More stories

  • in

    ULA targets Christmas Eve for inaugural Vulcan rocket launch, CEO says

    United Launch Alliance plans to launch the inaugural flight of its Vulcan rocket on Christmas Eve, CEO Tory Bruno told CNBC on Tuesday.
    ULA is currently working to build and qualify the upper stage of the rocket, running those tasks “in parallel,” Bruno said, with both expected to “get done in November.”
    In the event ULA misses the December window due to shipping delays or bad weather, the company will move back the launch to January.

    United Launch Alliance plans to launch the inaugural flight of its Vulcan rocket on Christmas Eve, CEO Tory Bruno told CNBC’s Morgan Brennan on Tuesday.
    Bruno, speaking at the CNBC Technology Executive Council Summit, said the target window for Vulcan’s first launch runs between Dec. 24 and Dec. 26. The rocket will lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

    ULA is currently working to build and qualify the upper stage of the rocket, running those tasks “in parallel,” Bruno said, with both expected to “get done in November.”
    In the event ULA misses the December window due to shipping delays or bad weather, the company — a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin — will move back the launch to January.

    The Vulcan rocket for the Cert-1 mission stands at SLC-41 during testing in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on May 12, 2023.
    United Launch Alliance

    Vulcan’s first mission will carry a commercial lunar lander built by Astrobotic and a payload for Celestis. The latter will contain the ashes of people who wanted to be buried in space as part of a memorial service.
    Previously, ULA intended the flight to include two demonstration satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper, but ULA separately launched those prototypes on a different rocket in early October.
    ULA’s path to the first Vulcan launch faced several delays earlier this year, including the explosion of an engine during testing by its supplier Blue Origin, previously reported by CNBC. Following the incident, Bruno told CNBC in a “Manifest Space” podcast interview that the company still planned to fly its heavy-lift rocket by late 2023.

    Once Vulcan launches, ULA plans to launch “several times” in 2024, Bruno said, before ramping to a rate of every other week by the second half of 2025. The company added a massive contract to launch Amazon’s Kuiper satellites to its previously government-heavy backlog for Vulcan.
    “It does change the nature of our business. It makes it a lot more balanced. Before we were probably about 80% government. And now with our other commercial work in Amazon Kuiper constellation, it’s about 50-50,” Bruno said. “That’s a lot healthier place to be, because when one is out, the other is still fine.”
    — CNBC’s Morgan Brennan and Michael Sheetz contributed to this report.Don’t miss these CNBC PRO stories: More

  • in

    Spotify stock jumps 10% as cost-cutting boosts streamer to first quarterly profit in a year

    Spotify reported a surprise profit for the third quarter — its first quarterly profit in a year and a half.
    The Swedish music streaming giant posted a profit of 65 million euros ($68.9 million), driven by “lower marketing spend and lower personnel costs and related costs.”
    Spotify raised the prices of its subscription plans earlier this year and has been expanding into podcasts and audio books.

    Spotify shares closed 10% higher on Tuesday after the company reported a surprise profit for the third quarter — its first quarterly profit in a year and a half — as price increases and cost-cutting measures took hold.
    The company’s stock has more than doubled so far this year, giving it a market value of $33.22 billion.

    The Swedish music streaming giant posted a profit of 65 million euros ($68.9 million), driven by “lower marketing spend and lower personnel costs and related costs.” Earlier this year, Spotify laid off 200 people, or 2% of its workforce, as part of a strategic change in its podcasting unit.
    Here’s how the company performed in the three months ended Sept. 30, compared with what Wall Street expected:

    Earnings per share: 33 euro cents vs. a loss of 22 euro cents expected, according to LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv
    Revenue: 3.36 billion euros vs. 3.33 billion euros expected, according to LSEG
    Premium subscribers: 226 million vs. 224 million, according to StreetAccount

    Spotify raised the prices of its subscription plans earlier this year, increasing the monthly bill for users anywhere from $1 to $2, depending on the plan. In its third-quarter earnings report, Spotify said “the early effects of price increases” were partially responsible for the 11% year-over-year revenue growth.
    “We have raised prices in the past and typically we see very little impact on churn,” said CFO Paul Vogel on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” Tuesday. “We had a similar forecast for this quarter. We saw basically no real change on the churn side and we saw an acceleration of gross additions” of subscribers.
    The company had 574 million monthly active users in the quarter, compared with 572.1 million estimated, according to StreetAccount. Monthly active users drove 447 million euros of ad-supported revenue, the company reported, an increase of 16% year over year.

