"On average, middle aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer."
Market research has always provided interesting insights into consumer behaviour and helped marketers formulate their business strategies. In the preceding argument the author states that middle-aged consumers have more money to spend on certain department store products and services than younger consumers, and because studies suggest that the former segment of the population will only increase in the next decade, he argues that department stores should take advantage of this trend and replace some products intended to attract younger clients with those that would be of more interest to the middle-aged buyer. While the author's argument may have some merit, it leaves out some important considerations which render the argument weak.
The primary issue with the argument is that it fails to analyse the given data insightfully. We neither have any idea about the actual age group to which the young consumers belong nor any information on their earnings. It is equally important to determine the percentage of total earnings that each category of consumers allocates to retail expenses. If younger consumers earn lesser but spend more, then they are actually better consumers compared with middle-aged consumers!
The secondary issue is that the argument omits comparison of expenses in other categories and falsely bases itself on the assumption that higher retail expenditure is alone a good benchmark to judge the contribution of middle-aged consumers to department stores' business. Unless it can be ascertained that retail expenditures account for the largest category of revenue and profit for department stores, other categories of expenses cannot be overlooked.
Another flaw in the argument lies in its failure to consider the evolution of consumers over time. While data may indicate that the percentage of middle-aged population will increase in a decade's time, it may also be worthwhile to note that some fraction of the current younger consumers might actually contribute to this increase. Furthermore, the middle-aged consumers might start and support families by then. In this case, middle-aged consumers are just as likely to spend on retail goods as they are to spend on products intended for their children. By replacing products intended for younger consumers, the department stores might actually risk being perceived as non-comprehensive in their offerings.
As it stands, the argument is poorly reasoned and needs to be restructured. The author of the argument will need to spend more time studying the data and revise his current argument accordingly so as to not risk underestimating the business potential of a seemingly insignificant younger consumer group.
Market research has always provided interesting insights into consumer behaviour and helped marketers formulate their business strategies. In the preceding argument the author states that middle-aged consumers have more money to spend on certain department store products and services than younger consumers, and because studies suggest that the former segment of the population will only increase in the next decade, he argues that department stores should take advantage of this trend and replace some products intended to attract younger clients with those that would be of more interest to the middle-aged buyer. While the author's argument may have some merit, it leaves out some important considerations which render the argument weak.
The primary issue with the argument is that it fails to analyse the given data insightfully. We neither have any idea about the actual age group to which the young consumers belong nor any information on their earnings. It is equally important to determine the percentage of total earnings that each category of consumers allocates to retail expenses. If younger consumers earn lesser but spend more, then they are actually better consumers compared with middle-aged consumers!
The secondary issue is that the argument omits comparison of expenses in other categories and falsely bases itself on the assumption that higher retail expenditure is alone a good benchmark to judge the contribution of middle-aged consumers to department stores' business. Unless it can be ascertained that retail expenditures account for the largest category of revenue and profit for department stores, other categories of expenses cannot be overlooked.
Another flaw in the argument lies in its failure to consider the evolution of consumers over time. While data may indicate that the percentage of middle-aged population will increase in a decade's time, it may also be worthwhile to note that some fraction of the current younger consumers might actually contribute to this increase. Furthermore, the middle-aged consumers might start and support families by then. In this case, middle-aged consumers are just as likely to spend on retail goods as they are to spend on products intended for their children. By replacing products intended for younger consumers, the department stores might actually risk being perceived as non-comprehensive in their offerings.
As it stands, the argument is poorly reasoned and needs to be restructured. The author of the argument will need to spend more time studying the data and revise his current argument accordingly so as to not risk underestimating the business potential of a seemingly insignificant younger consumer group.
