Horacio Rousseau, Ph.D.

I

Associate Professor of Management, FSU

Author: horaciorousseau

  • Why Income Inequality Matters: Beyond Economic Fairness

    Income inequality has become one of the defining challenges of our era, shaping every corner of daily life. Over the last 15 years, economists, management scholars, and psychologists have demonstrated how the widening gap between the rich and the poor reshapes societies worldwide. Their conclusion? Inequality is not only an ethical or economic concern, it also affects the health, happiness, safety, and democratic stability of nations.

    The consequences for physical health are striking. Countries with larger income gaps tend to have shorter life expectancies, higher infant‑mortality rates, and more chronic illness, even after adjusting for national wealth. Part of the problem is underfunded public services leave lower-income groups with unequal access to basic health resources. Equally damaging is the constant status comparison that fuels chronic stress, sometimes called “status anxiety,” which undermines health across the social spectrum.

    Mental health shows a similar pattern. Rates of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress rise sharply in unequal societies, even when individual income is held constant. Unequal environments, characterized by intense social comparison, lower trust, and weak community ties, deepens emotional strain and can prompt people to cope with such stress in individually and socially harmful ways.

    Education, long regarded as the engine of mobility, can also suffer. Affluent families have the means to invest heavily in private tutoring, elite schools, and other activities, thereby solidifying their advantages. Public schools, meanwhile, struggle with limited budgets. Yet social costs extend beyond classrooms. Studies link wider income gaps to higher violent‑crime rates and social unrest. Feelings of relative deprivation breed frustration, erode neighborhood cohesion, and make cooperative problem-solving more challenging. Protests and upheavals are more common in areas where inequality is perceived as entrenched and unjust.

    Democracy itself feels the strain. As economic divides widen, trust in public institutions declines, particularly among citizens who already feel marginalized by the system. Lower civic participation then tilts policy even further toward the well‑off, feeding a vicious cycle that can open doors to populist or authoritarian appeals.

    Finally, and perhaps least obvious, though no less important, is the toll on happiness. Surveys show that people report lower life satisfaction when income gaps grow, even if their own earnings remain flat. Inequality magnifies social comparison, saps perceptions of fairness, and weakens the trust that underpins everyday interactions. By contrast, both richer and more equal countries consistently rank among the happiest, due to stronger community bonds and mutual trust.

    Building a More Equitable Future

    The adverse outcomes of inequality are not inevitable. Progressive tax structures, robust (yet financially sustainable) social safety nets, and investment in public education and healthcare can narrow the gap and improve overall well-being. By tackling both the causes and consequences of inequality, societies can lay the groundwork for shared prosperity.

    The evidence is clear: reducing income inequality is more than a matter of fairness. It is essential for building healthier, happier, safer, and more vibrant communities worldwide.




  • DAZN’s Bold Bet: A Game of Growth, Money, and Betting Integration

    With all the enthusiasm and fandom surrounding the FIFA Club World cup (I admit matches are really attractive), it caught my attention how, in less than a decade, DAZN (pronounced “da zone”) has grown from an ambitious start up into a global sports streaming force (even called the “Netflix of sports”). Under that rise lies a mix of quite impressive revenue gains, even more impressive losses, and a daring move to weave sports betting into its core product.

    Here is how DAZN got here, how it earns money, and why its gamble on wagering could reshape sports media.

    Explosive Growth, but at What Cost?

    Launched in 2015 by billionaire Len Blavatnik, DAZN quickly made waves by offering unlimited sports for a flat monthly fee. Early deals for Germany’s Bundesliga, Italy’s Serie A, and Japan’s J‑League helped the platform surge, especially in Europe and Asia.

    Revenue climbed from about 278 million dollars in 2018 to 3.4 billion dollars in 2024, with management targeting six billion in 2025. Subscriber counts hover near 20 million. The growth reflects relentless spending on premium rights, including a one‑billion‑dollar deal for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and an exclusive global pact for NFL Game Pass International.

