blueseas wrote:
xmizer wrote:
I am still confused about this question. By "economic interests" I would assume it means money. I understand that the campaign lead to 2 million or more cans of tuna being sold. But, if the profits of the additional cans were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign, how can it be said that the campaign furthered Dietz's economic interests. Please explain.
lets take 5 years as 1 2 3 4 5
year 1 =30 tuna sold
year 2 =25 tuna sold
year 3 =20 tuna sold
year 4 =15 tuna sold
year 5 =10 tuna sold
now advertising campaigncame
year 6 =12 tuna sold
since tuna selling was on a steep(was decreasing ) so increase in 2 tuna dont you think furthered economically.
hope it helps
let me know if you have doubt.
Well, if you mean "economically" as in sales, then yeah, I suppose in this case, the company is furthered economically. But I think the term "economically" is vague. It can mean market share, profits, revenue, etc. If you are talking about profits, the company is not furthered economically at all since the ad campaign costs more than the profits of the additional sales, which to me, means the ad campaign actually made the company lose money.
To highlight my point, if the company decided to give all the tuna away for free, I am sure they can sell millions more cans of tuna. They might even go bankrupt in the process but in this example, it would still consider it "furthering the company economically", since there is an increase in sales. But from a profit-motive standpoint, I fail to see how this is economically beneficial.