The London 2012 Olympics; The Pros and Cons

The eagerly anticipated London 2012 Olympic opening ceremony is only a matter of months away and as the final preparations are made, now seems like a good a time as any to look at the potential impacts of the Olympics on London and the UK economy.

It has to be said that only time will tell what the true impacts of the Games will be, but looking at  the success of previous Olympic events, the question of whether this event is economically beneficial or disruptive needs to be asked.

So, as oppose to analysing the basic economic cons of the Olympics, let’s lay down some alternative reasons why the Olympic Games due to take place this year may be harmful to the UK economy as well as the environment and society…

1. In first place comes the sheer financial cost of the Olympics, coming in way over initial budget forecasts. In fact, the initial estimate, back in 2002, was a hilarious figure of £2 billion ($4 billion) but by March 2008 this had already exceeded $18 billion. This year, a figure of £24 billion as the Olympic funding total was approximated, making the event a highly expensive one for  private investors, the government and British taxpayers. The long term impacts of the Games on the budget deficit is likely to be harmful for the economy, when the government attempts to reduce its massive debts. Public spending cuts and higher taxes could follow.
2. At number two on the countdown of cons of the Olympics, there is the questionable success of the regeneration project in the Lower Lea Valley. This is an area in London where the number of gangs is very high, with vandalism, burglary and general anti-social behaviour above the average rate for the UK. Does the government believe that by investing in  very expensive and sophisticated sports facilities and the Olympic Park, they will transform the attitudes of young people in this area and minimise their need to destroy perfectly good buildings with a spray can? (I'm only referring to a select, stereotypical few.) Looking at previous Olympic stadiums and parks, it is evident that few have been kept in the same pristine condition that they were in during the event; in Athens, the venues for the 2004 Olympics lay run down and unused, despite hopes that they too would regenerate and rebrand the surrounding areas. In Barcelona, the 1992 Olympic zone is left ‘tatty’.
3. Next comes the London 2012 logo and mascots. They really are pretty awful; it was said that the logo could even trigger forms of epilepsy…
4. Pollution from air traffic and congestion is an unquestionable consequence for the environment. With hundreds of thousands of tourists coming to the UK, airports, motorways and tubes will be jam-packed with aimlessly wondering sightseers.
5. While there are many other cons of the Olympics the  final point is the trade off the government faces between  going all out on this event and spending more on education and infrastructure or dealing more efficiently with the ever increasing budget deficit.

Having said that, without doubt, the Games will have many economic advantages, which I may explore in another post to come (after all, my aim isn’t to be a complete pessimist). 

The Voice UK vs. Britain’s Got Talent; Saturday Night Game Theory

The Voice UK vs. Britain’s Got Talent; Saturday Night Game Theory

The Voice UK or Britain’s Got Talent? Both great talent shows that have been the hot subject on everyone’s lips, as well as their twitter, over the past few weeks. Only a short time before the live finals of each, these two shows have been battling it out for views and ratings, and the driving force behind the fight for the prime TV slot comes from the constant competition between the two broadcasting giants, BBC vs. ITV.

So, how does this link with Game Theory? It can be a somewhat complex theory to comprehend, when looking past the basics, but using the example of these two similar programmes, competing for the optimum broadcasting slot, the concept of Nash equilibrium and Game Theory begins to make some sense. Usually, the example of ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ is used to make sense of Game Theory but The Voice UK and BGT seemed much more contemporary!

The definition of Game Theory states that it is a study of tactical relations between ‘players’, whether they are people, firms, governments or other, where the decisions made by one player is dependent on the actions and decisions of another player.

When investigating the link between The Voice and Britain’s Got Talent and Game Theory, it is important to look at the aim of the producers and broadcasters, i.e. to get the most views, higher ratings and therefore make the most profit. These aims can really only be achieved by obtaining the optimal TV slot time which, for a family show, is Saturday evening.

However, in this industry, predicting the actions of other TV channels is important in order to make the best decisions and therefore attain the best outcome. The table below indicates the possible outcomes that are influenced by the decisions made by the BBC and ITV.