    That ambition carries a heavy price. DAZN lost roughly 1.4 billion dollars in 2023, adding to a string of annual deficits driven by rights costs that topped 3.1 billion dollars last year. Future obligations exceed nine billion over the next decade. The company is following the typical Silicon Valley strategic approach “growth first, profits later” that is bold yet risky in a fiercely competitive sector (and where eventual monopoly could be hard to achieve).

    How DAZN Makes Money: Subscriptions and More

    Subscription revenue: Monthly fees that range from ten to twenty‑five dollars still deliver about 98% of total income. Exclusive rights are the magnet that keeps new fans coming.

    Advertising and sponsorship: Programmatic ads are appearing more often on DAZN streams, and brands value the platform’s global reach and younger audience. While still small next to traditional broadcasters, ad sales are rising quickly.

    Licensing and distribution deals: DAZN sublicenses content such as Bundesliga highlights and partners with telecom operators to widen reach, ease churn, and add incremental revenue.

    Commerce and merchandise: Early moves into team gear, ticketing, and digital collectibles look tiny today, yet they deepen fan engagement and could become meaningful over time.

    DAZN’s Biggest Bet: Sports Betting Integration

    Despite all these revenue streams, the company’s boldest pivot is DAZN Bet, launched in 2022 under chief executive Shay Segev, the former boss of gambling powerhouse Entain. The goal is to let viewers place wagers inside the same app where they watch matches. After debuting in the United Kingdom, DAZN Bet expanded to Spain, Germany, and Italy and signed technology partner Playtech.

    DAZN’s Management insists betting is not the core business but an enhancer of the viewing experience. Early data suggest in‑platform odds boost engagement, lengthen viewing sessions, and reduce subscriber churn. Thus, the company is aiming to boost strategic complementarities between streaming and betting.

    Heavy Investment, Powerful Backing

    Is DAZN willing to sustain its investment long term? Len Blavatnik’s Access Industries has invested about 6.7 billion dollars in DAZN, absorbing annual losses and underwriting costly rights bids. Fresh capital arrived in early 2025 when Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund bought a one‑billion‑dollar stake. The purchase of Australia’s Foxtel also brought News Corp in as a minority shareholder.

    Expanding Globally and Disrupting Traditional Broadcasters

    DAZN now operates in more than two hundred markets, tailoring content to local tastes: the NFL in Canada, the Bundesliga in Germany, Serie A in Italy, plus cricket and rugby via Foxtel in Australia. Its aggressive bidding has pushed up the cost of premium rights, forcing incumbents such as Sky to rethink strategies.

    The Future of DAZN: Profitability or Bust?

    Segev has signaled a break‑even goal by the end of 2024, citing scale, efficiency gains, and new revenue streams. Yet the ongoing bill for sports rights and global expansion is steep. Observers wonder whether DAZN can sustain its model without continuous investor support and whether the promised convergence of viewing, betting, advertising, and commerce will deliver profits.

    Conclusion: A Fascinating Business Experiment

    DAZN’s story is compelling precisely because the ending is unknown. Success would create a blueprint for an all‑in‑one sports ecosystem that blends watching, wagering, shopping, and community. Failure would underline the limits of investor‑funded growth. Either way, DAZN has already forced the industry to rethink the playbook, making it a must‑watch case study for anyone interested in sports, media, or innovative business models.

  • Nintendo and the Genius of Scarcity

    For a while, I’ve wanted to write about how Nintendo always plays “a game of scarcity” in its new releases. This is partly because my kids and I greatly enjoy their family-oriented games like Mario Kart and Super Mario, and the upcoming release of Switch 2 is a good time to review this tactic.

    Nintendo is many things: a beloved gaming giant, a cultural touchstone, and, perhaps most interestingly, a master of human psychology. How do you get grown adults camping overnight, obsessively refreshing browser tabs, or paying five times retail on eBay for a plastic figurine of a plumber? One way is to master scarcity.

    Nintendo’s relationship with scarcity isn’t accidental. It’s strategic. The company’s playbook for product launches has reliably leveraged artificial, temporal, geographic, and event-driven scarcity. These different types of scarcity all translate directly into elevated demand, frenzied consumer behavior, and (free!) media hype.