    Stock chart icon

    Spotify stock chart.

    Spotify announced earlier this month that it will offer subscribers access to more than 150,000 audio books. The service has already launched in the U.K. and Australia and will debut in the U.S. later this year.
    Its Spotify’s latest foray into another audio format outside of music after the company branched out into podcasts in 2015.
    “The podcasting business is a much bigger global business because Spotify is a part of that business now,” Vogel said during the company’s earnings call Tuesday. “We think we’re going to have the same benefit on the audiobook side, which will be great for authors and great for consumers.”
    LightShed analyst Rich Greenfield said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tuesday that Spotify is “pulling away from its peers who are simply not innovating in audio.”
    Spotify expects profitability to continue into the fourth quarter and 2024.
    “This is an inflection point for us,” said Vogel. “We do expect that we are in a position now where we will continue to have quarterly profits.” More

  • in

    Why GM is reviving the Bolt, the best-selling EV it almost discontinued

    GM had originally planned to end Bolt production forever in December, but a recent surge in Bolt sales convinced it to overhaul the little EV instead.
    CEO Mary Barra said the revised Bolt will get LFP batteries, a Tesla-style charging port and new motors and software.
    GM hasn’t yet said when the new Bolt will arrive.

    General Motors CEO Mary Barra unveiled the Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle during the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
    Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    General Motors surprised investors — and electric vehicle fans — when it said in July that the little Chevrolet Bolt EV will be revamped, rather than killed off entirely at the end of 2023 as originally planned.
    During GM’s earnings call Tuesday, CEO Mary Barra shared more details on the thinking behind the decision to keep the Bolt around while giving some hints as to what Bolt fans can expect when the revamped EV goes on sale.

    Barra said GM had originally planned to launch a series of newly designed EVs in entry-level segments at a total cost of around $5 billion. But given the popularity of the current Bolt — 2023 is already the model’s best year ever for sales — it made sense to revamp the existing car instead.
    Read more: UAW expands strike to crucial GM SUV plant
    “By leveraging the best attributes of today’s Bolt EV as well as Ultium, our latest software, and NACS, we will deliver an even better driving charging and ownership experience with a vehicle we know customers love,” Barra said. “In the process, we are saving billions in capital and engineering expense, delivering a significantly cost improved battery pack using purchased LFP cells.”
    Launched in late 2016 and originally aimed at the ride-sharing market, the Bolt had never sold as well as GM had originally hoped. But a series of price cuts, the addition of a roomier crossover-like “EUV” variant in 2021 and American consumers’ steadily growing interest in EVs combined to give the Bolt a sales surge in what was supposed to be its final years.
    That sales surge is a big part of why GM decided to keep the Bolt around. Sales were up more than 50% in 2022, to just over 38,000 Bolts. This year’s sales have already topped that number, with almost 50,000 Bolts sold through the end of September.

