In the memo, the author recommended Happy Pancake Restaurants (HPR) in the southeast and northeast to replace butter with margarine. To bolster this argument, the author cites a 2% complaining percentile after butter have been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern and some favorable responses provided by the servants. Basis on this line of evidences, he reasons that customers can’t distinguish butter from margarine. Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the author assumes 2% compliments are low and ignorable, he also assumes the other 98% who don't complain are happy about the change. It is possible that the change is very recent therefore insufficient data have been collected to draw any reliable conclusions. The assumption overlooks the strong possibility that complainer maybe a small group in all consumers who are dissatisfied. When dissatisfied, not every one incline to complain, some people just don't want to argue with the servants’ to avoid spoiling their happy mood, but they won't come back to eat any longer. Considering consumer behaviors in reality, this is quite possible. Also, although a 2% compliments seems low, it can be actually very high comparing with the average data of the whole industry.
Secondly, the speaker falsely cites the servants’' reports to assert that customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead are because these customers cannot distinguish butter from margarine. The author fails to indicate the actual number of servers who reported, and what percentage of the whole server group do they make up, thus we cannot evaluate if the fact cited above is significant. Meanwhile, the speaker fails to indicate what portion of HPH customers order meals calling for either butter or margarine. Yet it is entirely possible that a significant percentage of HPH customers do not order pancakes, or prefer fruit or another topping instead. Also, the author does not tell us the percentage of customers who ordered butter or margarine does not complain. Lacking such evidence, it is difficult to assess the merit of the memo's recommendation.
Thirdly, the manager unfairly assumes that consumers in the southeast reflect those throughout consumers in the northeast. However, the author provides no evidence that this is the case. It's quite possible HPH in southwestern was an aberration. Perhaps Southwesterners actually prefer margarine to butter, in contrast to the prevailing taste elsewhere. Perhaps the consumer tastes and habits in other places have become so well entrenched that consumers would not be glad to change. Or perhaps southwestern has some special advantage such as relatively few pancake restaurants choices that other cities do not have -and that it cannot duplicate in any other types.
Besides, profit is a function of not just cost but also revenue. Yet, we are not informed how the restaurant going after the change, did consumption declined during that time? How many cost have been cut down? Thus, without this marketing information, it is difficult to assess the merit of the memo's recommendation.
In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the argument's author must show how long the new policy has been carried out and the detailed information about southwest HPH. The author would also bolster the argument by providing the percentage of customers who ordered butter or margarine does not complain. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know the change do bring a higher profit.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-25 15:12:02
收藏
收藏
