Issue 89 practicing!

usdream

People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastses both natural and human resources. What they fail to see, however, is that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.

Whether or not the company should make products to last is an issue over which there is
a lot of debates. Consumers claim that to make a quick-wearing product is in fact a waste
of both natural and human resources. However, the manufacturers hold the view that such
practice is just to keep costs down and to stimulate the demand. As a matter of fact, there
is hardly a universal answer to this question, since different people can have distinct
opinions according to their respective standings as well as individual experiences.
The final decision, though hard to make, should depend on specific situations and on a
case-by-case analysis. As far as I am concerned, the producers can never be justified to
deliver inferior service and products by so-called cost reduction and demand stimulation.

The first argument to substantiate my opinion is that there should not be trade-off
between the quality of products and cost of production. Look at the real business world,
most of the renowned companies get their competitive advantages over their rivals by
superior services and high quality of products. To differentiate themselves from other peer
brand, they try to satisfy the customers' needs as much as possible. Usually, the cost-cutting
programs are implemented under the premise of avoiding harming the products' quality.
Imagine an extreme situation in which although the cost of products is trivial compared to
other competing ones, the commodities are nearly of no use. Certainly, this kind of
products can hardly find their market, not to say revenues. Based on this, we could conclude
that to press cost down, the company should not allow any satisfactions of quality of
commodity, which will finally lead to even lower gross profit.

The second reason for me to choose my statement is that there are far more effective ways
other than such practice mentioned to tout to potential consumers.
Poor quality and malfunctions of products can only turn the target purchasers away rather
than force them to buy the products again. In contrast, nowadays producers have successfully
find many other strategies to stimulate consumptions. The most effective one should be
product innovation. For example, when there is a main trend for DVD to substitute radio
machines, consumers automatically turn to try this kind of new electronic appliances.
Moreover, creation of new lines of products can also cater to the vagaries of consumers'
tastes. Having noticing that consumers' habitual brand-switching, P&G has created quite
a few brands of shampoo and successfully win back its customer from the emerging companies.

In sum, with the reasons mentioned above, which may integrate with each other to better support
my conclusion rather than the single one, we can comfortably come to the conclusion that
making easy-wearing products is indeed a practice of both wasting human and natural resources.
To reduce costs and explore the market purchase power, the producers should consider other
wiser strategies rather than to cheat consumers, which can eventually do great harm to its
reputation and business goodwill.

This my practicing AWA on Issue 89. COULD anybody please help me to edit it?

Thank you very much!