deal making and negotiation
Research Case Study Topics
1. The cast of “Friends” negotiates for $1 million an episode (2002-2003)
2. The cast of “Big Bang Theory” negotiates for new salary (2014)
3. MLS TV DEAL (2014-2015)
4. U2 negotiates with Live Nation (2008)
5. Peter Jackson negotiates to direct “The Hobbit” (2010)
6. Steven Spielberg’s consulting deal with Universal Studios (2009)
7. DreamWorks negotiates with Disney (2009)
8. The Beatles negotiate with Apple (2010)
9. Terrence Howard negotiates for “Iron Man 2” (2008)
10. Negotiations between 20th Century Fox and the voice cast of “Futurama” (2009)
11. Derek Jeter negotiates with the Yankees (2010)
12. CBS News and CNN negotiations (2010)
13. Warner Music Group negotiates with YouTube (2009)
14. Disney negotiates with Marvel (2009)
15. Ben Roethlisberger and Pittsburg Steelers (2015)
16. Kelly Clarkson lets “Idol” use her songs (2006)
17. NHL Lockout of 2004-2005
18. Oprah sells Oxygen Network to NBC (2007)
19. Project Runway moves from Bravo to Lifetime (2008-2009)
20. LiveNation and Ticketmaster merger (2009)
21. Weinstein brothers and Miramax deal (2010)
22. LucasFilms negotiates with Disney (2012)
23. Activision and Infinity Ward negotiations (2010)
24. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince negotiates out of his deal with Warner Bros. (2005)
25. Michael Vick negotiates with the Eagles (2009-2010)
26. Writer’s Guild Strike (2007-2008)
Overview:
During this fourth week of Negotiation & Deal-Making, we will analyze famous negotiations in the entertainment industry to determine the effective (and ineffective) negotiation techniques that impacted the deals. As part of this assignment, you will research a famous negotiation in the entertainment industry, use your deductive reasoning skills to apply the facts you found during your research to the negotiation concepts discussed in our course, and evaluate the negotiation techniques (good or bad) that impacted the negotiation you researched.
Summary:
The Research Case Study is a narrated Keynote presentation and should contain focused, thoughtful, and insightful analysis of your chosen conflict or negotiation (please choose your topic from the Research Case Study Topic list, which is attached as an asset to this assignment).
To research your presentation topic, you may use reliable publications that you find on the internet, the Full Sail University library (to access EBSCOhost and/or Lexis-Nexis), trade journals, or Successful Business Plan by Rhonda Abrams. Please be sure to use a variety of sources.
Your presentation should demonstrate both a theoretical understanding of the negotiation concepts being asked about and a practical understanding of how those concepts were specifically applied to the negotiation you analyzed.
The presentation should only be 5-8 minutes in duration and should conform to APA standards for citations (regarding all of the sources you used for both images & information). There is no minimum or maximum number of slides required for this presentation.
Your presentation should be submitted as a link to a YouTube, Vimeo or similar video service site. I will not grade a Keynote file or a zipped file. Your script for your Keynote must be uploaded to Turnitin.com. If you do not upload the script to Turnitin.com or if you do not submit a link to your presentation you will be deducted points.
TIP: Please remember to use several sources when creating your presentation, and narrate the presentation using your own words. If you read the material directly off of a website or fail to use various sources, you will not receive credit for this assignment.
Topics that need to be analyzed in the Research Case Study Presentation:
1. Set up and describe the conflict/negotiation in the case study as well as the parties involved in the negotiation. (10 points)
2. Identify the positions (e.g., the tangible things they requested) of each party. (10 points)
3. Identify the interests (e.g., the underlying desires that were implied) of each party. (10 points)
4. Identify and discuss at least three negotiation techniques/concepts from our course that were present in this conflict/negotiation (e.g., objective criteria, dirty tricks, separating the people from the problem, BATNAs, negative emotions, mutual benefits, affiliation, appreciation, autonomy, role, status, etc.). [Do NOT discuss interests or positions, however, since they are already covered in a separate part of this assignment.] (30 points)
5. Analyze what went well in the negotiation process (not the outcome). [There is always something that went well. A response of “nothing went well” will not receive any credit.] (5 points)
6. Analyze what went wrong in the negotiation process (not the outcome). [There is always something that went wrong. A response of “nothing went wrong” will not receive any credit.] (5 points)
7. Discuss whether an agreement was reached. If an agreement was reached, what was it? (5 points)
8. If an agreement was reached, is it one that will foster long-term, meaningful relationships? If so, then how? If a stalemate was reached, do you see a window of opportunity to renegotiate in the future? If so, then why? (5 points)
9. Presentation: Quality of visuals, clarity of audio, articulacy, preparation of materials, lack of typographical errors, and overall professionalism of the presentation. (10 points)
10. References: You need to include quotation marks and in-text citations on any slides where you have used direct quotes from outside sources. You also need to include a separate slide at the end of your presentation, which lists all of the references that you have used throughout your presentation (including any sources that were used for informational purposes or pictorial purposes). Your sources must be cited in APA format. (10 points)
Submission Requirements:
Again, make sure to create a script. Please use Keynote, PowerPoint, iMovie or similar software to create the presentation. Please use appropriate images. Export the project to YouTube, Vimeo or similar site. Submit the script to Turnitin.com and submit the link to the video on FSO.
Research Case Study Presentation Rubric
Criteria Superior
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Failing
Description of the Conflict
[10%] Response explains (in detail) who the parties involved in the negotiation were, what the negotiation was over, and how the conflict began. Response is a general explanation of who the parties involved in the negotiation were, what the negotiation was over, and how the conflict began. Response does not fully explain who the parties involved in the negotiation were, what the negotiation was over, or how the conflict began. Response barely explains who was involved in the negotiation or what the negotiation was about. Response does not explain who the parties involved in the negotiation were, what the negotiation was over, or how the conflict began.
