Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Someonelse
11 May 2017, 00:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
My GMAT exam is on Thursday the 18th and to exercise the AWA I try to write one essay per day!
I am trying to improve my writing and I would appreciate your feedback very much!
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery
stores in the Marston area:
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales.
Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were
advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether
the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more
than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that advertisements of price reductions in the Daily Gazette increase sales. A study is cited which showed that after advertising 30 products of one store, two thirds of purchasers of the products said they had read the ad and of those, fifty percent bought wares for more than $ 100.
At first glance, this argument seems perfectly reasonable, however, closer examination reveals lack of evidence, ill-founded assumptions and poor reasoning. For example, there is no proof in the study that the advertisment influenced the readers to make a purchase. Also, while the price reduction may have caused an increase of items sold, the revenue may have fallen in that period. And finally, there is no information given about the products at the store that were not advertised. Therefore the argument is rather weak, dubious and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the customers who said they read the newspaper ad only made the purchase because of the ad. On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that good marketing and promotional campaigns have a strong influence on the purchase decisions of consumer. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that the customers would have made the same purchase without reading the ad. For example, discount grocery stores in Europe such as Aldi or Lidl rarely advertise their cheap prices because customers regularly go to grocery stores and know that Aldi and Lidl are the cheapest stores. Clearly, there can be multiple factors in the purchasing decision of a customer. While a reduced price can definitely be an incentive to buy, it may not always work out for the store.
Second, the argument never addresses the impact that the campaign had on the revenue. While there was a rise in the number of items sold due to the price reduction, it is possible that the overall revenue dropped. To illustrate, consider that an item that costs $ 100 is usually bought by 10 customers per day and therefore has a daily revenue of $ 1000. Imagine that the advertisement anounced a price reduction of 10 % which inclines one additional buyer per day to purchase this item. Now the daily revenue of the product is $ 990 - less than before the expensive campaign. This example shows that although it is a tempting assumption to believe in the power of marketing, its positive effect is by no means obvious.
Third, the argument does not go in detail about the of effect of the promotional campaign on other goods sold. This leaves many questions unanswered. How were the revenue of other items affected? Did the promoted items cannibalize the revenue of the other items? Did the increase in foot traffic help the sales of other items? Without convincing answers to these questions one is left with the impression that the positive effect of the advertisement is more of a wishful thinking than reality.
In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, the author would need to provide more information on the buying decisions of customers without being influenced by advertisement in regard to regular sales and revenue of all items.
I am trying to improve my writing and I would appreciate your feedback very much!
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery
stores in the Marston area:
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales.
Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were
advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether
the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more
than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that advertisements of price reductions in the Daily Gazette increase sales. A study is cited which showed that after advertising 30 products of one store, two thirds of purchasers of the products said they had read the ad and of those, fifty percent bought wares for more than $ 100.
At first glance, this argument seems perfectly reasonable, however, closer examination reveals lack of evidence, ill-founded assumptions and poor reasoning. For example, there is no proof in the study that the advertisment influenced the readers to make a purchase. Also, while the price reduction may have caused an increase of items sold, the revenue may have fallen in that period. And finally, there is no information given about the products at the store that were not advertised. Therefore the argument is rather weak, dubious and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the customers who said they read the newspaper ad only made the purchase because of the ad. On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that good marketing and promotional campaigns have a strong influence on the purchase decisions of consumer. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that the customers would have made the same purchase without reading the ad. For example, discount grocery stores in Europe such as Aldi or Lidl rarely advertise their cheap prices because customers regularly go to grocery stores and know that Aldi and Lidl are the cheapest stores. Clearly, there can be multiple factors in the purchasing decision of a customer. While a reduced price can definitely be an incentive to buy, it may not always work out for the store.
Second, the argument never addresses the impact that the campaign had on the revenue. While there was a rise in the number of items sold due to the price reduction, it is possible that the overall revenue dropped. To illustrate, consider that an item that costs $ 100 is usually bought by 10 customers per day and therefore has a daily revenue of $ 1000. Imagine that the advertisement anounced a price reduction of 10 % which inclines one additional buyer per day to purchase this item. Now the daily revenue of the product is $ 990 - less than before the expensive campaign. This example shows that although it is a tempting assumption to believe in the power of marketing, its positive effect is by no means obvious.
Third, the argument does not go in detail about the of effect of the promotional campaign on other goods sold. This leaves many questions unanswered. How were the revenue of other items affected? Did the promoted items cannibalize the revenue of the other items? Did the increase in foot traffic help the sales of other items? Without convincing answers to these questions one is left with the impression that the positive effect of the advertisement is more of a wishful thinking than reality.
In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, the author would need to provide more information on the buying decisions of customers without being influenced by advertisement in regard to regular sales and revenue of all items.
Moderators:
188 posts
