-
hongwang9703
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:46 pm
- Location: Buffalo
ARGUMENT:
"A recent survey commissioned by the market research department of XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. However, the survey also indicated that approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at one of the company's stores. Because of this result, XY Gen Stores executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores.
The author concludes that the XY Gen Stores needs to launch a significant rebranding to change the company's image in order to bring new consumers into the stores. His line of reasoning is that a recent survey indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of XY Gen brand, but approximately 60% of those surveyed had never shopped at the store. In my view, the author's line of reasoning is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the author's argument based on the questionable conclusion that the survey has enough participants to be indicative of all the consumers in general. However, the author offers no evidence to support this crucial assumption. It is equally as like that only a few people out of a vast amount of consumers participated in the survey; further more, if most of XY Gen's consumers do like the company's image and are frequent shoppers, and if XY gen were to change its brand image, it would lose most of its frequent consumers and prove to be a marketing disaster!
Secondly, the author offers no evidence to support that the brand image is why those 60% of consumers never stop at the store. It is equally as likely that those 60% of participants live far away, and that they would like to shop at the store, but would have to travel very far to do so, hence why they never stopped at one of the stores.
Finally, with the advent of internet and technology, people need not stop by stores to shop, they could just as well shop through the company's website, and most companies today have websites. If thats the case then the 60% of participants have never stopped by the store because they do not need to, they could be shopping online for its products. The author offers no evidence to cancel that possibility out.
In conclusion, the author did not include enough data to support his assumptions, and because of that, he leaves his conclusion to criticism. If he were to include data such as that the participants of the survey are indicative of the consumers in general, or that all the survey participants live relatively close by the company stores, then his conclusion would have been more sound.
ISSUE:
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity."
The issue that is monetary compensation the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity is a controversial one. While the view that other compensations such as more time off, or more vacation time do have some merits, however, in my view monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
The main reason for my view is that it simply accords with observation and common sense. For example, most, if not all of the major companies in the fortune 500 list offer employees profit sharing programs, stock purchasing options and bonuses. Why? because these companies know that if an employee has shares in a stock and is affected by the bottom line, then he will perform as if he is part owner of the company.
On the other hand, companies that hand out monetary compensation frivolously will not achieve the desired results for many reasons, but mainly is because, to quote Thomas Paine, "what we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly." Therefore, the powerful stimulus for employee productivity is to have employees earn the profit sharing, earn the stock options through hard work and dedication.
Another reason for my view is that there are simply not many other compensations, options that is as powerful as monetary compensation. Some compensations that are valued by some people are not as important to others. For example, one might think of vacation time as a good compensation; however, to the workaholics who have no family nor friends, vacation time is not as highly valued and would not create cause more productivity. Money on the other hand, is inherently fungible and is needed by all people to survive.
Admittedly, most people would argue that money isnt everything and that there are people out there that do not need money, or worst, some people even hate money. However, in broader view, considering the population as a whole, most people work in order to earn a living, and most people could always use more money, therefore, monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
In conclusion, most, if not all of the major companies offer bonuses, profit sharing incentives because they know that monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity. while other compensations, such as more vacation time, or more dick time, do have merits, but on balance, monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
"A recent survey commissioned by the market research department of XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. However, the survey also indicated that approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at one of the company's stores. Because of this result, XY Gen Stores executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores.
The author concludes that the XY Gen Stores needs to launch a significant rebranding to change the company's image in order to bring new consumers into the stores. His line of reasoning is that a recent survey indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of XY Gen brand, but approximately 60% of those surveyed had never shopped at the store. In my view, the author's line of reasoning is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the author's argument based on the questionable conclusion that the survey has enough participants to be indicative of all the consumers in general. However, the author offers no evidence to support this crucial assumption. It is equally as like that only a few people out of a vast amount of consumers participated in the survey; further more, if most of XY Gen's consumers do like the company's image and are frequent shoppers, and if XY gen were to change its brand image, it would lose most of its frequent consumers and prove to be a marketing disaster!
Secondly, the author offers no evidence to support that the brand image is why those 60% of consumers never stop at the store. It is equally as likely that those 60% of participants live far away, and that they would like to shop at the store, but would have to travel very far to do so, hence why they never stopped at one of the stores.
Finally, with the advent of internet and technology, people need not stop by stores to shop, they could just as well shop through the company's website, and most companies today have websites. If thats the case then the 60% of participants have never stopped by the store because they do not need to, they could be shopping online for its products. The author offers no evidence to cancel that possibility out.
In conclusion, the author did not include enough data to support his assumptions, and because of that, he leaves his conclusion to criticism. If he were to include data such as that the participants of the survey are indicative of the consumers in general, or that all the survey participants live relatively close by the company stores, then his conclusion would have been more sound.
ISSUE:
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity."
The issue that is monetary compensation the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity is a controversial one. While the view that other compensations such as more time off, or more vacation time do have some merits, however, in my view monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
The main reason for my view is that it simply accords with observation and common sense. For example, most, if not all of the major companies in the fortune 500 list offer employees profit sharing programs, stock purchasing options and bonuses. Why? because these companies know that if an employee has shares in a stock and is affected by the bottom line, then he will perform as if he is part owner of the company.
On the other hand, companies that hand out monetary compensation frivolously will not achieve the desired results for many reasons, but mainly is because, to quote Thomas Paine, "what we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly." Therefore, the powerful stimulus for employee productivity is to have employees earn the profit sharing, earn the stock options through hard work and dedication.
Another reason for my view is that there are simply not many other compensations, options that is as powerful as monetary compensation. Some compensations that are valued by some people are not as important to others. For example, one might think of vacation time as a good compensation; however, to the workaholics who have no family nor friends, vacation time is not as highly valued and would not create cause more productivity. Money on the other hand, is inherently fungible and is needed by all people to survive.
Admittedly, most people would argue that money isnt everything and that there are people out there that do not need money, or worst, some people even hate money. However, in broader view, considering the population as a whole, most people work in order to earn a living, and most people could always use more money, therefore, monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
In conclusion, most, if not all of the major companies offer bonuses, profit sharing incentives because they know that monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity. while other compensations, such as more vacation time, or more dick time, do have merits, but on balance, monetary compensation is the most powerful stimulus for improving employee productivity.
i got utterly defeated by the gmat.
