Superstar actors typically get contracts that specify that they get a percentage of "the gross," the total revenues that the movie brings in
Why might actors want contracts structured that way? Why might producers be willing to agree to that, and how does this make the goals of actors and producers different?
Actors want to maximize revenue with this sort of contract, while producers wish to maximize profit. It is clearly advantageous to the actor, since cost overruns won't impact what they receive. But it might also suit producers, because if actors are interested in maximizing revenue, they have an incentive to promote the movie and try to increase sales (and to do a product job). This might be more of an incentive than a cut of the profits, over which they have less control.
You might also like to view...
The statement that a monopoly raises the price of its product is an example of positive economics
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Figure 11-2
?
Which graph in Figure 11-2 best reflects a supply-sider’s view of the impact of an increase in the personal income tax rate?
A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4
One lesson of the Great Depression was that potential GDP could _____
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).
Figure 7.5
The consumer must decide how to split $20 between spending and saving.Refer to Figure 7.5. If the consumer is subject to present bias, he/she will maximize utility at a marginal utility per dollar of ________ utils for consumption and ________ utils for saving.
A. 15; 15 B. 15; 30 C. 30; 15 D. 30; 30