    Arrows pointing outwards

    To be clear, the Bolt will be on hiatus for a while. GM still plans to end production of the current Bolt at its Michigan factory at the end of this year, and it hasn’t yet said when the revamped model will go on sale — or where it’ll be made. The Bolt’s current factory in Michigan will be retooled to make electric versions of GM’s Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks.
    But with durable and relatively inexpensive lithium-iron phosphate battery cells, GM’s improved Ultium platform and latest software and NACS charging ports that will allow it to use Tesla’s Supercharger network, the new Bolt looks set to continue to win new buyers.
    “We’re getting to market at least two years faster, and our unit costs will be substantially lower,” Barra said.Don’t miss these CNBC PRO stories: More

  • in

    The world wants to regulate AI, but does not quite know how

    The venue will be picturesque: a 19th-century pile north of London that during the second world war was home to Alan Turing, his code-breaking crew and the first programmable digital computer. The attendees will be an elite bunch of 100 world leaders and tech executives. And the question they will strive to answer is epochal: how to ensure that artificial intelligence neither becomes a tool of unchecked malfeasance nor turns against humanity.The “AI Safety Summit”, which the British government is hosting on November 1st and 2nd at Bletchley Park, appears destined for the history books. And it may indeed one day be seen as the first time global power-brokers sat down to discuss seriously what to do about a technology that may change the world. As Jonathan Black, one of the organisers, observed, in contrast with other big policy debates, such as climate change, “there is a lot of political will to do something, but it is not clear what.”Efforts to rein in AI abound. Negotiations in Brussels entered a pivotal stage on October 25th as officials grappled to finalise the European Union’s ambitious AI act by the end of the year. In the days leading up to Britain’s summit or shortly thereafter, the White House is expected to issue an executive order on AI. The G7 club of rich democracies will this autumn start drafting a code of conduct for AI firms. China, for its part, on October 18th unveiled a “Global AI Governance Initiative”.The momentum stems from an unusual political economy. Incentives to act, and act together, are strong. For starters, AI is truly a global technology. Large language models (LLMs), which power eerily humanlike services such as ChatGPT, travel easily. Some can be run on a laptop. It is of little use to tighten the screws on AI in some countries if they remain loose in others. Voters may be in favour. More than half of Americans “are more concerned than excited” about the use of AI, according to polling by the Pew Research Centre.The Beijing effectRegulatory rivalry is adding more urgency. Europe’s AI act is intended in part to cement the bloc’s role as the setter of global digital standards. The White House would love to forestall such a “Brussels effect”. Neither the EU nor America wants to be outdone by China, which has already adopted several AI laws. They were cross with the British government for inviting China to the summit—never mind that without it, any regulatory regime would not be truly global. (China may actually show up, even if its interest is less to protect humanity than the Communist Party.)Another driver of AI-rulemaking diplomacy is even more surprising: the model-makers themselves. In the past the technology industry mostly opposed regulation. Now giants such as Alphabet and Microsoft, and AI darlings like Anthropic and OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, lobby for it. Companies fret that unbridled competition will push them to act recklessly by releasing models that could easily be abused or start developing minds of their own. That would really land them in hot water.The will to act is there, in other words. What is not there is “anything approaching consensus as to what the problems are that we need to govern, let alone how it is that we ought to govern them”, says Henry Farrell of Johns Hopkins University. Three debates stand out. What should the world worry about? What should any rules target? And how should they be enforced?Start with the goals of regulation. These are hard to set because AI is evolving rapidly. Hardly a day passes without a startup coming up with something new. Even the developers of LLMs cannot say for sure what capabilities these will exhibit. This