The regional brand manager sent the following memo to the national brand manager for Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser.
“We need to institute a huge publicity campaign for the launch of Sun-Beem’s improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including television, radio, internet, and magazine ads, potential new customers will not be aware of our product. And previous customers will not be aware that Sun-Beem’s new, non-carcinogenic formula is on the shelves. The best way to combat the negative publicity Sun-Beem’s old formula received is to fight fire with fire, by using the media’s insatiable interest in any new news about Sun-Beem to sell the new formula. This will erase the negative connotations in the minds of former customers, and will ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument
While the regional brand manger's strategy may seem rational and thorough, as a way to ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market, his argument does not provide enough evidence and lacks quantitative data to back his claim. In order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence.
To begin with, how can we evaluate that the new formula is actually better than its older version? Just by merely stating that it is non-carcinogenic would not meet the needs. Making people understand the harmful effects of carcinogens and that, the absence of them in the new cleanser is what that their faces need is much important. People are more attracted to proofs. So conducting a trial on a group of people and publishing the positive impact the cleanser had on their faces would make the public regain the trust that was lost due to the inefficient older version of the Cleanser.
Before all this, the main point that needs to be ensured is the reason the public refuted the previous formula. The reason for the negative connotations in the minds of former customers has to be known. If the reason is the inefficiency of the previous formula to deliver what it claimed, then proceeding with the above-mentioned strategy and relying on advertising the new formula serves the purpose. But if the reason is some other factor, then other methods need to be used. One possible reason could be the high price of the older cleaner and the launch of relatively less priced competitor's cleansers. So in order to get back the former customers, selling the new cleanser at a discounted price in the beginning and later after the trust is re-gained due to the effectiveness of the new formula, the price can be gradually increased. In this way, there is a high chance for the company to strive to be at the top position in the market.
So, just by advertising that a new formula is going to be launched won't re-attract the customer base once the company had. Deciding a perfect strategy keeping in mind al the above points would surely meet the expectations on the Firm.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 371 350
No. of Characters: 1738 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.389 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.685 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.163 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 590, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fficient older version of the Cleanser. Before all this, the main point that nee...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, if, may, so, then, while, as to, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1773.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.79189189189 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70614510502 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535135135135 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1598507499 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.8125 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8125 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135414061003 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0394674145216 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0319603670239 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0770603958822 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0414753544153 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.