    Artificial Scarcity: Making the Rare Even Rarer

    Remember the Wii? In 2006, Nintendo launched the modestly priced console with such limited supply that even a year later, it was still a white whale. You couldn’t simply walk into a store and buy one. Customers had to hunt, chase delivery trucks (yes, this happened), or pay double on eBay. A decade later, Nintendo repeated the script with the NES Classic Edition, shipping absurdly low quantities to retailers, creating a near-instant sellout. Why? Because they understand that nothing sparks desire quite like unavailability (see Robert Cialdini’s masterpiece book on Influence). It’s a masterclass in the scarcity “principle”: we desire what we can’t easily have.

    The amiibo figures of 2014 are another prime example. Nintendo intentionally produced limited runs of certain obscure characters, ensuring instant scarcity. Popular figures like Marth and the Wii Fit Trainer quickly became collectibles, with resale values skyrocketing to $70 or more. Nintendo later apologized for underestimating demand, but the lesson was clear: scarcity turned plastic figurines into gold.

    While effective, Nintendo walks a fine line between genius and foolishness. Analysts estimated Nintendo potentially left billions on the table by undersupplying products. But Nintendo doesn’t seem to be maximizing for sales. They’re aspiring for cultural impact, too. Sellouts generate headlines, build brand mystique, and ensure Nintendo products retain high value for years, even when hardcore gamers say their tech is often outdated.

    Temporal Scarcity: Buy Now or Miss Out Forever

    Nintendo has even ventured boldly into digital scarcity. For Mario’s 35th Anniversary in 2020, the company released “Super Mario 3D All-Stars,” a limited-time compilation of beloved classics. It vanished from digital and physical shelves exactly six months later. Why limit digital copies? Because limited availability accelerates buying decisions. People who might wait to buy, or never buy at all, suddenly felt compelled by a ticking clock.

    The strategy worked: the compilation sold over 8 million units in six months, driven by urgency and media coverage that reminded fans of the looming deadline. Sure, fans grumbled about “manufactured FOMO,” but they also bought in droves. Nintendo effectively weaponized nostalgia and urgency, something previously only perfected by Disney’s infamous Vault.

    Geographic Scarcity: Exclusive Means Desirable

    Nintendo also strategically uses geography to intensify demand. Limited editions, special bundles, or even entire game releases often remain exclusive to specific regions, leaving global fans envious. Take the Zelda-themed scarf bundled with “Hyrule Warriors” in 2014—only 300 were sold in the U.S., exclusively at one store in New York. Fans camped out, making it a massive media story.

    Sometimes, Nintendo withholds entire games, like “Mother 3,” a critically acclaimed title never officially released outside Japan. Fans have petitioned for decades, turning the game into a mythical “forbidden fruit.” This geographical exclusivity feeds into Nintendo’s mystique, maintaining a fervent international fanbase eager to experience anything the company creates.

    Because Nintendo isn’t just selling products, geographic exclusivity directly influences identity-driven consumer behavior, fueling passion and loyalty.

    Event-Based Scarcity: Be There or Miss Out

    Nintendo also knows events turn products into trophies. From pins offered during special anniversaries to exclusive swag at events like E3, limited event-driven availability turns even small trinkets into coveted collectibles. In 2020, the website crashed under demand when Nintendo offered commemorative Mario pins through its loyalty program. Fans who missed out voiced frustration loudly on social media. But guess what? They showed up for round two anyway. Events amplify engagement, create buzz, and strengthen community bonds, even when that bond involves shared frustration.

    Nintendo also uses loyalty programs like My Nintendo, rewarding players who complete missions with exclusive physical merchandise. The limited availability of these rewards further cements a feeling of exclusivity and accomplishment among fans who manage to snag them.

    The Double-Edged Sword of Scarcity

    Is all this scarcity brilliant or cynical? Maybe both. Nintendo undoubtedly creates cultural events around its products, leveraging scarcity brilliantly. Fans get excited, engaged, and even annoyed, yet always come back for more.

    Still, this strategy has risks. Frustration and resentment are real. Scalpers profit off limited supply, and unmet demand means potential revenue lost. In the NES Classic case, Nintendo baffled many by discontinuing production at the height of its popularity, seemingly leaving easy money on the table. Yet, Nintendo seems comfortable playing the long game. Scarcity maintains its brand’s allure, preserves pricing power, and keeps the company perpetually relevant.