makes it crucial to have tests that can gauge how risky they might be—something that is still more art than science. Without such “evals” (short for evaluations), it will be hard to check whether a model is complying with any rules.Tech companies may back regulation, but want it to be narrow and target only extreme risks. At a Senate hearing in Washington in July, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, warned that AI models will in a few years be able to provide all the information needed to build bioweapons, enabling “many more actors to carry out large scale biological attacks”. Similar dire forecasts are being made about cyber-weapons. Earlier this month Gary Gensler, chairman of America’s Securities and Exchange Commission, predicted that an AI-engineered financial crisis was “nearly unavoidable” without swift intervention.Others argue that these speculative risks distract from other threats, such as undermining the democratic process. At an earlier Senate hearing Gary Marcus, a noted AI sceptic, opened his testimony with a snippet of breaking news written by GPT-4, OpenAI’s top model. It convincingly alleged that parts of Congress were “secretly manipulated by extraterrestrial entities”. “We should all be deeply worried,” Mr Marcus argued, “about systems that can fluently confabulate.”The debate over what exactly to regulate will be no easier to resolve. Tech firms mostly suggest limiting scrutiny to the most powerful “frontier” models. Microsoft, among others, has called for a licensing regime requiring firms to register models that exceed certain performance thresholds. Other proposals include controlling the sale of powerful chips used to train LLMs and mandating that cloud-computing firms inform authorities when customers train frontier models.Most firms also agree it is models’ applications, rather than the models themselves, that ought to be regulated. Office software? Light touch. Health-care AI? Stringent rules. Facial recognition in public spaces? Probably a no-go. The advantage of such use-based regulation is that existing laws would mostly suffice. The AI developers warn that broader and more intrusive rules would slow down innovation.Until last year America, Britain and the EU seemed to agree on this risk-based approach. The breathtaking rise of LLMs since the launch of ChatGPT a year ago is giving them second thoughts. The EU is now wondering whether the models themselves need to be overseen, after all. The European Parliament wants model-makers to test LLMs for potential impact on everything from human health to human rights. It insists on getting information about the data on which the models are trained. Canada has a harder-edged “Artificial Intelligence and Data Act” in its parliamentary works. Brazil is discussing something similar. In America, President Joe Biden’s forthcoming executive order is also expected to include some tougher rules. Even Britain may revisit its hands-off approach.These harder regulations would be a change from non-binding codes of conduct, which have hitherto been the preferred approach. Last summer the White House negotiated a set of “voluntary commitments”, which 15 model makers have now signed. The firms agreed to have their models internally and externally tested before release and to share information about how they manage AI risks.Then there is the question of who should do the regulating. America and Britain think existing government agencies can do most of the job. The EU wants to create a new regulatory body. Internationally, a few tech executives now call for the creation of something akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the UN tasks with keeping abreast of the latest research into climate change and with developing ways to gauge its impact.Given all these open questions, it comes as no surprise that the organisers of the London summit do not sound that ambitious. It should mainly be thought of as “a conversation”, says Mr Black, the organiser. Still, the not-so-secret hope is that it will yield a few tangible results, in particular on day two when only 20 or so of the most important corporate and world leaders remain in the room. They could yet endorse the White House’s voluntary commitments and recommend the creation of an IPCC for AI or even globalising Britain’s existing “Frontier AI Taskforce”.Such an outcome would count as a success for Britain’s government. It would also speed up the more official efforts at global AI governance, such as the G7’s code of conduct. As such, it would be a useful first step. It will not be the last. ■ More

