AWA Argument : SmartPro Accounting Software

[bowleyjoo]

The following appeared in a memorandum to a team developing accounting software for SmartPro Software, Inc.:

“Currently, more professional accountants use SmartPro accounting software than any other brand. However, in the market for personal accounting software for non-professionals to use in preparing their income tax returns, many of our competitors are outselling us. In surveys, our professional customers repeatedly say that they have chosen SmartPro Software because our most sophisticated software products include more advanced special features than competing brands. Therefore, the most effective way for us to increase sales of our personal accounting software for home users would clearly be to add the advanced special features that our professional software products currently offer.”

The author concludes that SmartPro Software, Inc. can certainly increase its sales of accounting program for home users by adding particular features. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that most of SmartPro’s professional customers buy its products because of these special features. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumption, weak analogy, and ultimately statistical error.

Most conspicuously, the author only concerns with a software feature issue as a single step change in profitability yet ignores many relevant factors. When people buy a computer program, they do not buy only because of the qualifications of software itself. Price is also crucial for buyers’ decisions, as well as advertisement. Brand image sometimes also plays an important role. To illustrate, it can reasonably assume that SmartPro’s business rivals achieve in the sales of personal accounting software due to low price offer. In contrast, SmartPro’s personal accounting software is too expensive that people cannot afford by themselves, and then turn to the competitors. If this is the case, only one step adjustment in software features without considering other influential factors is incomplete.

Also, this argument is based on the flawed comparison that home users’ requirement in software features is the same as to that of professional users. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Even though professionals use SmartPro’s program to process convoluted works, home users perhaps use the accounting program for only simple tasks, such as daily expense, interest of personal loan, cost of car insurance, and so on. Hence, complicated features to home users would be considered unnecessary, and not be successful to persuade the customers. Therefore, the expectation of increased sales is entirely unfounded.

Finally, the validity of the survey conducted among professional customers of SmartPro is doubtful.
Since information about the number of the whole customers and the number of respondents are not provided, the actual result is definitely not accurate. In addition, since the author does not specify that what SmartPro’s customers like is actually the accounting software, the survey would become invalid and cannot refer to home users’ preference.

In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence that the special features in personal accounting program is the key of buyers’ decision indeed. Furthermore, the author has to prove that non-professionals who use the program for their income tax returns and home users are comparable in terms of accounting task, requirement. Most importantly, more specific information about the surveys conducted among professional customers of SmartPro should be given to show that the respondents are representative. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing, and fails to impress the readers.