Two One-Page Memos: Convincing P And Sybil Yang

Two One Page Memos: Convincing P and Sybil Yang

To Write Two One Page Memos The First One Page Memo Is To Convince P To Write Two, one-page memos. The first one-page memo is to convince Professor Roe, a non-coffee drinker, to patronize Starbucks. The second one-page memo is to convince Sybil Yang, a coffee addict, not to patronize Starbucks. This is not a sales pitch or a marketing piece. You are writing from the perspective of a hospitality business analyst. The memos should:  Not read like a brochure,  Not be written as if you work for Starbucks or one of its competitors,  Have an objective, professional, factual tone,  Provide at least two reasons per position, and  Include evidentiary support for the reasons argued.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The task involves drafting two succinct, one-page memos aimed at two distinct audiences: Professor Roe, who does not currently drink coffee, and Sybil Yang, a dedicated coffee enthusiast. As a hospitality business analyst, my role is to present objective, fact-based reasoning that informs their perceptions about patronizing Starbucks, without employing marketing language or promotional tone. This approach emphasizes credible reasons grounded in evidence, facilitating informed decisions rather than persuasive sales pitches.

Memo to Professor Roe: Convincing to Patronize Starbucks

The purpose of this memo is to present compelling, factual reasons for Professor Roe, a non-coffee drinker, to consider patronizing Starbucks. While acknowledging personal preferences, the focus will be on highlighting the company's strengths that could appeal even to those initially indifferent to coffee consumption.

Firstly, Starbucks offers a diversified menu that extends beyond typical coffee beverages, including teas, smoothies, and health-conscious options. According to recent market reports, the proliferation of such non-coffee offerings has attracted a broader customer base, including individuals with specific dietary restrictions or preferences (Statista, 2022). This diversification can present an opportunity for Professor Roe to explore beverages aligned with personal tastes, possibly fostering a new interest in the brand’s non-coffee selections.

Secondly, Starbucks’ commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility may resonate with Professor Roe’s values. The company has implemented initiatives such as ethically sourced coffee and environmentally friendly packaging (Smith & Lee, 2021). For a consumer concerned with environmental impact, patronizing a business that demonstrates tangible sustainability efforts can be an ethically motivating reason, even without a prior interest in coffee itself. This aligns with increasing consumer awareness about corporate social responsibility and can influence behavior positively.

In conclusion, providing Professor Roe with information about Starbucks' menu diversity and commitment to environmental values could serve as a viable rationale for him to consider patronage, even as a non-coffee drinker. These reasons are grounded in market evidence and corporate initiatives, respecting his individual preferences and values.

Memo to Sybil Yang: Discouraging Starbucks Patronage

Conversely, the aim of this memo is to present objective reasons why Sybil Yang, a dedicated coffee addict, might choose not to patronize Starbucks. The goal is to offer evidence-based considerations that address her lifestyle and preferences without discouraging her from exploring other coffee venues.

One relevant reason pertains to Starbucks' pricing strategy, which tends to be higher than local independent coffee shops. A study by Consumer Reports (2020) highlights that frequent Starbucks customers often pay a premium for familiarity and convenience, which may not necessarily reflect superior quality. For a dedicated coffee enthusiast like Sybil, who perhaps values artisanal techniques and unique blends, this premium pricing might be viewed as unjustified, especially if comparable quality can be found elsewhere at a lower cost.

Another factor concerns the limited diversity of brewing methods offered by Starbucks compared to specialty coffee roasters. While Starbucks has standardized brewing procedures, purists or connoisseurs often prefer techniques such as pour-over or Chemex, which are less prevalent in chain environments. A report from the Specialty Coffee Association (2021) emphasizes that artisanal coffee shops often offer a wider variety of brewing methods and single-origin beans, appealing to serious enthusiasts like Sybil who desire more control over their coffee experience. Thus, Starbucks may fall short in providing the personalized, high-quality experience that dedicated aficionados seek.

In summary, for Sybil Yang, factors such as higher prices and limited brewing diversity present credible reasons to consider alternative coffee establishments over Starbucks. These considerations are supported by industry reports and consumer surveys, aligning with her preferences as a committed coffee enthusiast.

Conclusion

These two memos aim to provide balanced, evidence-based reasons tailored to each individual’s values and preferences. Recognizing the diversity of consumer motivations, the approach refrains from promotional language, instead emphasizing credible, factual arguments rooted in market research and corporate practices. Such an analysis supports informed decision-making about Starbucks' appeal or limitations for different consumer segments.

References

• Consumer Reports. (2020). The Hidden Costs of Coffee Chains. Retrieved from https://www.consumerreports.org/coffee/hidden-costs-of-coffee-chains/
• Smith, J., & Lee, K. (2021). Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives in the Coffee Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(2), 341-355.
• Statista. (2022). Coffee Consumption and Market Trends. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/1448/coffee/
• Specialty Coffee Association. (2021). Coffee Customer Preferences and Brewing Techniques. SCA Publications.