    Final Thoughts: A Controlled Frenzy

    Nintendo’s scarcity strategy is less about immediate sales maximization and more about cultivating ongoing cultural capital. It understands scarcity as a tool for shaping consumer behavior, brand loyalty, and long-term engagement.

    For all the frustration and madness this strategy generates, Nintendo remains uniquely skilled at creating moments consumers desperately want to be part of. In doing so, Nintendo transforms product launches into events and ensures the brand stays at the heart of gaming conversations. Maybe Nintendo’s biggest achievement isn’t selling millions of games but convincing customers that lining up at midnight to chase something elusive is a normal, even enjoyable part of gaming culture.

    Will Nintendo Use Scarcity for the Switch 2?

    Recent statements from Nintendo of America President Doug Bowser indicate that Nintendo plans sufficient manufacturing to meet Switch 2 demand through 2025, aiming to avoid severe shortages like those experienced by other console launches. Yet, despite reassurances, the Switch 2 sold a record-breaking 3.5 million units in just four days, immediately sparking stock shortages. Retailers such as Walmart responded by imposing purchase limits and scheduling staggered restocks.

    Supply chain constraints and tariffs may complicate availability throughout the year. Nintendo appears committed to balancing demand with production, avoiding the extreme artificial scarcity of past launches while managing controlled shortages to maintain consumer excitement. Expect manageable stock fluctuations at launch, but perhaps not the prolonged and severe droughts seen with past Nintendo consoles.

  • The Great American Layoffs: How Fortune 1500 Companies Played with Fire and Got Burned (Or Did They?)

    We live in an era of paradoxes. Profits soar while job security tumbles. CEOs cash in even as thousands of workers cash out. In the past decade, some of the largest U.S.-based Fortune 1500 companies have been slicing their workforce faster than Peloton’s stock price post-pandemic. Yet behind the cold, calculated numbers—12,000 here, 18,000 there—lies a rich tapestry of corporate spin, public fury, and media outrage.

    Let’s unpack the high-profile layoffs that shocked, angered, and occasionally delighted Wall Street and explore the blowback CEOs faced (or sidestepped) as they juggled numbers, narratives, and human lives.

    Alphabet (Google): From “Don’t Be Evil” to Midnight Email Breakups

    In early 2023, Google laid off about 12,000 employees, citing the economy’s “uncertainty” and CEO Sundar Pichai’s newfound love affair with “efficiency.” After a pandemic hiring binge rivaled only by DoorDash binge orders (firms have strong relationships and integrated services), Alphabet discovered the hangover. Pichai tried to soften the blow by taking “full responsibility,” but when veteran Googlers were notified via cold, impersonal emails, it felt about as warm as chatbot-generated condolences.

    The Backlash: Googlers took to social media in droves. Tweets like “a slap in the face” went viral, amplifying internal discontent. Alphabet Workers Union called out execs for ignoring human cost in favor of shareholder applause. Despite the uproar, Alphabet’s stock ticked upward. Investors can often care less about broken hearts and more about cost-cutting, although the research in this stream (maybe for another post) is quite consistent in showing the negative impacts of layoffs.

    Meta (Facebook): Zuckerberg’s Year of (Painful) Efficiency

    Mark Zuckerberg framed Meta’s layoffs as a “Year of Efficiency.” He shed about 21,000 employees in two waves (2022–23), confessing bluntly, “I got this wrong,” in reference to his metaverse-fueled hiring spree. Wall Street cheered Zuckerberg’s belated fiscal discipline. Workers? Not so much.

    The Backlash: Zuckerberg’s mea culpa played surprisingly well, muting some public anger. But inside, morale tanked, and the irony wasn’t lost on anyone: billions funneled into Zuck’s metaverse fever dream while core staff were booted into reality. Still, investors awarded Meta’s stock a “like,” sending shares skyrocketing. Apparently, layoffs did buy forgiveness on Wall Street, for a while at least.

