China must draw the right lessons from the failures of its one-child policy — Yasheng Huang

MIT Sloan Prof. Yasheng Huang

MIT Sloan Prof. Yasheng Huang

From South China Morning Post

In 1983, the UN gave China and India awards for their efforts to control the population. The recipient for India was its then prime minister, Indira Gandhi. She famously pushed for a compulsory sterilisation campaign and even suspended elections in order to enforce it. Her programme failed miserably, and one of its enduring effects is a pervasive distrust of India’s health care system, which still plagues public health efforts today.

By contrast, China’s one-child policy was in place for 35 years until this October, when the government announced a shift to a “one couple, two children” policy.

The contrast in duration between the Chinese and Indian population control policies cannot be sharper, and it is this, among other differences, that prompted some Western observers to argue that the authoritarian Chinese system is more capable of enforcing politically tough but economically rational policies.

The reality is much more complicated. It is true that India has a higher fertility rate than China and it is also true that India could not enforce population controls as effectively as China has. But there are many other differences between China and India that would account for a lower fertility rate in China, regardless of policies. Chinese women enjoy a higher socio-economic status than Indian women. Chinese basic education and public health are far superior to those in India. All these factors would have led to a declining fertility rate in China even if China did not have the one-child policy in place.

Read the full article at South China Morning Post.

Yasheng Huang is the International Program Professor in Chinese Economy and Business and a Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

How TV can succeed in the digital age — Daniel Schiffman

Daniel Schiffman, MIT Sloan MBA '15

Daniel Schiffman, MIT Sloan MBA ’15

From Forbes

The media landscape has changed tremendously over the past year, and as we look ahead to 2016 a big question is: What is the future of TV? Television has long been the leading medium when it comes to American video consumption, but the landscape is quickly changing. Traditional TV is seeing competition from video streaming providers like Netflix and Amazon, Over-The-Top (OTT) devices such as Chromecast and Roku, and streaming content on a myriad of personal devices.

While big data is a powerful tool, it hasn’t yet unseated TV from its place at the head of the pack. A Nielsen Total Audience Report for Q2 2015 shows that adults 18+ spend more than 32 hours a week watching television, giving TV a 95% share of all video viewing. As for advertising, TV is where we see the majority of spending. It’s a $72 billion-a-year industry in the U.S., compared to $50 billion for digital advertising. However, if TV is going to stay the leader amid this digital disruption, it needs to make some changes – and make them fast.

Not surprisingly, we’re starting to see TV experiment with alternate data collection methods. The traditional means to obtain data about television viewership has long been the Nielsen rating system. That is based on a panel of roughly 25,000 homes in the U.S. and collects data once every minute. However, it really only tells us what is on the TV screen in that home. It doesn’t show if anyone is actually in the room watching the TV, or, if they are in the room, whether they are attentive to the program. Yet Nielsen has long set the standard for telling us what Americans are supposedly watching, which sets the pricing for TV advertising.

Read More »

The five keys to successfully negotiating your salary — Neal Hartman

neal-hartman

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Neal Hartman

From Forbes

Many people find asking to be paid more money awkward. How will your request be perceived? Will you look greedy or demanding? Are you sure you’re really worth what you’re asking for? The key to answering these questions and reaching a successful outcome is preparation. Fortunately, it’s not difficult to prepare for a salary negotiation. It just takes a few simple steps.

1. Think about timing.

The first step in preparing for a salary discussion is to consider timing. In general, it’s better to discuss salary after you receive a job offer rather than once you start a position. Companies generally expect there will be some negotiations before a person formally accepts a position, and assuming you have done your market research, you should be comfortable knowing the salary range and typical benefits for your position and in your location.

However, many people decide to have this conversation when they have been in a job for a time and desire a raise. If this is the case, look at whether you’ve had changes in job responsibilities. Have you taken on new roles or tasks? Or have you recently completed a successful project? If so, this would be an appropriate time to ask for an increase.

Another rule of thumb is that it’s better to ask for a raise when you’re happy in your job, versus feeling dissatisfied. You want to bring a positive attitude to the negotiating table, because that suggests you are committed to the company and are in for the long haul. After all, who wants to reward a disgruntled employee?

It’s also helpful to look at how the company is doing. If it just announced layoffs, don’t ask for a raise. On the other hand, it reported a 15% increase in profits over the last quarter, that is probably a better time.

Read More »

When selling virtual products abroad, don’t put prices on autopilot — Joey Conway and Catherine Tucker

MIT Sloan Assoc. Prof. Catherine Tucker

MIT Sloan Assoc. Prof. Catherine Tucker

From TechCrunch

If you have a physical product that you want to sell in more than one country, determining the price in different markets can be challenging. You might have to open an office in each country, or at least hire a consultant to assess local demand and analyze the competition.

But if you have a virtual product — say an app for a mobile phone — setting the price for it in different countries is easy. Using the individual exchange rate, the app store instantly will convert the price from your home country to any of the world’s many currencies.

This is, very likely, how prices are set for most smartphone applications sold in different countries. As developers prefer to spend time solving technical challenges, it is all too convenient to leave the responsibility of currency calculations and pricing to Apple or Google or some other virtual marketplace.

But is this the best approach when sellinginternationally? Is there a more profitable way to price virtual products sold in different currencies?

We explored these questions in an experiment that was both a real-world business trial and an academic exercise. We wanted to see whether we could boost revenue for a virtualproduct, Root Checker Pro, an app that helps Android users customize their phones. The app is sold through Google Play — the app store for Android devices — in more than 130 countries.

For our experiment, we selected six different currencies — Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, British pound, Mexican peso, Malaysian ringgit and Saudi riyal. Over six months, we charged various prices for the app in each of the currencies to see how sales and revenue would respond.

Read the full post at TechCrunch.

Joey Conway is creator and owner of Android app Root Checker Pro. He received his MBA from the Sloan School of Management in May 2015.

Catherine Tucker is a Professor of Marketing at MIT Sloan.  She is also Chair of the MIT Sloan PhD Program.