  • in

    Pity the modern manager—burnt-out, distracted and overloaded

    MANAGERS DO NOT make for obvious objects of compassion. It is hard to feel sorry for the bossy office lead, let alone the big-shot chief executive, who pockets millions of dollars a year in compensation. Yet their lot deserves scrutiny and even some sympathy. From the corner office to the middle manager’s cubicle, the many demands on their time are intensifying.A recent survey of workers in 23 countries by Adecco Group, a recruitment and outsourcing firm, found that 68% of the 16,000 managers in the sample suffered burnout in the past 12 months, compared with 60% for non-managers, and up from 43% the year before. “I feel like I jumped on a treadmill where someone controls both the incline and the speed,” says one big-tech executive with a sigh. Plenty of his peers echo the sentiment. Managers increasingly require literal stamina: recruiters report that companies often ask candidates for executive positions how often they exercise.That is a problem not just for the haggard individuals, but also for their employers and, given the mushrooming of management jobs in recent decades, whole economies. Today America has 19m managers, 60% more than in 2000. One in five employees at American companies manages others.As firms in knowledge industries automate routine tasks and rely on the same digital tools—Amazon Web Services, Gmail, Microsoft office software, Salesforce customer-relationship programs—it is increasingly better management, rather than investments in technology, that can give them a competitive edge. Poor management can blunt it, by dampening productivity and increasing staff turnover. According to a Gallup survey conducted in 2015 around half of Americans who left a previous job did so because of a bad manager. Last year McKinsey, a consultancy, found that a similar share of job-leavers said they did not feel valued by their managers.The importance of good management, then, is rising. At the same time, the environment in which managers do their job is undergoing changes of its own. This new landscape rewards some skills more and some less than in the past. As a result, your manager tomorrow will not look the same as your parents’ did.Until the early 2000s, remembers Christoph Schweizer, boss of BCG, a consultancy, “CEOs were superheroes”: larger than life, seldom wrong, never in doubt. For all manner of executive, “the highest compliment was ‘brilliant’,” says Hubert Joly, who used to run Best Buy, an electronics retailer, and now teaches at Harvard Business School (HBS). Intellect still matters, of course. A study of Swedish bosses found that the typical head of a large firm was in the top 17% of the population by IQ. But across all layers of management, the emphasis has gradually shifted towards softer social skills, such as clear communication, ability to build trust and willingness to show vulnerability. Executives, including CEOs, need to be comfortable with ambiguity, and happy to delegate even the strategic responsibilities that they would once have hogged, observes Nitin Nohria, a former dean of HBS. (Mr Nohria is also chairman of Exor, which part-owns The Economist’s parent company.)image: The EconomistDavid Deming of Harvard University has found that the number of jobs that require social interaction is rising faster than average, as are wages for such roles. A study of executive job listings, by Raffaella Sadun of HBS and colleagues, found that between 2000 and 2017 descriptions mentioning social skills rose by nearly 30%. Those singling out an ability to manage financial and material resources declined by 40% (see chart 1). The most common goals requested by companies who employ management coaches for their managers on EZRA, Adecco’s coaching platform, include communication, emotional intelligence, building trust and collaboration. One of the hottest courses at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business is “Touchy Feely”, which teaches students to assess how they come across to others.Social skills are increasingly sought after because they enable better co-ordination of people, goals and resources. And 21st-century business requires more such co-ordination than ever. Managers once used to supervise individuals performing repetitive tasks. Today they increasingly oversee professionals, often working in teams and engaged in complicated projects with outcomes that are harder to measure with any precision. The world outside the firm is becoming more complex, too. All this means that, as Mr Deming remarks, “it takes more time to converge on a decision.” A good manager, whose main role boils down to that of co-ordinator, can cut this time. This ability to get disparate people and goals to coalesce smoothly is thus at a premium, especially relative to purely intellectual and technical skills.One thing making co-ordination harder is an otherwise welcome development—greater workforce diversity. For much of the 20th century in America the manager and the managed were the same white men. “You used to run mini-mes,” says Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University. That, as Ms Sadun explains, meant managers could be assumed to possess an implicit “theory of mind” of their underlings—an intuitive understanding of how they thought and felt about the world.image: The EconomistThis is, thankfully, no longer a safe assumption. In America, women make up 