The question is incomplete, it lacks options.
A. Producer to retailer to consumer
B. Producer to broker to wholesaler to retailer to consumer
C. Producer to consumer
D. Producer to agent to consumer
E. Producer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer
Answer:
Producer to retailer to consumer
Explanation:
Marketing channels can be described as the different mediums in which goods are made available to the consumers.
Selling through intermediaries is a marketing channel through which goods are supplied to the consumers through a middleman such as a retailer. These intermediaries helps a company to promote and sell their products in the market.
This type of marketing channel is known as an indirect channel of distribution.
Answer:
A. Johanna was moved by the arguments put forth by the first speaker.
Explanation:
We start by first explaining the meaning of the concept anchoring bias. This would help us to pick the best answer for this question.
Anchoring bias can be described as a bias that exists when a person is heavily dependent on the first information they get or are offered. Once the person sets this anchor, all the judgments that they make tends to be anchored around this information.
so from these options in this question , the one that substantiates on what an anchoring bias is option A.
Johanna was moved by the arguments put forth by the first speaker.
Answer:
Scenario R(%) P ER R - ER (R - ER)2 (R - ER)2.P
Optimistic 16 0.15 24.0 -17.2 295.84 44.376
Most-likely 12 0.60 7.2 -21,2 449.44 269.664
Pessimistic 8 0.25 2.0 -25.2 635.04 158.760
ER 33.2 Variance 472.80
Standard deviation of the return
= √472.80
= 21.74%
Explanation:
The expected return is the product of return and probability. The total expected return is the aggregate of individual expected return. R - ER is the difference between individual return and total expected return. Variance is (R - ER) raised to power 2 multiplied by probability.
Answer:
A
Explanation:
The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the trial court's decision and ruled in favor of Florence on the issue of piercing the corporate veil. The court took a tour of Shelby's company history, there was every indication that the principals treated their own liabilities as Shelby's liabilities and vice versa and intentionally undercapitalized Shelby,this caused Shelby to continually be insolvent, including at the time it contracted with Florence. Essad sworn statement was falsified in the final loan draw request to the bank, and this constituted use of Shelby for fraudulent purposes. Therefore, Florence satisfied the elements for piercing the corporate veil.
