Motorcycle Sales

The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:

"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The presented article speculates about the reasons behind the success of motorcycle X, despite it being copied by some foreign company. This is speculated to be because of the exceptionally loud noise made by the motorcycle. However, even though the article tries to find alternative explanation, it goes ahead to reason based on the premise that its speculation is,in fact, correct. Further, it tries to compare the sales of indigenous cars to foreign cars, completely ignoring the fact that the foreign cars are not necessarily a copy of American cars. Neither does it take into account any differences between the target audience for cars and motorcycles.

Initially the article tries to articulate a reason behind the success of motorcycle X in face of it being copied and sold at a lower price by a foreign company. The reason is said to be the exceptionally loud noise made by the motorcycle by some of the users. By the article's own admission, it is the viewpoint of some and not all (or even most, for that matter). The source of the data is not clear and hence the certainty attached with it is not warranted. To its credit, the article does cast a doubt on reason and states an intention to look for an alternative explanation. To its discredit, it goes on to base the argument on the reason that itself put to doubt, hence basing the examples and arguments around noise. By doing this it also completely fails to explore an alternative reasons (like better quality or brand value) behind the sales.

Further, the comparison used to illustrate the point is invalid as it does not address the same situation: foreign cars are not necessarily a copy of American cars. The foreign motorcycle, on the other hand, is a direct copy of its American counterpart. When motorcycles look essentially same, the end-user can compare everything feature-by-feature easily. Moreover, the target audience would also be similar. For cars the choice may not be that easy with the given parameters. Comparing a Mercedes to a Hummer or a Porsche is simply not possible as they are three different genres of cars. The choice may depend on if the person wants a luxury car, a land rover or a sports car rather than any other feature.

Finally, the article does not take into account the difference in expectations of a motorcycle buyer and a car buyer. While it is possible that a motorcycle buyer may be looking for brash, youthful, loud vehicle; a car buyer may be looking for a luxury vehicle as a status symbol. Since they may not be looking for the same thing, equating their buyer expectations may not lead to correct results.

Concluding, the presented article is logically flawed on many counts. In order to appear stronger, it needs to at least present a more relevant analogy besides actually exploring reasons behind success of motorcycle X. Otherwise it risks appearing poorly reasoned, hypothetical and incomplete.