Positions
[10%] Responses identify specific positions – not roles – for each negotiator that explain what each negotiator asked for. Responses identify basic positions – not roles – for each negotiator that explain what each negotiator asked for. Responses demonstrate an understanding of either the concept of positions or the application of the concept, but not both. Responses barely demonstrate an understanding of either the theoretical concept or the application of the concept asked about in the questions. Responses do not demonstrate a theoretical understanding of the concept or an applied understanding of the concept in the context of this negotiation.
Underlying Interests
[10%] Responses identify specific underlying interests/motivations – not positions – for each negotiator that go beyond just the words the negotiators stated. Responses identify basic interests/motivations – not positions – for each negotiator that are similar to those verbally expressed by the negotiators. Responses demonstrate an understanding of either the concept of underlying interests or the application of the concept, but not both. Responses barely demonstrate an understanding of either the theoretical concept or the application of the concept asked about in the questions. Responses do not demonstrate a theoretical understanding of the concept or an applied understanding of the concept in the context of this negotiation.
Three Principled Negotiation Concepts
[30%] Responses identify three specific principled negotiation concepts studied in class, exactly how those concepts were applicable to the negotiation being discussed, and exactly what those concepts mean. Responses identify three specific principled negotiation concepts studied in class, basically how those concepts were applicable to the negotiation being discussed, and basically what those concepts mean. Responses identify only two specific principled negotiation concepts studied in class, basically how those concepts were applicable to the negotiation being discussed, and basically what those concepts mean. Responses identify only one specific principled negotiation concept studied in class, basically how that concept was applicable to the negotiation being discussed, and basically what that concept means. Response does not identify any principled negotiation concepts studied in class that were applicable to the negotiation being discussed or does not demonstrate an understanding of what any concepts mentioned actually mean.
What Went Well in the Negotiation Process
[10%] Response is a detailed explanation of the strengths in the negotiators’ techniques and how those strengths impacted the negotiation. Response is a general summary of the strengths in the negotiators’ techniques and how those strengths impacted the negotiation. Response only generally identifies something positive about the negotiation (and might not be about the technique used by a negotiator) and how that impacted the negotiation. Response does not include an explanation of how the negotiators’ strengths were evident in the negotiation or how they impacted the negotiation. Response does not identify any strengths in the negotiators’ techniques or any explanation of how those strengths would have impacted the negotiation.
What Went Wrong in the Negotiation Process
[10%] Response is a detailed explanation of the weaknesses in the negotiators’ techniques and how those weaknesses could be improved for future negotiations. Response is a general summary of the weaknesses in the negotiators’ techniques and how those weaknesses could be improved for future negotiations. Response only generally identifies something negative in the negotiation (and might not be about the technique used by a negotiator) and how that weakness could be improved for future negotiations. Response does not include an explanation of how the weakness was evident in the negotiation or how the weakness could be improved for future negotiations. Response does not identify any weaknesses in the negotiators’ techniques or any explanation of how those weaknesses could be improved for future negotiations.
Negotiation’s Outcome & Future Relationship of the Parties
[10%] Response is a detailed explanation of the outcome of the negotiation and whether the parties (could) have any kind of ongoing business relationship. Response is a general explanation of the outcome of the negotiation and whether the parties (could) have any kind of ongoing business relationship. Response either explains the outcome of the negotiation or whether the parties (could) have any kind of ongoing business relationship, but not both. Response only generally states either the outcome of the negotiation or whether the parties (could) have any kind of ongoing business relationship, but not both. Response does not explain the outcome of the negotiation or whether the parties (could) have any kind of ongoing business relationship.
Presentation Quality
[10%] Presentation is extremely well prepared and is of professional quality. Directions were followed. Presentation is sufficiently prepared and professional, but simplistic. Most of the directions were followed Presentation is simple and may have some minor problems with audio, transitions, or other elements. Presentation does not flow smoothly and has problems with audio, transitions, or other elements. Presentation is not formatted as a narrated, self-running project.
References
[10%] References are included in the script and on the slides for all sources used & all images used. References are properly cited in APA format. References are included in the script and on the slides for all sources used & all images used. References are cited, but not in APA format. References are included in the script and on the slides for all sources used & all images used. References are only cited through a list of hyperlinks. References are not included in the script and/or slides for every source and image used. References are not included in either the script or the slides.
Grammar, Punctuation and Sentence Construction
Per the EBMS policy, it is expected that all students write in a professional, business style (which includes writing words out fully & using complete sentences throughout the assignment). There will be a one-point deduction for each non-repetitive typographical or grammatical error on this paper. For example, one word spelled incorrectly throughout the assignment receives only one point deduction. For non-repetitive errors, these criteria are uncapped (e.g., 25 typos = 25 points deducted).
Late Policy
Per the EBMS policy, there will be a 20-point deduction on any assignments that are received within the first 24 hours after the assignment deadline. There will be a 50-point deduction on any assignments that are received within 24 to 48 hours after the assignment deadline. After that time, no late assignments will be accepted (absent special circumstances).
Academic Integrity Policy
Students may not reuse identical or near-identical work that was submitted for the same or a previous course in EBMS, or any prior degrees, unless approved, in writing, by the course director. Each student is expected to create new, original work, every month, answering the criteria for each individual course assignment. An assignment identified as resubmitted work from a previous class, or prior attempt of this course, will receive a grade of “0” as well as a loss of GPS points. A second occurrence will be considered Academic Dishonesty and subject to the penalties outlined in the Student Manual.
Please refer to your Student Manual for the complete Full Sail Code of Conduct and Standards of Behavior, including the consequences of academic dishonesty. If you have any questions, please contact your instructor.
