The following appeared in a memorandum from the vice president of Road Food, an international chain of fast-food restaurants.
"This past year, we spent almost as much on advertising as did our main competitor, Street Eats, which has fewer restaurants than we do. Although it appeared at first that our advertising agency had created a campaign along the lines we suggested, in fact our total profits were lower than those of Street Eats. In order to motivate our advertising agency to perform better, we should start basing the amount that we pay it on how much total profit we make each year."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc
In a memorandum, the vice president of Road Food suggests that the company motivate its advertising agency by basing advertising agency's pay on the profits company earn each year. To support this suggestion, the author points out to the results of the advertising campaign created by its advertising agency. Less profits of Road Food than its main competitor "Street Eats" prompted vice president to believe that the campaign was ineffective. Moreover, the author notes that Street Eats has fewer restaurants than Road Foods and that it spent as much on advertising as Road Food does. However, the author's argument is unconvincing for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that campaign was ineffective in improving profitability for Road Food. The author cites the profits of competitor "Street Eats", which has fewer restaurants than Road Food and spent as much on advertising as Road Food, to show that advertising campaign was ineffective in improving profitability. However, this comparison is illogical. To determine whether the campaign was effective, comparison of profits of Road Food before the campaign run and after the campaign would be more apt. But, no data has been provided regarding the profits made by Road Food before the campaign. Without this data, blaming on advertising agency would be illogical.
Second, the author implies that advertising agency failed to implements its guidelines and that this resulted in lower profits. However, it is possible that the advertising agency has followed all the guidelines and implemented them and that those suggestions were responsible for the failure of the advertising campaign. May be the author just shifting the blame on advertising agency rather than on management.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unconvincing. Moreover, implementing the suggested proposal might not achieve intended results. In order to strengthen the argument, the author must provide data regarding the profits of Road Food before the campaign was run and must provide sufficient evidence to show that advertising campaign was responsible for disappointing profits.
"This past year, we spent almost as much on advertising as did our main competitor, Street Eats, which has fewer restaurants than we do. Although it appeared at first that our advertising agency had created a campaign along the lines we suggested, in fact our total profits were lower than those of Street Eats. In order to motivate our advertising agency to perform better, we should start basing the amount that we pay it on how much total profit we make each year."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc
In a memorandum, the vice president of Road Food suggests that the company motivate its advertising agency by basing advertising agency's pay on the profits company earn each year. To support this suggestion, the author points out to the results of the advertising campaign created by its advertising agency. Less profits of Road Food than its main competitor "Street Eats" prompted vice president to believe that the campaign was ineffective. Moreover, the author notes that Street Eats has fewer restaurants than Road Foods and that it spent as much on advertising as Road Food does. However, the author's argument is unconvincing for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that campaign was ineffective in improving profitability for Road Food. The author cites the profits of competitor "Street Eats", which has fewer restaurants than Road Food and spent as much on advertising as Road Food, to show that advertising campaign was ineffective in improving profitability. However, this comparison is illogical. To determine whether the campaign was effective, comparison of profits of Road Food before the campaign run and after the campaign would be more apt. But, no data has been provided regarding the profits made by Road Food before the campaign. Without this data, blaming on advertising agency would be illogical.
Second, the author implies that advertising agency failed to implements its guidelines and that this resulted in lower profits. However, it is possible that the advertising agency has followed all the guidelines and implemented them and that those suggestions were responsible for the failure of the advertising campaign. May be the author just shifting the blame on advertising agency rather than on management.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unconvincing. Moreover, implementing the suggested proposal might not achieve intended results. In order to strengthen the argument, the author must provide data regarding the profits of Road Food before the campaign was run and must provide sufficient evidence to show that advertising campaign was responsible for disappointing profits.
