“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 for people to read the Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least circulation in

The author proposes that The Mercury should lower its price below that of The Bugle in order to increase its circulation at least to former levels, and, with the increased circulation, more and more companies would like to buy advertising space in the paper. However, the proposal is not well reasoned, and may not achieve its claimed effect of boosting the sales of the paper, since it failed to consider other possible factors besides prices to explain the decline in readership and also to predict whether the effect can be sustained or not.

First, the author does not discuss other probable explanations to the decrease in circulation. While the publishing of The Bugle may take over the market share which favors lower priced newspaper, it still can’t justify itself as the main reason for the decline in the number of readers of The Mercury. The Mercury may feature different styles of articles from those in The Bugle, and thus is still able to survive or even thrive among the low price competition raised by The Bugle. Therefore, the author should investigate more about the root cause of the decline or provide more evidences to support that indeed lower price of The Bugle really make the sales of The Mercury suffer.

Second, adopting lower-price strategy may induce the competitors to follow suit and thus has no sustainable benefits in the long run for The Mercury to increase the circulation permanently. The effect may just be temporary, maybe for a quarter or even fewer, since The Bugle has boasted its advantage in affordability, and keeping the fierce competition on reduction of prices may only lead to a vicious cycle that endangers the future of The Mercury. Thus, the author should figure out other ways to attract more customers. Instead of declaring war on the price, The Mercury should find its niches in the market, the special features that set The Mercury apart from other competing newspaper, and develop them well not only to boost the circulation but also to attract more buyers of advertising space in The Mercury.

In conclusion, the author’s proposal is not sound or convincing, because he has left out several key reasoning elements to make a right and effective decision. If the author can avoid the problems mentioned above, the proposal will be much more plausible to achieve its asserted outcome.