42% of managers, up from 38.5% in 2010. Between 2013 and 2022 the share of non-whites in managerial posts has risen from 14% to more than 18% (see chart 2). Both women and non-whites are still underrepresented in such roles, relative to their share of America’s population; non-white employees in particular are still likelier than their white colleagues to say that they left a job because they didn’t feel they belonged at their companies. But progress is undeniable. Diversity has, says Mr Nohria, “caught up with us”.The problem for managers, be they women or men, white or not, is that putting yourself in your subordinates’ shoes is no longer automatic. Because you cannot assume you know what others are thinking, you need keen social “antennae”, Mr Nohria explains. Hybrid work, where managers in Mr Bloom’s words, “adjudicate private lives” through decisions about work from home, makes this task even more delicate.Like diversity, the post-pandemic spread of remote work brings benefits while raising co-ordination costs. Running a workforce virtually imposes what organisational scholars call “management overhead”. Even when the network connection is not patchy and people do not forget to unmute themselves, virtual meetings strip out lots of important signals, such as eye-contact and gestures. They are more tiring; one study found that people speak more loudly on Zoom than in face-to-face meetings.And they are taking up more and more of managers’ time. A study by Microsoft of 31,000 corporate users of its 365 office software in 31 countries found that in March 2023 the average person participated in three times as many Teams video-conferencing meetings and calls than in February 2020. In roughly the same period the typical user sent 32% more chat messages.The number of unscheduled calls rose by 8% between 2020 and 2022, to 64% of all Teams meetings. Some 60% of such encounters are now under 15 minutes. Shorter activities probably mean more interruptions, says Ms Sadun. Two in three workers in the Microsoft study complained that they did not have enough uninterrupted focus time during the workday. “Work has become more staccato,” sums up Jared Spataro, who oversaw the research at Microsoft. That, Ms Sadun adds, imposes a heavy cognitive cost—and may explain some of the troubling burnout numbers.Focus is scarcer for executives, too, including CEOs. When Ms Sadun and her colleagues looked at how 1,100 bosses in six countries spent their time, they discovered that only a quarter of their working days involved being alone, and some of that me time was taken up by writing emails. A long-running study of 27 leading chief executives’ time use by Mr Nohria and Michael Porter found that bosses often used long-haul travel to think. The post-pandemic decline in business trips means there is less of this time to recoup. If the composition of executives’ working hours reflects the relative value of the things those hours consume, then co-ordination activities outweigh those that include thinking about strategy.A final thing that could further lift the premium for social skills relative to intellectual ones is technology. Ever since ChatGPT, an artificially intelligent chatbot developed by a startup called OpenAI, took the world by storm a year ago, progress in AI appears to have kicked up a notch. AI boosters argue that machines can take on some of the tasks that would in the past have required “brilliance”, to echo Mr Joly. The comparative value of the sort of non-artificial intelligence required to perform them may decline. OpenAI’s boss, Sam Altman, went so far as to declare that the cost of intelligence is “going to be on a path towards near-zero”.image: The EconomistIt is unclear when—if ever—AI will live up to such bold forecasts. But it is likely to have at least some effect on the practice of management and the competences required for it. Fully 70% of respondents told the Adecco survey that they are already using “generative” AI at work. Mr Spataro of Microsoft (which has a large stake in OpenAI) observes that managers are generative AI’s most effective users. “They treat it as the newest member of the team, and delegate tasks to it.” The tasks they offload are not just routine administrative ones. Nearly 80% of respondents in Microsoft’s study said they would be comfortable using AI for analytical work; three-quarters said the same of creative work.None of this is to say that managers are about to become clueless empaths. Indeed, many still seek old-school markers of good management. Managers on Adecco’s EZRA coaching platform are much likelier than their employers to ask for advice on shaping strategy, individual development and articulating ambition, and much less likely to pick emotional intelligence, trust-building and collaboration (see chart 3). Possibly more popular still than Stanford’s “Touchy Feely” course is another called “Paths to Power”, in essence a how-to guide for aspiring Machiavellian princes.These competing priorities may help explain why so many managers are feeling overwhelmed. The new model of management—which favours social aptitude and co-ordination skills—is taking hold before the old one—which rewarded expertise and intellect—has loosened its grip. Amid all this managers are, in the words of Denis Machuel, chief executive of Adecco Group, “lost in translation”. The quicker they find themselves, the better: for them and their employers alike. ■ More

