Simon and Smith Who Is Your Target Audience Free Essay Example, 1750 words

Advantages. Market expansion takes place when other strategies have reached its saturation point and changing a customer base is needed (Pradhan, 2007, p. 113). Attracting young people as new customers did not mean that the old customers are being left out. The retail strategy will only be adjusted on acquiring new customers while existing customers are retained because it is important to understand that different customers have different needs and demands. The business will grow in a profitable relationship and at the same time, it will create a valuable competitive advantage. The retailers must acknowledge that the young generation constitutes a large population compared to the old market. Therefore, this innovation strategy would surely bring more profits to the business. Nobody can tell the intensity of population growth in Brookline if the place becomes more industrialized. If this will happen, for sure several shopping centers will arise and a fiercely competitive environment will be created. For the business to cultivate an internal framework, purpose, and culture, it must rapidly adapt to the new opportunities no matter what are the threats and challenges involved (Barnett, 2008). Disadvantages. We will write a custom essay sample on Simon and Smith: Who Is Your Target Audience or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page They should consider their capabilities as retailers and also the attractiveness of the retail market. The business can adapt the market position matrix or competitive position matrix to determine its position in terms of market attractiveness and the retailer s competitive position.

William Shakespeares Julius Caesar - Mark Antony Proves...

William Shakepeares Julius Caesar Mark Antony proves to be the most skilful politician in the play. Do you agree? Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others - whether this is achieved with or without resistance, for good or for bad. Some would go as far as to say that all human behaviour is propelled by the want of power. One can conclude, however, that power is inevitable in the human society. It’s natural. William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, is brimming with humans fighting for power, and the one who stands out as the most skilful of these is not the play’s tragic hero Brutus, but Mark Antony, Caesar’s confidant and friend. During Lupercal, Caesar shows his keen insight by remaking to Antony that Cassius†¦show more content†¦He’s also impulsive and unscrupulous, and has no misconceptions on the way the political game is played, enabling him to see the motives behind men’s actions. He is unconcerned with using unethical means to further his own cause, such as ruthlessly raising taxes. Cassius’ most significant characteristic is the one Caesar had observed in him, that is, his ability to perceive the true motives of men. He uses his sharp insight to deceive Brutus, by means of a long and passionate argument and fake letters, into joining his conspiracy to assassinate Caesar. He knows that Brutus’ noble nature will serve as a catalyst to recruit more nobles into his conspiracy. Ironically, his success leads to his own decline in influence within the group of conspirators. A costly mistake of Cassius is his relenting to Brutus, even though he disagrees with most of Brutu s’ decisions, as most of the tactical decisions that Brutus makes eventually proves disastrous. Brutus’ strict moral and ethic code and rigid idealism is both his greatest virtue and his most deadly flaw, as he assumes a naà ¯ve view of the world. He doesn’t see through the roles played by Cassius, Casca and Antony, and is unable to recognise the fictitious letters that would tip off a more perceptive man. In a world of self-serving ambition, his qualities are fatal when competing in public with those who do not have the same moral standards as himself. He repeatedly makes

