Question

Lawyers representing the Beatles filed a $15 million suit in New York against Nike, Inc., over Nike's Air Max shoe commercial set to the Beatles' 1968 hit song "Revolution." As part of all such lawsuits, the plaintiff must prove a financial damage in this case, that Nike improperly gained from the unlicensed use of the Beatles' song.
In proving their case, lawyers for the Beatles had to show that "Revolution," or any Beatles' song, is not just a tune played with the commercial and that, in fact, the use of the song made the Nike commercial more appealing than it would have been if it had featured another song or melody. A statistician was hired to aid in proving this point.
The statistician designed a study in which the Air Max commercial was recast using two other randomly chosen songs that were in the public domain and did not require permission, and that were not sung by the Beatles. Then three groups of 12 people each were randomly selected. Each group was shown one of the commercials, and every person's appeal score for the commercial was recorded. Using the following appeal scores, determine whether there is statistical evidence that not all three songs would be equally effective in the commercial. If you do reject the null hypothesis of equal appeal, go the required extra step to prove that the Beatles' "Revolution" does indeed have greater appeal over other songs, and that Nike should pay the Beatles for using it.
"Revolution": 95, 98, 96, 99, 91, 90, 97, 100, 96, 92, 88, 93
Random alternative A: 65, 67, 66, 69, 60, 58, 70, 64, 64, 68, 61, 62
Random alternative B: 59, 57, 55, 63, 59, 44, 49, 48, 46, 60, 47, 45


$1.99
Sales0
Views31
Comments0
  • CreatedJune 03, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000