  • in

    Knicks sign jersey patch deal with owner James Dolan’s Sphere Entertainment

    The Knicks will debut a new jersey patch sponsor, Sphere Entertainment, when the season tips off Wednesday night.
    James Dolan owns both Madison Square Garden and Sphere.
    Sports marketing experts say this is a smart marketing move for the Knicks.

    The Sphere patch on a Knicks jersey.
    Source: MSG Sports | Sphere Entertainment

    The National Basketball Association’s New York Knicks are keeping it in the family for their next jersey patch sponsor.
    Madison Square Garden Sports announced Tuesday that Sphere Entertainment will become the NBA team’s official jersey patch partner for the 2023-24 season. The patch will debut Wednesday night when the Knicks tip off the season against the Boston Celtics at the Garden.

    Both companies are owned by James Dolan, who serves as the executive chair of Madison Square Garden Sports and Sphere. Dolan’s newest venture, the Sphere, a $2.3 billion immersive entertainment space in Las Vegas, debuted in September.
    Terms of the jersey patch deal were not disclosed.
    “The MSG family of companies has an unrivaled portfolio of premium assets, and we are committed to ensuring that the strength of our brands and unique global reach continue to benefit one another in powerful ways,” David Hopkinson, president and chief operating officer of MSG Sports, said in a statement.
    The Sphere logo will go on all Knicks game jerseys, practice jerseys and warm-up shirts. In addition, they will appear on all jerseys sold at Madison Square Garden’s in-arena retail locations and online.
    The NBA’s jersey patch sponsor program kicked off during the 2017-18 season and has been an important source of revenue for many clubs. The NBA’s top three jersey sponsorships generated roughly $100 million last season in total, led by the Golden State Warriors, the Brooklyn Nets and the Los Angeles Lakers, according to Sportico.

    The unusual deal involving two companies with the same owner follows a similar agreement by the Miami Heat earlier this month. The team signed a jersey partnership with Carnival Cruise Line, both owned by Micky Arison.
    The Knicks were one of just four teams that didn’t have a jersey sponsor last season.
    For the first five seasons, the Knicks were partners with website hosting and building company Squarespace. The company reportedly paid an estimated $15 million to $16 million per season for the 2.5 inch by 2.5 inch real estate on the Knicks jersey, according to Sports Business Journal.
    “Squarespace has been an excellent partner, but we do expect to see some substantial increase when we renew or find a new partner in that space,” Andrew Lustgarten, former MSG Sports CEO, said during a May 2022 earnings call. “It’s very important who the partner is, is close to our identity, so we’re very thoughtful about who would come on our jerseys,” he added.
    Dolan reportedly was shopping around the jersey patch rights for $30 million, according to SBJ.
    Patrick Rishe, sports director at Washington University in St. Louis, said the deal with Sphere represents a win for the Knicks.
    “This is an amazing opportunity for the Knicks who are for once, doing something outside the box and innovative,” he said.
    Bob Dorfman, sports marketing analyst and creative director at Pinnacle Advertising, echoed that sentiment.
    “The Sphere is the entertainment entity of the future, the attention it’s getting is spectacular, it’s a mind boggling venue. The Knicks certainly could use the attention and clout of a facility like that,” he said.
    Don’t miss these CNBC PRO stories: More

  • in

    UAW expands strike to crucial GM SUV plant in Texas hours after automaker reports earnings

    The United Auto Workers expanded its strikes against General Motors to a highly profitable full-size SUV plant in Texas.
    The strike escalation includes roughly 5,000 workers at GM’s Arlington Assembly plant.
    The walkout came just hours after the automaker reported third-quarter earnings results that beat Wall Street’s expectations.

    DETROIT – The United Auto Workers union on Tuesday expanded its strike against General Motors to a highly profitable full-size SUV plant in Texas — a swift response to healthy profits and record third-quarter revenue for the automaker.
    The Tuesday strike escalation includes roughly 5,000 workers at GM’s Arlington Assembly plant, which produces the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban SUVs.

    The walkout came just hours after the automaker reported third-quarter earnings results that beat Wall Street’s expectations.
    “Another record quarter, another record year. As we’ve said for months: record profits equal record contracts,” said UAW President Shawn Fain in a statement. “It’s time GM workers, and the whole working class, get their fair share.”
    Fain’s claims of record results for the automaker reference record third-quarter revenue, according to the union. GM reported declining profits for the quarter.
    The automaker disclosed in its quarterly update that the UAW strike has already cost it $800 million in lost production — before the Arlington disruption — including $200 million during the third quarter.

