudice (probably correctly). If populate are electing to become fan unify members for the purpose of getting tickets there is the distinct possibility that they are going to alter 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 ticket and one’s membership in the fan unify - call it Initiative. This is a very hard thing to go out and measure. 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 have been done to prevent it or correct 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: