An annual report released by the Better Business Bureau (BBB) yesterday revealed that consumers filed 1.1 million complaints against North American businesses in 2010, a 10 percent increase from the number of complaints filed in 2009. Additionally, consumers used the BBB’s website to research North American businesses more than 87 million times last year, up 37 percent from 2009.

“The complaints filed with BBB are not only a barometer of customer satisfaction, but the rise in complaints also shows that consumers are increasingly relying on BBB for assistance in resolving disputes with businesses,” said Stephen A. Cox, president and CEO of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, in a statement.

The BBB offers consumers 3 million Business Reviews, which report businesses’ accreditation status, letter grade and complaint history. Roofing contractors, general contractors and mortgage brokers were the most frequently researched industries in 2010. Out of 4,483 industries represented, the largest number of complaints were directed to the cable and satellite TV industry, with 30,985 complaints in 2010, down five percent from 2009. Complaints filed in this industry were resolved 98.6 percent of the time last year, a slight increase from the year before. The cable and satellite TV industry’s resolution rate is above the overall average resolution rate across all industries, which was 78 percent in 2010.

The second highest complained-about industry in 2010 was the cell phone industry with 27,293 complaints, a 29.6 percent decrease from 2009. Ranking third on the list are new car auto dealers with 24,698 complaints last year, an 8.1 percent decrease from the year before. These two industries, like the cable and satellite TV industry, also beat the average number of resolved complaints, with the cell phone industry resolving 92.1 percent of complaints and  new car auto dealers resolving 87.4 percent of complaints.

“Industries that do a large volume of business are naturally going to have a larger number of complaints,” said Cox. “This is why it’s important to look at how a company responded when BBB approached them with consumer complaints, and not just the sheer number of complaints.”

The free services and tools offered on the BBB website are especially valuable for consumers in this tough economy, said Cox, adding, “Given the current economic climate, consumers need to be more cautious on where and how they spend their money and a fast, easy way to do this is to ensure businesses are accredited by BBB and have a good BBB rating before doing business with them.”

This article is courtesy of our friends at the Better Business Bureau in Boston.

On July 1, new rules went into effect concerning overdrafts on your debit or ATM cards. You now get to choose in advance what happens when you make a charge on your debit or ATM card and don’t have enough money in your account to pay for it.

Let’s say you buy something with your debit or ATM card but haven’t been keeping track of how much you have in your account. It turns out you don’t have enough money in there, which means the withdrawal will lead to an overdraft. According to the Federal Reserve Board Webhttp://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/wyntk_overdraft.htm there are usually two ways that banks deal with an overdraft:

• Standard overdraft practices. Your bank will cover your transaction for a flat fee of about $20-$35 each time you overdraw your account. For example, if you make a purchase with your debit card for $150 but only have $100 in your account, your account will be overdrawn by $50 and your bank will charge you a fee. If you then make an ATM withdrawal for $50, your account will be overdrawn by $100 and you will be charged another fee. In this example, if the fee your bank charges for its standard overdraft practices is $30, you will pay a total of $60 in fees on $100 in overdrafts.
• Overdraft protection plans. Your bank may offer a line of credit or a link to your savings account to cover transactions when you overdraw your account. Banks typically charge a fee each time you overdraw your account, but these overdraft protection plans may be less expensive than their standard overdraft practices.

So what’s different under the new rules? Basically, your bank has to give you the option to choose how the bank will deal with an overdraft from you. In the past, some banks automatically enrolled you in a standard overdraft program when you opened an account with them. Now, the bank has to ask your permission and you have to opt in. If you don’t opt in, beginning August 15th, 2010, your bank’s standard overdraft practices won’t kick in when you charge too much. Instead, the transaction will typically be declined when you don’t have enough in your account to cover it. You won’t be charged an overdraft fee, but you also won’t be able to complete the purchase or withdrawal, either.

If you have an existing account that was opened any time before July 1st, you are supposed to get a notice from your bank about their standard overdraft practices, asking if you want them to continue or not. If you opened an account after July 1, you will be asked if you want to opt in or out when you fill out the initial paperwork. Whichever way you decide, you can change your mind at any time.

Warning: If you write checks or set up automatic bill payment from your checking account, the new rules do not cover checks or automatic bill payments. Your bank can still automatically enroll you in their standard overdraft practices for those types of transactions. If you don’t want that to happen, contact your bank, but you may find that you don’t have the option to cancel.

As always, it pays to shop around when you open a checking account. Banks could lose significant revenue if a majority of customers now opt out of overdraft protection, so down the road certain banks may decide to charge their customers new fees to make up for that loss of revenue. Always be aware of the terms of service of your account, and that includes reading those updates that come in the mail! If you don’t like your bank’s terms, you may want to shop for a bank whose fee structure you like better.

Buying a home can be one of the biggest purchases you will ever make.

But first-time buyers looking to take advantage of the low-interest loans and the federal tax credit of up to $8,000 this year should consider that there are more costs beyond the purchase price of a home.

Real estate agents and mortgage brokers say one of the biggest mistakes first-time buyers can make is not budgeting adequately for their new homes.

Jonathan White, president of Blue Door Mortgage in Wellesley, said a preapproval letter from a bank or other mortgage lender will give you a guideline of exactly how much you can pay. He cautions that buyers should get this prequalification before making a legally binding offer.

"Get preapproved so you know exactly what you’re dealing with,” White said.

Scott McNeill, managing partner at East Coast Realty in Boston, said a lot of buyers receive cash gifts from family members to go toward their down payments, which sometimes lead them to underestimate the monthly cost of owning a home.

Generally, McNeill said, the mortgage payment should be about one-third of your monthly income. Having a mortgage payment in this range will leave room in for other expenses, including utilities, insurance, and homeowner’s association or condo fees — all big costs McNeil said first-timers should consider before they sign.

"Make sure you budget carefully,” McNeil said. "Bigger homes have bigger utility bills, and condos with larger square footage will have higher condo fees.”

Thinking about buying? Here are some costs first-time home buyers should consider:

APPRAISAL AND HOME INSPECTION

Why you need it: You don’t want to buy a money pit. If a house has flaws, damage, or general issues, you need to know before they become your problems.

What it costs: An appraisal typically costs about $350. Then you’re looking at about $400 for a home inspection.

CLOSING COSTS

What they are: These are the costs involved in making the purchase and sale of property. In Massachusetts, as in several other states, an attorney is required.

What they cost: Can be a few thousand dollars depending on the price of the house when you close on it . But if you’re negotiating, put the closing costs on the table for your seller to pay. Factor in about $200 for a title exam, $700 for attorney’s fees, and about $300 for deed- and mortgage-recording fees. Also allot money for title insurance — how much depends on the purchase price. "Most listing agents will recommend to a seller to accept an offer that pays some or all closing costs. At the end of the day, it’s really just the net sales amount that should matter to a seller, and if it helps put a deal together, then everyone should be happy,” said East Coast Realty’s Scott McNeill.

PRIVATE MORTGAGE INSURANCE

What it is: You need PMI if you buy a home with a government-subsidized mortgage or on most mortgages on which the down payment is less than 20 percent of the purchase price. With federal FHA loans, you can get away with a down payment of just 3.5 percent, but the insurance becomes necessary if you’re paying so little up front.

What it costs: It’s about $80 a month on a $200,000 loan. You can also pay it off in advance, but if you have that much cash, you should see about putting more money down to see if PMI won’t be necessary. White said that you don’t need to pay PMI after you’ve paid off 20 percent of your mortgage, but he added that you need to call to ask the lender to take it off your bill.

ONGOING FEES AND UTILITIES

What it is: For a house you have water, sewer, insurance, heat, electricity, and television/Internet service. If you buy a condo, most (or in rare cases all) of these will be included in a monthly condo fee. Normal fees can range from $150-$400 depending on your building’s amenities. And if you’re buying a condo, you should also budget a few hundred dollars per year for homeowners’ insurance. The insurance in your condo fee only covers the building, not your stuff.

What it costs: Several hundred per month.

Over the last several months, students at Northeastern University conducted a research study aimed aimed at discovering the commonalities shared by small business owners and entrepreneurs.

Graduate and undergraduate students, advised by business professor Matthew Allen, found the following:

Of the 48 respondents identified as small business owners and entrepreneurs, most had several years of experience in their industry before starting their own business.

Average industry experience from the group was 17 years, Imean) while the most common response was 10 years (mode).‚  Of the respondents 58 percent have a family member working with the company, which indicates a trend towards family business.

Fifty-two percent of the businesspeople had completed a bachelor’s degree, 25 percent had achieved a master’s degree and 13 percent had not studied further than high school.

Frequent preparation and review of financial statements is commonly believed to be a necessary component to success in small businesses.‚ The survey reports that 52 percent of those surveyed review financial statements prepared on a monthly basis. while 35 percent only prepare financial statements annually and 12 percent never prepare or review financial statements.‚ Two thirds of respondents contract with a third party accounting professional to prepare these financial statements.‚ On the software side, Quicken was by far the most popular accounting software with 65 percent usage. Peachtree came in second with 13 percent.

These small business owners and entrepreneurs responded most commonly as having two years in operation with their current small business.‚ Seventy-three percent of them provided their own startup funding, while 10 percent received bank loans, eight percent were funded by friends and family and six percent used equity financing.‚ 

Regarding workload, 83 percent of all respondents said they operated in their business full time, 10 percent worked part-time on their own enterprise and six percent considered their small business a hobby.‚ About a third actually owned their own office space, and the rest leased it.

When asked to rank factors for success on a scale of 1-8, the below are the results that were obtained.‚  Most important factors were given a 1, while least important factors were ranked 8.‚  From the results we see that Cash Flow and Sales were most commonly ranked as the most important factor among responses:

When asked about the biggest challenge that their company currently faces, 36 percent chose the economy, 13 percent chose personnel, 8 percent chose customers, and 6 percent chose financing.‚ 

When asked their firm’s most relevant competitive advantage, a third of them chose quality, 29 percent chose innovative products/services, 29 percent chose customer service, and 16 percent chose low prices (more than one selection allowed).

Employee termination was relatively low, — each company reported firing only one person on average.

Regarding succession planning and compensation, 27 percent of respondent’s companies have a formal employee selection process, 27 percent of companies have a formal employee evaluation process, and 40 percent of all firms have a formal method for setting compensation.

Innovation is a theme common throughout these firms. The overall estimation for the group is that 48 percent of net 2008 sales came from products or services less than two years old.‚ About a third of firms surveyed have a formal process for developing new products and services.‚ Also interesting is that 48 percent of all companies responding have a formal process for evaluating the quality of products and services.

Lastly performance had several noteworthy results which we now see.‚ The average profit growth for all companies surveyed was 10 percent.‚ However, the most common response was two percent, and nearly 20 percent of those responding had negative revenue growth in 2007.‚  As compared to their competitors in the market, most firms surveyed felt that they were slightly worse in marketing and slightly more profitable.‚ Those surveyed felt that they were equal in terms of their sales growth and market share with their competitors.

Blast Magazine participated in this survey

Many adults find it difficult to balance work and raising a family, but Maisie Knowles says that managing her own company has actually allowed her more time to devote to being a mom.

The 26 year-old Colorado native co-founded the company FreeShipping.org with her husband, Luke, in December 2007.‚ The company is the web’s premiere destination for online shoppers to find free shipping deals offered by more than 850 retailers.

Because their venture is a home-based business, Luke and Maisie Knowles have more time for themselves and to spend with their new daughter Isabelle.

“Typically, one spouse remains at home with the child while the other works long hours and doesn’t spend as much time with the family as he or she would like,” Maisie said. “I am able to continue working while caring for Isabelle, and Luke is able to spend more time with us.”

Maisie was able to take a longer maternity leave because she is her own boss.‚ She stopped working three weeks before her daughter’s birth and was able to take off 10 weeks after.‚ This is the type of flexibility, she pointed out, that is not typically offered in traditional office jobs.

Even as a new mom, Maisie is still able to devote the same time and energy to her business by setting her own flexible hours.

“I work when (Isabelle) is napping,” she explained. “To maintain productivity, I get as much done as possible in nap times and after she is in bed. … It’s a rewarding feeling because I feel like a productive part of our business, and at the same time I feel content knowing that I am there for Isabelle.”

There are other, finance-related, benefits of working from home.‚ Luke and Maisie do not spend any time commuting to and from another building.‚ ‚ With the high cost of gas, working from home also saves the couple money.‚ ‚ Maisie’s flexible schedule of switching between work and parenting also means the couple does not have to pay for child care.

“I belong to moms groups and they tell me I’m lucky because I’m able to help with the business and give Isabelle the attention and care she needs,” Maisie added. “Most mothers who go back to work after having a baby don’t get to see their newborn as much.”

Maisie acknowledges the risk that comes along with starting one’s own business, but says that for her it’s been worth it.

“If you don’t take the leap and devote the time to build your business, you’re not going to succeed for the long-term,” she said.

The gamble has paid off, creating the ideal work/parenting situation for Maisie, where she welcomes the opportunity to work as both an entrepreneur and a full-time mom.

Last week, Blast News reported that‚  some of Obama’s early advisers may prove disappointing for many who voted for him based on his plans for change.

Indeed, it appears the criticism may be starting to accumulate. Dean Baker, one of the few economists who predicted the housing bubble, wrote the following for The UK Guardian.

Those following the meeting of President Obama’s economic advisory committee could not have been very reassured by the presence of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both former Treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. Along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin and Summers compose the high priesthood of the bubble economy. Their policy of one-sided financial deregulation is responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

[...]

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last 8 years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble-driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the “too big to fail” security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

For this reason, it is very discouraging to see top Clinton administration officials standing center stage at President Obama’s meeting on the economy. This is not change, and certainly not policies that we can believe in.

The U.S. Department of Justice released the following:

Three leading electronics manufacturers “" LG Display Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. “"have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $585 million in criminal fines for their roles in conspiracies to fix prices in the sale of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, the Department of Justice announced. Of the $585 million in fines, LG will pay $400 million, the second highest criminal fine ever imposed by the Department’s Antitrust Division.

Today’s charges were filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The companies have agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones, and other electronic devices. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was approximately $70 billion. Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracies are some of the largest computer, television and cellular telephone manufacturers in the world, including Apple, Dell and Motorola.

“Today’s charges and criminal fines emphasize the commitment of the Department of Justice to crack down on international cartels,” said Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

LG Display Co. Ltd, a South Korean corporation, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, LG Display America Inc., a California company (LG), agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy from September 2001 to June 2006 to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide. During the conspiracy, LG Display Co. Ltd. was known as LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. (a joint venture between LG Electronics and Philips Electronics) and LG Display America Inc. was known as LG.Philips LCD America Inc.

Sharp Corp., a Japanese consumer electronics manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $120 million fine for its participation in separate conspiracies to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc. from April 2001 to December 2006 for use in computer monitors and laptops; to Motorola Inc. from fall 2005 to the middle of 2006 for use in Razr mobile phones; and to Apple Computer Inc. from September 2005 to December 2006 for use in iPod portable music players.

Chunghwa, a Taiwanese TFT-LCD panel manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $65 million fine for its participation with LG and other unnamed co-conspirators in a conspiracy from September 2001 to December 2006 to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide.

“These price-fixing conspiracies affected millions of American consumers who use computers, cell phones and numerous other household electronics every day,” said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division. “These convictions, and the significant fines they carry, should send a clear message that the Antitrust Division will vigorously investigate and prosecute illegal cartels, regardless of where they are located.”

LG, Sharp and Chunghwa are each charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act. Each violation carries a maximum fine of $100 million for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

LG Display Co. Ltd., based in Seoul, South Korea, reported $15.3 billion in revenue for 2007.

Sharp, based in Osaka, Japan, reported $34.2 billion in revenues for its fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, including $6.8 billion in revenue from LCD sales.

Chunghwa, based in Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China, reported $4.8 billion in revenue for 2007.

These pleas are the result of a joint investigation by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Field Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Francisco. The plea agreements are subject to court approval.

Anyone with information concerning illegal conduct in the TFT-LCD industry is urged to call the San Francisco Field Office of the Antitrust Division at 415-436-6660.

It seems there’s always a steady supply of sympathy available for anyone stuck working under a bad boss. Most everyone I know has been there at one time or another, working under a tyrant who somehow manages to survive in this world without people skills. If you haven’t had a boss like this, you should consider buying a lottery ticket–and I mean soon. You are that lucky.

According to a recent study published in Human Resource Executive magazine, a third of US workers spend a minimum of twenty hours per month at work complaining about their boss. The Gallup Poll estimates US corporations lose 360 billion dollars annually due to lost productivity from employees who are dissatisfied with — you guessed it — their boss. And if there’s but one hard truth the Gallup Polls have taught US Corporations in the last decade, it’s that people may join companies, but they will leave bosses.

In the days of a strong dollar, bulging tech bubble and robust housing market, people working for a bad boss had options. Careers were mobile and talent was in short supply. It was a snap to pack up and leave. But nowadays, things are decidedly different. Jobs are scarce and the prudent worker stays put, even if he or she is working under the worst type of boss imaginable–the seagull manager.

The roots of seagull management can be traced back to the days when “micromanager” was the worst non-expletive you could utter behind your boss’ back. Managers fear of this label grew so intense that they learned to keep their distance from employees, assuming a “good” boss is one who spends as little time as possible breathing down people’s necks. And most do. They give people room to breath until the moment a problem flares up. Then — instead of getting the facts straight and working alongside their staff to realize a viable solution — seagull managers come swooping in at the last minute, they squawk orders at everybody, and deposit steaming ‚ piles of formulaic advice before abruptly taking off.

Seagull managers interact with their employees only when there’s a fire to put out. Even then, they move in and out so hastily — and put so little thought into their approach–that they make bad situations worse by frustrating and alienating those who need them the most. Today, seagull managers are breeding like wildfire. As companies flatten in response to the struggling economy, they are gutting management layers and leaving behind managers with more autonomy, greater responsibility, and more people to manage. That means they have less time and less accountability for focusing on the primary purpose of their job–managing people.

As it turns out, seagull managers aren’t just a US phenomenon. After reading a study that found employees have lower blood pressure on the days they worked for a supervisor they think is fair, researchers from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health decided to take a closer look at this phenomenon. They followed British civil servants for a period of fifteen years to see if the type of boss one works for has any impact upon long-term, physical health.

The researcher’s findings cast a grave shadow upon anyone working for a seagull manager. The team from Helsinki found that seagull-type managerial behaviors lead to a much higher incidence of employee coronary heart disease. Employees working for a seagull manager were 30% more likely to develop coronary heart disease than those who were not. What’s more, the incidence of coronary heart disease — the #1 killer in Western societies — was measured after the researchers had removed the influence of typical risk factors, such as age, ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, socio-economic position, cholesterol level, obesity, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.

No one influences an employee’s morale and productivity more than his or her supervisor. It’s that simple. Yet, as common as this knowledge may seem, it clearly hasn’t been enough to change the way that managers and organizations treat people. Few companies recognize the degree to which managers are the vessels of a company’s culture, and even fewer work diligently to ensure that their vessels hold the knowledge and skills that motivate employees to perform, feel satisfied, and love their jobs. The very individuals with the authority to alter the course of company culture lack the facts that would impel them to do so.

With the stoic pragmatism that one might expect from a Finnish University professor, Dr. Mika Kivimƒ¤ki, the director of the study, had this to say about the study’s findings, “Most people care deeply about just treatment by authorities.”

Indeed we do, Dr. Kivimƒ¤ki. Indeed we do.

Dr. Travis Bradberry is the president of think tank and consultancy TalentSmart. His new book, “Squawk! How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results,” addresses the problem of seagull managers in the workplace and is published by HarperCollins.

More women attend college than men, and several private colleges across the country find themselves working to recruit more men to balance out the ratio and enhance social appeal. 

Yearly tuition at many private universities has topped $40,000 per year. At that price, college administrators realize that they must offer much more than an education.  They must offer an experience. 

That experience includes anything and everything from activities to real-life work experience to a vibrant social life. A key ingredient to a memorable social life is a good mix of men and women. 

The New York Times article found that women make up 58 percent of those enrolled  part-time or full-time in college. In the late 60s, there were more men, and in the mid 70s, the genders were equally represented. But since the mid 80s, there have been more women than men.  That gap continues to widen. 

Admission offices at universities across the country are reacting with new strategies to attract more men to their colleges with the primary purpose of creating a more gender-balanced social and learning environment. 

Admissions materials 

Recruiting starts with admissions brochures sent to students at their homes. Dickinson College, a Carlisle, Penn. liberal arts school,  is actively recruiting more men than women, Time Magazine reports.  Since Vice President of Admissions Robert Massa started working at Dickinson College, the percentage of men on campus has jumped from 36 percent to 44 percent. 

Dickinson College’s website features proportionally more pictures of men and athletics.  They highlight their new physics, computer science and math buildings, and they started an international business program with the intent of appealing to potential male recruits. 

Several private colleges, including Dickinson and Chicago’s DePaul University send more admissions brochures to men than women, hoping to generate more interest from prospective male students.   

Athletic Presence 

Seattle University switched athletic conferences, moving up to a more competitive conference where other colleges have stronger athletic programs, reports PBS’ News Hour. The University has seen a drop in their winning percentages, but hopes to see an increase in the percentage of male students on campus.   

Women comprise 61 percent of the student body at Seattle University. Mike McKeon, the director of admissions, believes that “more prominent athletic programs — clearly male athletic programs — are going to help us to attract more men.”  

Other colleges are also using athletics to attract male students.  Shenandoah University in Virginia started a football program to not only lure football players but men who are looking for a college with a football team. 

Inequality in the response?

Susan Seckor, associate provost at Seattle University, fought for women’s equality in education for many years and wonders why there was no concern when more men attend college than women.   

“There’s a part of me that finds it outrageous and ridiculous that anybody would have the gall to suggest that when we’re now finally willing to recognize and applaud the gifts of over half of humanity, that there is this reaction that somehow sees it as alarming instead of exciting,” Seckor said in a PBS interview.  “I think it’s a sad day, frankly, and I think it’s a disgusting day.” 

A survey by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education said men still hold more of the upper management and decision-making positions at universities.  The survey also found that men also earn higher salaries. 

While women have made great strides, serving as college presidents of some of the nations top universities, including Harvard, UPenn, Princeton and Brown, women still account for only 20 percent of college presidents.   

The debate will continue, for now, as to how to best serve the students, effectively manage the university and properly represent both sexes, in both the student body and in upper administration.

Welcome to Blast’s new Business Trends section!

Spring is in the air and with each spring, many new things emerge. In this brand-new section, it is only appropriate to feature news about baseball. The Red Sox-Yankees rivalry this spring starts out hotter than ever.

As the Yankees prepare to move into a new stadium in 2009, I hope you’ll enjoy reading about why the Bronx Bombers are tearing down their storied ballpark and why the Red Sox are annually investing in their legendary home on the Fenway.

Also, take the opportunity to read about a new beer on the market. Feeling cluttered from long winter nights in the office? Read some advice about how to do some spring-cleaning in your inbox to prepare for a more productive season. And finally, take the opportunity to ride with your car windows down after reading Car Sense.

The goal of the business section is to use analytical business tools to conduct a simplified, but still rigorous examination of the dynamic world in which we live. I want the content to be user-driven.

Your comments on articles and suggestions for future reports are welcome and encouraged. As is true in business, market feedback is invaluable to the advancement of any operation.

Happy Spring!

MJ Paradiso

Professional sports teams continue to replace antiquated stadiums with modern, awe-inspiring facilities, designed to attract more fans, bigger sponsors and better players. Yet, there remain several historical structures that regularly accommodate scores of cheering crowds.

One of the greatest rivalries in all of sports is between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. And two of the most legendary parks in baseball belong to these teams in Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium.

This year, the Bronx Bombers play their final season in Yankee Stadium. The building served as home to players like Ruth, Mantle and DiMaggio and decisive championship moments forever etched in our memories. Like them or hate them, the Yankees’ home is one of the most storied ballparks in America.

So why is Yankee Stadium being torn down to be replaced by a new park? What pressures did the owners succumb to? Or what financial benefit do they see in the move? And, in that case, why are the Red Sox not following with their own new stadium?

There are six main ways baseball teams generate revenue: corporate sponsorships, luxury box sales, general ticket sales, concessions, local television contracts and merchandise.

Let’s compare Fenway Park to the new Yankee Stadium and see which team is mostly likely to have the strongest financial performance in each category.

Corporate Sponsorships: Even

The Red Sox and the Yankees are the most popular teams in baseball and both national and local companies are looking to sponsor with these clubs. Companies will line up to partner with these two teams, regardless of where they play. Revenues are strong for both clubs in this category.

Luxury Box Sales: Yankees

The new Yankee Stadium will contain three times as many luxury boxes as the current venue, far surpassing comparable boxes in Fenway Park. The Yankees are building more boxes at the expense of regular seats because the revenue from each box is larger and more consistent. The boxes will sell out and the Yankees will collect revenue whether or not the ticket-holders show up.

General Ticket Sales: Red Sox

The Red Sox have one of the smallest seating capacities of any MLB stadium, while the Yankees have and will have one of baseball’s larger venues. At first glance, it would appear that this is a win for the Yankees, but it may not be. Seats do not generate revenue; people in those seats account for ticket volume and the amount they pay for those seats drives ticket revenue.

Entering the 2008 season, the Red Sox sold out 388 consecutive games-a trend that does not appear to be ending any time soon. The Bombers do not always sell out. They do fill all the seats during big games and weekends, but typically leave thousands of seats empty during weekday contests.

