"Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighbouring town's local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well."
The argument claims that KMTV, the local cable television channel should change its focus to farming issues so that an increase in applications with respect to advertisement sports can be observed. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument also fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument states that advertisement on KMTV decreased last year which does not provide any valid evidence for the decline in its advertisement. There could be many reasons associated with it such as low TRP, high advertisement rates, mismanagement, etc. For example, if the channel is not broadcasting quality content, it is surely going receive less TRP. Also, we do not the duration for which these channels are running. It might be possible that KOOP is a very old news channel whereas KMTV was launched recently in the last few months. This might have affected the response rate of the advertisers since most of the new TV channels have to offer the best deals in order to survive. It might be also possible that the other global TV channels have recently entered the market which might have drawn attention towards their channels for a few months. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided evidence, for example, a survey data which displayed the number of advertisers who have stooped advertising.
Second, the argument claims that the KOOP news channel changed its focus to farming issues and has therefore reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. This statement sounds illogical and yet again fails to provide valid proof for an increment in the advertising applicants. It might be possible that KOOP news channel went off-track since the last few months with respect to its genre and has now rebranded itself and shifted its focus on a very new topic. This might have sounded appealing for the advertisers. Also, KOOP news channel might have provided better deals for this particular time which led to attracting more advertisers. A change in the show timings or people's favourite shows might be an add-on for the increase in viewer rating, thus indirectly attracting advertisers. Moreover, products and services related to farming might have received one platform which is focused on their specific topic. If the argument provided evidence that KOOP news channel had a tremendous increase in the number of advertising applicants due to the sole reason of it changing its focus to farming and that a valid survey was displayed, it would have sounded more appealing.
Finally, the author suggests KMTV should also change their focus to farming in order to increase applications for its advertisement spots. With the decrease in its advertisement applicants, KMTV must be running low on funds. To take such a big decision without any guaranteed outcome would be a very risky move for KMTV. What if KMTV fails after shifting its focus to farming? What if advertisers lose credibility over KMTV and they wish to withdraw their existing subscription? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiative evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to asses the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
The argument claims that KMTV, the local cable television channel should change its focus to farming issues so that an increase in applications with respect to advertisement sports can be observed. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument also fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument states that advertisement on KMTV decreased last year which does not provide any valid evidence for the decline in its advertisement. There could be many reasons associated with it such as low TRP, high advertisement rates, mismanagement, etc. For example, if the channel is not broadcasting quality content, it is surely going receive less TRP. Also, we do not the duration for which these channels are running. It might be possible that KOOP is a very old news channel whereas KMTV was launched recently in the last few months. This might have affected the response rate of the advertisers since most of the new TV channels have to offer the best deals in order to survive. It might be also possible that the other global TV channels have recently entered the market which might have drawn attention towards their channels for a few months. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided evidence, for example, a survey data which displayed the number of advertisers who have stooped advertising.
Second, the argument claims that the KOOP news channel changed its focus to farming issues and has therefore reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. This statement sounds illogical and yet again fails to provide valid proof for an increment in the advertising applicants. It might be possible that KOOP news channel went off-track since the last few months with respect to its genre and has now rebranded itself and shifted its focus on a very new topic. This might have sounded appealing for the advertisers. Also, KOOP news channel might have provided better deals for this particular time which led to attracting more advertisers. A change in the show timings or people's favourite shows might be an add-on for the increase in viewer rating, thus indirectly attracting advertisers. Moreover, products and services related to farming might have received one platform which is focused on their specific topic. If the argument provided evidence that KOOP news channel had a tremendous increase in the number of advertising applicants due to the sole reason of it changing its focus to farming and that a valid survey was displayed, it would have sounded more appealing.
Finally, the author suggests KMTV should also change their focus to farming in order to increase applications for its advertisement spots. With the decrease in its advertisement applicants, KMTV must be running low on funds. To take such a big decision without any guaranteed outcome would be a very risky move for KMTV. What if KMTV fails after shifting its focus to farming? What if advertisers lose credibility over KMTV and they wish to withdraw their existing subscription? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiative evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to asses the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