		BBC
		Premier The Voice UK Final on Saturday evening	Premier The Voice UK Final another night
ITV	Premier BGT Final on Saturday evening	Audience split – fewer live views overall	BGT wins most views over The Voice
	Premier BGT  Final another night	The Voice wins most views over BGT	Waste chance of acquiring Saturday night audience

This indicates that the best possible outcome for both channels is to premier both talent shows live finals on the same evening, despite having a split audience. This is the Nash equilibrium.

The Nash equilibrium occurs when the decision made by the first player is the best outcome for both players, given the others decision.

There would be little problem caused if the timings of the two live finals weren’t also so similar, as it means that the audience at home will need to choose which final they would prefer to see...

Employment Trends at Abercrombie & Fitch; Discrimination vs. Self-selection

Abercrombie & Fitch Employment Trends:

Discrimination vs. Self-Selection

Made famous by its quintessentially American collegiate style and seemingly flawless models, Abercrombie & Fitch’s brand imaging is one of the strongest and most distinguished in the market.

In fact, the personality of this brand is so deep set, it poses the question, is it down to discrimination or self-selection that in-store staff all seem to encompass the look of the archetypal A&F model?

By undertaking a series of (possibly not so) subtle observations on a random sample of employees at Saville Row’s Abercrombie & Fitch store, I was able to confirm the fundamental aspect of my theory; they were all tall, slender and very attractive…

In order to detect any differentiation between looks of Hollister and A&F staff, I repeated the observational task on a smaller scale. Their depiction of the ‘perfect Hollister girl’ was evident throughout London’s store and Reading’s recently unveiled Hollister store, with features such as hair, shape and facial structure a noticeably recurring factor.

The results really speak for themselves…

	A&F / Hollister	Gender	Approx. Height	Approx. Dress size	Approx. Age	Aesthetic Rank /10
1.	A&F	Male	6’3’’	M	20	9
2.	A&F	Female	5’6’’	S / M	19/20	8/9
3.	A&F	Female	5’5’’	S	19/20	7/8
4.	A&F	Female	5’5’’	S	21	7
5.	A&F	Male	6’1’’	M	21	8
6.	A&F	Male	6’3’’	M / L	22	9
7.	A&F	Female	5’9’’	XS / S	22	9
8.	A&F	Male	6’0’’	M	23	8
9.	A&F	Male	5’9’’	M	22	8
10.	A&F	Female	6’0’’	XS	21	8
11.	A&F	Male	6’2’’	M	19	8
12.	A&F	Female	5’8’’	S	20	7
13.	A&F	Female	5’6’’	XS	21	9
14.	A&F	Male	6’1’’	M / L	25	8
15.	A&F	Male	6’0’’	M / L	20	9
16.	Hollister	Female	5’7’’	S	24	8
17.	Hollister	Female	5’3’’	XS / S	17	9
18.	Hollister	Female	5’6’’	S	19	7
19.	Hollister	Male	6’2’’	M	20	9
20.	Hollister	Male	6’0’’	M / L	18	8

The answer as to whether self-selection is the key factor to the attractive staffing trend, was in the results from the public research. A group of 35 sixth formers were asked to anonymously give their size and height, and mark on a scale how likely they were, given that they were available to work, to apply for a job at Hollister or Abercrombie & Fitch…

The results showed little sign of a correlation between size, height and their decision, but it became apparent that self-selection did exist in the situation as over half the girls and just under a quarter of the boys said they would not apply, purely because they did not believe they fitted the ‘image policy’ or the ‘typical mould’.

When asked to leave their reasoning for their position on the scale, those who said they would be likely explained that, if they needed a job, they would apply to as many places as possible. However, the people who dashed anywhere around ‘not at all’ and ‘unlikely’ expressed a similar concern. I quote, “they look for a certain image”, “my appearance rather than my ability would be judged”, “wouldn’t fit the ‘mould’”, “prejudiced towards unattractive people” and, my personal favourite, “I find their business practices abhorrent, they are satirical misfits with delusions of how cool they are”…

This is clearly a rather controversial topic but it’s also one that is very interesting. How is it that A&F are so blasé about it but seem to get away with it all the time? Is the evident self-selection in the small scale sample as prominent in a large scale sample? And how have Abercrombie & Fitch made such a strong brand image in their employees without being discriminating in the first place?...