The Red Sox also have the highest ticket prices in baseball and will be raising tickets an additional 9 percent for the 2008 season, according to the Boston Globe. How can the Red Sox charge so much? It is a matter of supply and demand, or scarcity as CNN Money refers to baseball ticket sales.

A team like the Yankees knows it will not sell out every game and therefore must keep prices lower to encourage those price-sensitive fans to come to a mid-week game. The Yankees are controlled by the supply, meaning that in order to optimize revenue, they can only charge as much as the last person is willing to pay.

The Red Sox, on the contrary, have a surplus demand. With more people willing to pay for every game than seats are available, the Red Sox can continue to raise prices until exactly the same amount of people are willing to pay the premium price as there are seats in the stadium. (This is not entirely true because tickets for sporting events and concerts are kept artificially low to allow more people the opportunity to afford the tickets).

Therefore, what revenues the Yankees generate from high ticket sales, the Red Sox match and will arguably surpass with revenues from higher ticket prices.

Concessions: Yankees

The Red Sox charge more for ticket prices, but a team can only charge so much for a beer and a hot dog before fans say “enough” and do not to eat at the game. Since prices are even, concession sales are then dependant primarily on attendance volume. This benefits the Yankees who have a larger stadium and will have more people to potentially purchase concessions.

Local Media Revenue: Yankees

The Yankees received more than $91 million in local media contracts, including $67 million from the YES Network to broadcast games on television, Forbes.com reports. While the organization will not keep all of that money due to the league’s revenue sharing agreements, they still retain a significant share.

The Bronx Bombers benefit from a larger market, as the New York metropolitan region is by far, the most populous in the country. The Yankees also have a higher net worth than the Red Sox and can demand larger contracts. While the Yankees and Red Sox have roughly equal numbers of national fans, the fact that more people live in the New York area benefits the Yankees.

Merchandise Sales: Red Sox

Unfortunately, no census is taken of all Yankees fans and Red Sox fans. ESPN reports that since winning the first of two World Series championships in the past four years, Red Sox merchandise sales have skyrocketed. Sales from Sox and Yankees gear account for more than half of all MLB merchandise revenue. USA Today reports, that when on the road, attendance at the opposing ballparks is about 1,300 fans more when the Red Sox are in town than the Yankees.

There are several other reasons why I give the edge to the Red Sox. First, international sales should be up for the Sox. The New York squad has better name recognition, but the Sox have won the Series more recently and played a pair of games in Japan to begin the season. Second, the Red Sox are not involved in the steroid controversy. Roger Clemens’ jerseys are not flying off the shelves this spring.

The Verdict?

Both teams have a distinct business strategy and both are positioned to perform very well.

The Red Sox, by not building a new stadium and leveraging Fenway’s small seating capacity to produce more ticket revenue, are positioned to yield higher profits and retain more of their earnings.

The Yankees are growing their revenues, but also are incurring costs of higher player salaries and financing a new stadium. They have positioned themselves to generate higher overall revenue to supplement their costs. Each strategy compliments the team’s business model.

Regardless of where they play, the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry will continue, escalating with the advent of October. Yankees fans will learn to love their new stadium and Red Sox fans will continue to fill every seat of every game at Fenway Park. A baseball stadium is, after all, is more than a home-it is the soul of a team and its fans.

The Nintendo DS has broken sales records set by its predecessor, Gameboy Advance while the Wii continues to climb. In the past week alone, (November 18-24) more than 653,000 Nintendo DS portable video game systems and more than 350,000 Wii systems were sold.

“Nintendo DS set a new all-time sales record for Thanksgiving week, eclipsing the previous mark of 600,000 Game Boy Advance systems sold during the same period in the United States in 2005. Nintendo DS remains on track to be the top-selling video game system of 2007,” Nintendo said in a statement Tuesday.

According to Nintendo, thirty-five percent of consumers said they plan to spend less than they did last year, citing a survey conducted by Opinion Research Corp. A USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that 25 percent of Americans expect to spend less on gifts this year than they did in 2006.

In spite of record gasoline prices and some analysts forecasting a below-normal holiday season, it appears as if video games are carrying the day.

“As shoppers look for ways to maximize their limited holiday spending money, they turn to gifts that can be used by the entire family,” said George Harrison, Nintendo of America’s senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications. “Wii and Nintendo DS offer something for every member of the family. They’re the most fun video game experiences at the most affordable price.”

Both systems are available now worldwide. Wii has an MSRP of $249.99, while Nintendo DS has an MSRP of $129.99.