    Amazon: Prime Cuts with Impersonal Packaging

    Andy Jassy inherited Jeff Bezos’s empire at a tricky moment. By early 2023, Amazon had jettisoned nearly 27,000 jobs in two brutal rounds. Jassy cited post-pandemic shifts and inflationary pressures. But cutting roles overnight, via midnight emails and instant system lockouts, made the normally customer-obsessed Amazon look about as empathetic as an automated warehouse.

    The Backlash: Employees called out the harsh tactics on social media platforms like Blind. The public? Mostly shrugged. Investors, meanwhile, saw green: sending Amazon shares higher, appreciating that the company knew how to wield a scalpel.

    Microsoft: Nadella’s Quiet Cuts and AI Pivot

    Under Satya Nadella, Microsoft undertook multiple layoffs, including a notable 10,000-job cut in 2023. Framed as necessary realignment in a shifting economy (read: a world pivoting hard to AI), Microsoft’s layoffs barely raised eyebrows externally—except maybe in Finland, still sore from Microsoft’s earlier Nokia debacle.

    The Backlash: Minimal. Nadella’s strategic PR, emphasizing respect and generosity (severance, continued stock vesting), muted criticism. Wall Street loved the proactive move. Bottom line: Nadella knows optics better than most politicians, and certainly more than most other CEOs. Generally: managing optics can make or break how layoffs are seen.

    Twitter (X): Elon Musk’s Flamethrower Approach

    When Musk took over Twitter in late 2022, he immediately axed half its workforce (~3,700 jobs) with the subtlety of a Tesla Cybertruck through a china shop. Musk tweeted about losing “$4M/day,” framing layoffs as existential. Employees were locked out abruptly overnight, discovering their unemployment through failed logins.

    The Backlash: Epic. Hashtags like #TwitterLayoffs exploded. Activists projected insults onto Twitter HQ. Advertisers fled, users threatened departure, and Twitter’s reputation unraveled in real time. Musk’s brash style lit a firestorm unmatched in recent corporate memory. But Musk, ever defiant, seemed unfazed. After all, the line between visionary and villain is often thin and Musk seems to enjoy dancing across it.

    AT&T: Broken Promises, Tax Cuts, and Disappearing Jobs

    AT&T’s Randall Stephenson promised thousands of new jobs after the Trump tax cuts. Reality check: AT&T instead eliminated around 23,000 positions from 2018 to 2020. The media feasted on the hypocrisy.

    The Backlash: Fierce political scrutiny, union outrage, and PR damage ensued. Yet, Stephenson remained untouched personally and his pay even rose. Shareholders saw dividends, workers saw pink slips, and AT&T became the poster child for corporate cynicism.

    Wells Fargo: When Scandals Meet Layoffs

    Post-scandal, Wells Fargo cut nearly 26,000 jobs (2018–2021), citing digital transformation and efficiency. Given Wells Fargo’s history of fake accounts, the optics of mass layoffs while benefiting from massive tax breaks couldn’t have been worse.

    The Backlash: There was a modest external backlash and a severe internal morale collapse. Politicians like Elizabeth Warren called foul. But Wells Fargo, already branded a corporate villain, had little reputation left to lose. Wall Street quietly approved the cleanup job, rewarding efficiency gains.

    The Brutal Bottom Line

    So, what have we learned? Companies may often preach a “family” culture until numbers go south. CEOs admit “mistakes” but rarely pay personally. Wall Street often rewards layoffs, at least short term until the real damage to a firm’s capabilities are evident. Workers bear the brunt, the media amplifies outrage, and politicians bluster but rarely change the script.

    These layoffs aren’t rare events. They’re part of a structural reality: companies must pivot quickly, and human costs are often seen as collateral damage. The backlash often fades quickly unless leaders like Musk or Stephenson pour gasoline on their reputational fires.

    If there’s a lesson for corporate America, it’s this: if you’re going to cut, do it clearly, communicate sincerely, and treat departing employees with respect. This includes good severance for firms worth billions, of course, and who care about their reputation. CEOs beware: the next move could cement your legacy or ensure your infamy, choose wisely. As Warren Buffett once said (loosely paraphrased): “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”

  • Why Top-Publications Matter More Than Ever in Business Education

    What the Global and Ibero-American Experience Reveal About Research, Rankings, and Reputation

    In today’s global business education landscape, publishing in top-tier academic journals has become more than a benchmark of individual faculty excellence — it’s a central pillar of institutional strategy. Business schools that succeed in producing high-impact, peer-reviewed research are climbing international rankings and building sustainable ecosystems of academic prestoday’sunding, talent, and partnerships.