    Striking United Auto Workers members from the General Motors Lansing Delta Plant picket in Delta Township, Michigan, on Sept. 29, 2023.
    Rebecca Cook | Reuters

    GM, in a statement, said it was “disappointed by the escalation of this unnecessary and irresponsible strike.”

    “It is harming our team members who are sacrificing their livelihoods and having negative ripple effects on our dealers, suppliers, and the communities that rely on us,” the company said, later adding it’s “time for us to finish this process.”
    More than 45,000 UAW members at the Detroit automakers, or roughly 31% of union members covered by the expired contracts, are now on strike. Another 7,000 or so, or about 5% of the workers, have been laid off due to ripple effects of the strikes, according to the companies.
    The strike began on Sept. 15 with walkouts for each of the automakers at assembly plants in Michigan, Missouri and Ohio. They have since grown to include eight assembly plants and 38 parts distribution centers in 22 states.
    The strike at the Arlington plant comes a day after the UAW targeted a key plant for Stellantis in Sterling Heights, Michigan, and nearly two weeks after a walkout at a Kentucky truck plant that’s responsible for $25 billion annually in revenue for Ford Motor. The unannounced walkouts at profitable facilities represent what Fain has called a “new phase” of bargaining with the Detroit automakers.
    The union had earlier threatened GM’s Arlington plant.
    On Oct. 6 Fain said the UAW was planning a walkout at the facility until GM made a last-minute proposal to include workers at the company’s joint-venture battery cell plants in the company’s master agreement.
    However, it appears that progress has since stalled: Fain told reporters Monday that talks regarding the battery cell plants were “dead in the water,” declining to elaborate on where the discussions stood.
    GM CEO Mary Barra said during the company’s third-quarter investor call Tuesday that discussions to include battery plant workers “under the scope of the national agreement” remained open, but said the current focus is for workers at the joint venture, known as Ultium, to negotiate their own deal with the union. More

  • in

    Frontier Airlines overhauls frequent flyer program to reward travelers based on spending

    Frontier Airlines on Tuesday joined larger airlines in announcing an overhaul of its frequent flyer program.
    The new model will reward travelers depending on how much they pay to fly.
    It’s similar to other large airlines’ recent program changes like those at Delta Air Lines and American Airlines.

    Frontier Airlines planes are parked at gates in Denver International Airport (DEN) in Denver, Colorado, on August 5, 2023.
    Daniel Slim | Afp | Getty Images

    Even for budget carriers, earning elite status is now all about how much you spend.
    Frontier Airlines on Tuesday joined larger airlines in announcing an overhaul of its frequent flyer program to reward travelers depending on how much they pay to fly.

    Frontier and other discount airlines offer low, no-frills fares and fees for everything else from seat assignments to carry-on baggage. Those add-ons will count toward elite frequent flyer status on the Denver-based airline starting next year.
    The carrier’s current program gives travelers one frequent flyer mile for each physical mile they fly on Frontier.
    The new model based on spending is similar to other large airlines’ recent program changes like those at Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. Last week, Delta walked back some of its new elite status thresholds and limits on airport lounge access after customers complained about the changes.
    Frontier said customers will be able to earn earn silver elite status, a new tier, after racking up 10,000 miles, which the carrier said is equal to spending $1,000. The tiers go up to “diamond” level at 100,000 miles, though there are accelerators to earn more miles at each level.
    Perks include fee-free flight changes, seat assignments, in-cabin pets and, at the highest level, a second free checked bag.

    Ancillary revenue is especially important to budget carriers. Frontier said in the second quarter it’s ancillary revenue rose 6% year over year to $80 per passenger, while revenue from airfare fell 15% to nearly $48 per passenger.
    Frontier is scheduled to report third-quarter results before the market opens on Thursday. More