The following appeared in an anouncement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper.
"Since competing lower-priced newspaper The Bugle, was started 5 years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 reader. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least untill circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper.
Discuss how well reasoned....etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The publisher of 'The Mercury' speculates that the paper circulation has declined by 10,000 after a less expensive newspaper 'The Bugle' started five years back. The publisher also assumes that by simply reducing the price of his/her paper, the no. of readers would increase which consequently would lead to further advertising revenue for his/her paper. The argument looks appealing to start with but on deeper inspection falls apart on many fronts.
Firstly, no concrete evidence has been provided to prove that it was the opening of 'The Bugle' that led to the decline of the paper. Its possible that the readership decreased due to a better but more expensive paper opening simultaneously. Its also possible that 'The Bugle' appears to a totally different readership as compared to 'The Mercury', which would render the publisher's speculation incorrect. Its also possible that the decrease in readership could be due to a decrease in the population of the city.
Secondly, no proof has has been provided to show that a reduction in price would lead to an increase in readership of the paper. Its possible that the readers who have defected to 'The Bugle' have done so due to its better quality and not the price. A reduction in price could also give an impression of a reduction in quality to the readers, which could put them off even further.
Finally, even if there is an increase in sales of the paper, there is no evidence that this would lead to more businesses advertising with the paper. Its quite possible that the city's financial condition is not very good and none of the business could afford to advertise. Also, the businesses who could be looking to advertise might prefer other papers due to other factors such as demographics of the readership and the cost of advertising in other paper.
Thus some important concerns must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Providing stats and numbers to support the argument that 'The Bugle' has eaten into 'The Mercury's pie only due to the price would strengthen the argument. Also, a research about the demographics of the readership of the paper, would help the publisher in making the argument stronger.
Thanks for your time, will look forward to your feedback!
"Since competing lower-priced newspaper The Bugle, was started 5 years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 reader. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least untill circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper.
Discuss how well reasoned....etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The publisher of 'The Mercury' speculates that the paper circulation has declined by 10,000 after a less expensive newspaper 'The Bugle' started five years back. The publisher also assumes that by simply reducing the price of his/her paper, the no. of readers would increase which consequently would lead to further advertising revenue for his/her paper. The argument looks appealing to start with but on deeper inspection falls apart on many fronts.
Firstly, no concrete evidence has been provided to prove that it was the opening of 'The Bugle' that led to the decline of the paper. Its possible that the readership decreased due to a better but more expensive paper opening simultaneously. Its also possible that 'The Bugle' appears to a totally different readership as compared to 'The Mercury', which would render the publisher's speculation incorrect. Its also possible that the decrease in readership could be due to a decrease in the population of the city.
Secondly, no proof has has been provided to show that a reduction in price would lead to an increase in readership of the paper. Its possible that the readers who have defected to 'The Bugle' have done so due to its better quality and not the price. A reduction in price could also give an impression of a reduction in quality to the readers, which could put them off even further.
Finally, even if there is an increase in sales of the paper, there is no evidence that this would lead to more businesses advertising with the paper. Its quite possible that the city's financial condition is not very good and none of the business could afford to advertise. Also, the businesses who could be looking to advertise might prefer other papers due to other factors such as demographics of the readership and the cost of advertising in other paper.
Thus some important concerns must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Providing stats and numbers to support the argument that 'The Bugle' has eaten into 'The Mercury's pie only due to the price would strengthen the argument. Also, a research about the demographics of the readership of the paper, would help the publisher in making the argument stronger.
Thanks for your time, will look forward to your feedback!
