Friends!...please rate my argument and give your feedbacks.

[architect.praveen]

The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper:

“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has
declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of
The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract
more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

This argument is unconvincing because it relies on too many assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. There are three areas that merit further explanations before this author should receive any credibility.

My first problem with this argument is about the circulation of the paper, There are many other factors such as quality of the content of the paper, locations covered, awareness of the people etc… will also effect the circulation decline apart from the price. So the author should also concentrate on the above factors before making any conclusion.

My second problem with the statement is that reduce its pricing sounds illogical, as the printing costs, salaries to the employees and other infrastructure, which incurs for producing the newspaper, will decide the pricing. Sudden reduction of the price without proper calculation on the above may challenge to run the newspaper. Further more, sudden reduction in the pricing readers may doubt on the quality of the paper and which may lead to further decline in the readership.

Lastly, I take issue with the publisher’s analysis and survey; do the publisher considered the quality, market penetration, size of the paper and advertisement, which are essential points to increase the readership? If ‘Bungle’ scores high on the above points then answer is in front of us for Mercury’s readership decline.

There are just too many holes in this argument, so it is difficult to take author seriously, unless some further evidence surfaces in each of the three areas described above. The premises that are presented are insufficient proof that the conclusion is viable.

[gulliver_ind]

Pls review my essay on the same topic..

Argument given by the publisher states that competing low-priced news paper, The bugle is responsible for the decrease in its circulation and asserts that decreasing the price below that of The bugle will increase its revenues in the form of advertising. This argument is not convincing as it fails to illustrate the scenario in which the circulation has dipped and also falsely asserts that increasing circulation will surely bring the more advertising revenue. I will be addressing these lacunas in the argument in detail below.

First, argument should have given description of target customer base for its weekly newspaper. Is it more of local news, in which local population is interested or investigative articles about contemporary issues, in which few people are interested. It should have addressed this issue in detail to understand the change in public likings. Further, it also fails to illustrate how the content in competiting news paper, the bugle, is different from its news. If both the newspapers publish same news, then why the people have to pay more price to buy the Mercury? Had the argument stated the news content of “The mercury”, it would have been easier to analyze the reasons for he drop in circulation .

Second, argument also does not state the changes made in its content and format in comparison with its publication five years ago. If the mercury has not changed its content and format in line with the current tastes of public, then obviously circulation will drop irrespective of the price. Further, had the publisher surveyed the tastes of people and the information its subscribers are expecting from the mercury, it would have been easier to judge by comparing the mercury’s current publication and the survey results.

Finally, argument also states that decreased price will result in increased circulation and which in turn will result in more advertising business for the news paper. It may not be practicable to assume such things without any valid data to support on current advertising revenues. Subscribers may like to buy “The mercury” at a less price with more content but may not like to buy “The mercury” with more advertisements. In effect, purpose of reducing the price is self-defeated. So, it would be too pre-mature to judge that more advertisements will sustain the increased subscriptions, which resulted because of less price.

To conclude, The argument has not clearly illustrated all the relevant information like content of the mercury now, content of the mercury 5 years ago, content of its competitor, current market tastes, etc. to support it. If the argument provides this information, then it is easier to judge.