please comment the argument essay.
The argument claims that a recent survey conducted by the market research department of XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen stores. However, 60% of those surveyed had never shopped at one of the company's stores. Hence, the argument claims that XY Gen Store executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores. Stated in this manner, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that all the products that XY Gen Stores must be sold in the company's stores. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in anyway. There are numerous examples in business today where the branded products of a company are available to consumers in a variety of ways. For example, products of brand names such as Sharper Image, Motorola, etc. can be readily purchased by consumers through electronic outlets such Amazon
.com. The brands mentioned are clearly well known brands; but there are a lot of people who do not visit the stores of Motorola to purchase the cellphones made under the brand. Another example is the brick-and-mortar retailer like Walmart. Customers purchase products of brand names such as Arrow, Van Huesen, etc from Walmart. There are a limited number of stores where Motorola sells its own products. The fact that customers have not shopped at a Motorola store does not necessarily mean that Motorola branded products lack name recognition or appeal. The author fails to clarify why products of XY Gen Stores must be purchased at the store. The argument would have been much clearer if he explicitly gave reasons for the assumptions.
Second, the argument claims that 60% of those surveyed indicated that they had never shopped at one of the company's stores. It fails to mention where they had shopped for these products. In fact, it is not at all clear where they had shopped. If the argument had provided this important piece of information, it would have made a lot more sense.
Finally, is the company XY Gen Stores losing any market share to its competitors? Where are the consumers of its brand name apparels purchasing these products? What is the loss to the company if its products were to be sold through other outlets? Would the company be better served to recognize that its brands have a much better appeal to the consumers and focus on making its products available at a wide variety of retail outlets rather than only its stores? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument's claimed recommendation to the executives is flawed and has no substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be significantly strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts and provided clear information on what the loss to the company is if the consumers purchased its branded products at outlets other than its own stores. In order to assess the merits of its recommended decision, it is essential to have knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, several pieces of important information are missing. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.