    Over the past decade, the expectations placed on business schools have intensified. Rankings such as those publishedit’sthe Financial Times, QS, and UT Dallas increasingly incorporate research output as a critical metric. Accreditation bodies like AACSB and EQUIS require evidence of scholarly contributions. At the same time, donors, alums, and prospective students look to these external signals to guide their decisions. In this environment, academic leaders’ question is no longer whether to invest in research — but how.

    The Global Reality: Research as Strategic Infrastructure

    Research productivity is tightly linked to visibility and value in the top tiers of business education. Institutions like Wharton, INSEAD, IESE, and London Business School (among others) are renowned for their teaching and the intellectual capital they generate. They publish tens (even hundreds) of articles every years in the most prestigious journals . While most of it is quite abstract, this work shapes industries, informs policy, and redefines management practice.

    Their success is no accident. These schools invest heavily in research infrastructure: reduced teaching loads for publishing faculty, endowed chairs, PhD pipelines, internal grants, and encourage editorial board participation. Just as importantly, they foster cultures where scholarly inquiry is seen not as a byproduct of academic life but as its core.

    The benefits of such a model are profound. Faculty are energized. Leaders in the field teach students. Funders take notice. And the school itself becomes part of the global intellectual conversation which, in turn, drives rankings and recognition.

    A Closer Look at Ibero-America: Rising Potential, Persistent Challenges

    The past ten years have brought notable progress in management research across Latin America, Spain, and Portugal. Spain’s IESE, IE, and ESADE have earned global acclaim, producing research that meets international standards while staying rooted in European and Mediterranean contexts. IESE, in particular, is one of the only Ibero-American institutions ranked in the UT Dallas top 100 globally for research output.

    In Latin America, business schools are also stepping forward. Institutions like FGV in Brazil, EGADE in Mexico, and Uniandes in Colombia are expanding their research presence. Many now operate PhD programs, participate in international consortia, and count globally trained scholars among their faculty.

    Still, the region faces headwinds. Language barriers, limited research funding, heavy teaching loads, and the tension between local relevance and global recognition persist. While output is growing, few Latin American schools have broken into the elite research rankings. The pipeline is promising but uneven.

    What’s especially striking is how concentrated productivity remains: a handful of schools and countries produce most of the region’s influential work. Many others—despite housing talented educators—remain underrepresented in the global research dialogue. And that disconnect matters. When research is absent, so too are the invitations, partnerships, and prestige.

    Strategic Questions for Deans and Academic Leaders

    All of this points to an important reflection for deans and provosts. If publishiregion’site journals improves a school’s visibility, rankings, faculty development, and student outcomes — what’s the institutional plan to build that capacity?
    More specifically:

    • What percentage of your faculty are currently publishing in internationally indexed journals?
    • How does your school support early-career researchers and returning PhDs?
    • Are research expectations aligned with teaching loads and promotion policies?
    • What partnerships — locally and globally — could foster more impactful scholarship?

    The answers will vary by context. Not every school needs to become a global research powerhouse. But every school benefits when research excellence becomes a shared aspiration — thoughtfully nurtured, institutionally supported, and strategically aligned.

    A Future Defined by Thought Leadership

    The next decade of business education will be shaped not just by who teaches best but also by who contributes most meaningfully to knowledge. That shift is already underway. Business schools are not just professional trainers; they are intellectual hubs. In an era where impact is increasingly defined by what we publish and who cites us, research productivity is both a mirror and a map.

    The opportunity is clear for Ibero-American schools, in particular. With targeted investments, collaborative strategies, and a leadership vision, the region can claim a larger space in the global conversation.

    Those schools that take research seriously—not just as a box to check but as a long-term strategic asset—will find themselves not only more competitive but also more connected to their faculty, their students, and the future of business.