1 increasing audience
2 payment methods and or growing page
3 yes help others and myself
4 insta due to its growing capacity
Answer: Please refer to Explanation.
Explanation:
Two Companies. We shall call them A and B.
If A and B decide not to advertise, they both get $5,000,000.
If A advertises and B does not then A captures $3 million from B at a cost of $2 million meaning their payoff would be,
= 5 million - 2 million + 3 million
= $6 million.
A will have $6 million and B will have $2 million as $3 million was captured from them. This scenario holds true if B is the one that advertises and A does not.
If both of them Advertise, they both reduce their gains by $2 million while capturing $3 million from each other so they'll essentially both have just $3 million if they both decide to advertise.
With the above scenarios, it is better for both companies to ADVERTISE if there is NO COLLUSION. This is because it ensures that they do not get the lowest payoff of $2 million if the other company decides to advertise and they do not.
However, if they DO COLLUDE. They must both decide that NONE of them SHOULD ADVERTISE and this would leave them with their original $5 million each which is a higher payoff than the $3 million they will both receive if they were both advertising.
Answer:
Price earning ratio= 8 times
Explanation:
Price earning ratio = Price per share /Earnings per share
Price per share = 56, EPS =?
Price per share =56, EPS = Total earnings available to ordinary shareholders/Number of shares
7,000,000/1,000,000= $7 per share
Price earning ratio = 56/7= 8 times
Price earning ratio= 8 times
Answer:
maturity
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that the tires are in the maturity stage of their product life cycle. This is the longest stage in the product life cycle in which the introduction and growth stages has already passed and the product advertisements have minimal impact on sales since people have already seen the product. This seems to be the case since Goodrich has sold it's tires for more than a hundred years and only focuses on short term marketing.
I shall replace the salesman after discovering that a salesman is receiving kickbacks from my largest customer, analog concerns.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:</u>
In the above mentioned scenario, the salesman is given a kickbacks - "advantages" for either the good relationship that they have maintained with the client or for luring them to always provide them the product/service with discounts.
So in this situation I would obviously replace the salesman because such situations cannot be ignored and there is no assurance that the salesman will not take kickbacks henceforth. And asking for a cut is ethically wrong as the salesman getting the kickbacks.
