|
65. In this memorandum, the vice president of Road Food suggests that the company motivate its advertising agency to perform better by basing the agencys pay on the Road Foods profits. In support of this suggestion, the vice president points out that although Road Food initially thought the ad agency was following company recommendations, competitor-Street Eats earned higher profits last year. The vice president also notes that Street Eats has fewer restaurants than Road Food, and that Road Food spent nearly as much money on advertising as Street Eats did. This argument is unconvincing, since it relies on dubious assumptions and comparisons. First, the vice president assumes that the ad campaign caused the low profits. However, the vice president ignores many other factors that contribute to profitability. In particular, the fact that Road Food has been spending less advertising money per restaurant than Street Eats suggests that its unwillingness to spend more may be the main reason for disappointing profits. Second, the author implies that the ad agency failed to implement Road Foods guidelines, and that this failure was the reason for disappointing profits. However, it is | 
