Harley1980 wrote:
The TJ-700 and the Beta Turbomax are two models of cars of different manufacturers. These two models have almost identical specifications and features, and they sell for almost the same price. Both were introduced on the market five years ago, and each year, the respective manufacturers spend about the same amount in advertising. In the past five year, the total number of TJ-700's sold is about 80% greater than the total number of Beta Turbomax's sold. Clearly, the advertising firm that created TJ-700 ads created much more effective ads than the firm that created Beta Turbomax ads.
In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to know which of the following?
A) How the advertising budgets over the last five years for the TJ-700 and the Beta Turbomax compare to the budgets over the same period for comparable models of other manufacturers.
B) Whether the ads for the TJ-700 and the Beta Turbomax included the address or websites of local dealerships selling these models.
C) Whether buyers of the TJ-700 and the Beta Turbomax reported being familiar with the ads of these cars.
D) What percentage the first two years maintenance costs of each model is of their respective advertising budgets.
E) Whether buyer of cars of other manufacturers in the last five years are familiar with the ads for the TJ-700 and the Beta Turbomax.
Dear
Harley1980,
I'm happy to respond.
I always like seeing posted here a question that I wrote!
So, we have two similar models of cars, similar features, similar prices, similar times on the market, but one outsells the other by 80%, a gargantuan difference. Why would this be? The prompt argument thinks the difference is due to advertising; in particular, it thinks that the TJ-700 ads are far superior, and hence responsible for the difference. Hmm.
Of course, what matters most for the conclusion is whether the ads were effective ads, ads that motivated folks to get up and go out and buy one of these cars.
(A) how much a company spends on advertising is not necessarily correlated with how effective the ad is. The history of advertising is simply littered with expensive ads that were complete flops, including some notorious
Super Bowl ads. $$ spent on advertising alone would not be revealing. This is not correct.
(B) Hmm. We don't know the medium for these ads: TV ads? Radio ads? Posters in public transit? Billboards? Ads in magazines? Web ads, such as Google ads? We don't know. For a web ad, it would be unusual if there weren't some clickable link. Links sometimes appear in print ads, and rarely in TV and radio ads, and that's not necessarily a problem. If people are motivated to action by a TV or radio ad, a simple websearch will reveal the nearest dealership. This is not necessarily relevant at all.
(C) Bingo! If people buying the TJ-700 point to the ads as what motivated the sale, then those are very effective ads. Conversely, if people don't even remember the ads and, when asked what motivated the sale, point to other factors, then probably the ads were not particularly effective. This is the crucial issue, right here.
(D) An interesting twist. Certain maintenance costs, and how reliable each model is, would play some role in sales, but once again, money spent on advertising does not automatically result in higher quality ads. This is not correct.
(E) We care much less about what buyers of other cars have seen. What matters for the gigantic sales difference of the TJ-700 and Beta Turbomax is what has motivated the folks buying specifically those two models. This choice would be tangentially relevant at best.
The strongest answer here is
(C). Does this make sense?
Mike
close
25 Aug 2015, 04:16
35%
(medium)
30%
(02:08)
wrong 