Peter Singer The Golden Rule Free Essays

World poverty is arguably at the forefront of issues plaguing our society as a whole today. I found an article displaying some of Peter Singers thought experiments that will further help display his beliefs. In his essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty, world-renowned author and philosopher Singer claims he has the solution. We will write a custom essay sample on Peter Singer: The Golden Rule or any similar topic only for you Order Now Singer asserts that materialism is the roadblock preventing the third world’s climb from despair into prosperity. The author begins his essay by detailing two thought experiments; the first recounts a Brazilian film, â€Å"Central Station,† in which the main harasser, Dora, unknowingly causes a young boy to be sold into the organ trade. After some debates as to Odor’s real motives, as well as further contemplation, Dora decides to rescue the boy (Singer). Singer applauds Odor’s actions and notes that had Dora decided the boys fate was not her responsibility and kept the money she gained as a result of her part, the movie’s audience would have demonic her; conversely she maintains a positive light in the eyes of those watching the movie only by rescuing the boy. Singer further notes however, that most of those able to go see a movie, are in a better place than Dora herself, explaining how what she gave up to save the boy was of greater value than the audience could relate to (Singer). Singer then raises an ethical question: What is the difference between Dora selling the child into the organ trade, and the average American who chooses not to donate money to organizations that could benefit a child in similar situation of need? Singer acknowledges the situational differences of physically putting a child in that situation compared to mere inaction, yet, pointing out that he is a utilitarian philosopher; he claims the end results are the name (Singer). Singer’s next thought experiment details a character named Bob who is close to retirement and owns a very valuable classic car. To sum things up Bob finds himself in a situation where a child is dangerously trapped on a train track. Bob is the only one around and the only way he can save the child is by diverting the train down a separate track, resulting in the destruction of the car. In the story, Bob chooses not to divert the coming train, the child is killed, and bob proceeds on in his life with the car, which brings him years of enjoyment and financial security (Singer). Singer argues that Bob’s actions are clearly morally incorrect, and claims most would agree. However, Singer states that most readers who would quickly condemn Bob’s actions are not much different. Singer cites calculations saying the $200 in donations, after all the deductions made by organizations and politics, would essentially save the life of an imperiled toddler in a third world country, or at least give them a significant chance at reaching adulthood (Singer). Singer next argues those who have money to spare and do not donate it, are effectively as morally wrong as Bob, who watched a hill brutally die (Singer). Singer goes on to detail how much of the western world has massive wealth surpluses. He again cites research claiming the average American household spends close to forty percent, or twenty thousand dollars annually on superfluous spending. Singer marvels at how many children that small amount of money could save, and continues to detail that while a household income an increase, it’s necessary spending proportionately does not, freeing up even more unneeded income. Through this logic Singer claims a household making $100,000 annually, could donate nearly $70,000. Singer wraps his argument up with a simple equation; all money being spent on luxuries and anything other than a necessity, should be given away. Furthermore, all money being spent on luxuries is indirectly resulting in the deaths of innocent youth, and those doing the spending, are morally responsible for avoidable deaths of impoverished children. Singer aims to demonstrate, that while Bob likely thought he was quite unlucky to be put in such a situation, in fact he was not, and all of us with additional income are in the same boat. Clearly, Singer hopes to open the eyes of richer nations and invoke a sense of accessibility towards making their extraneous means count toward the world’s well being, and arguably he does so. With the demonstrations of the detailed stories I explained earlier, Singer indeed executed his beliefs fairly well. Anyone with a conscious and decent moral compass can admit the life of another human being is worth saving, many would agree it would not hurt to give up western luxuries to do so. Singer makes it easy to see how the wealth of the western world could ago long way in restoring health and prosperity into some areas of the world which are very much in need. On the surface Singers conclusion: we ought to give a country in famine aid seems like it would work great. In the long run, Singer’s plan will not be successful. Let’s break down the logical component of Singers argument. First off, Singer relies almost entirely on his consequentiality ethics this has some telling drawbacks. While the worldwide effect of such thinking is usually positive, since such ethics rely on cost/ benefit analysis, the hard conclusions are rarely so simple. A reoccurring problem with such thinking is the secondary, and tertiary effects are not usually factored in. Once we apply that critical template to Singer’s thinking, some momentous issues emerge, namely, economics. If we as Americans were to take all our extraneous income, and simply donate it to countries in need, what would the end result be? The economic ramifications would gigantic, and while this may seem extreme, we could wind up in a simple role reversal, quickly finding ourselves in need. Again, this is extreme, but it effectively demonstrates the results. Our economy relies on extraneous spending, it is the only way it can sustain itself. Simply put there is no re- deeding effect from donations, no recirculation of wealth, no more money to receive, and thus unnecessarily spend again. As a result, the supplemental income Singer refers to would quickly disappear. From a more cynical perspective, let’s critique Singer’s utilitarian views on a scarier level. A more chilling result from Singer’s solution is population increase. As ‘immoral’ as it may be, all of the children who do not live past there earlier years help keep the problem at bay. In reality if we were to embrace singer’s solution, a quick result would be thousands of young impoverished children surviving into adulthood. A lightly slower result would be all of those impoverished children growing up, and raising impoverished families, effectively multiplying the problem. While as I said, this is cynical, it is also utilitarian. What is good for those impoverished children, is not necessarily good for society, and throwing all our extra income at them, isn’t going to magically cure their situation. In actuality though, my best argument for Singer’s solution is a simple one. Think about it, how many impoverished children are in the age bracket (toddlers) that Singer refers to? One million? 100 million? At $200 per child, that large overestimation moms out to twenty billion dollars. Initially such statistics support Singers argument. The United States alone has a gross economy in the trillions, so shaving a little off the top should go a long way to help right? In reality world poverty is not a new problem, and I can think of several wealthy westerners, who collectively could easily write a check for that. And arguably have gone a long way in their attempts to do so. This argument speaks for itself; money is not the answer. While it definitely is one of the means necessary to help solve this problem, it is not the chief factor in fixing this issue. These people need societal and political reform. 200 per child is not going to halt genocide in Africa, or change the fact that certain societies in South America simply are not conducive to public health. All this goes to illustrate how much Singer chooses to leave out of his solution. Singer makes a solid argument, with huge social and financial implications, yet it is not without holes. The author, being both a scholar and a philosopher, has a smooth writing style, and it shows. He invokes Just the right amount of inquiry, logic, and writes with such an authority that it becomes easy to to question both his statistics and the evidence he either omitted, or did not realize. Due to this, Singer’s argument itself is markedly effective, making it is easy to feel compelled from the points he makes, and the illustrations he uses. He invokes strong feelings of guilt, and assigns a social liability for the welfare of those less fortunate, but his support is ultimately less than pragmatic. While Singer’s intentions are pure, and to such a degree are worth of some merit, simple logically analysis of much of his deductively supported report shows his solution is impractical. This is not to say How to cite Peter Singer: The Golden Rule, Papers