Rationale Behind the Article Analysis
By investigating the topic, I aim to identify the most productive digital tool for promoting goods and services. I aim to determine whether the authors’ methods effectively attract and retain customers, thereby increasing their loyalty to the brand. I will examine the article “Opportunities and Prospects of Digital Marketing” by Gamrutha Gowsalya and two other Indian co-authors. The source is particularly relevant, as it addresses the most important topic in digital marketing: the best way to promote online. The authors agree that such a tool is contextual advertising. They support their position by admitting an increasing trend towards customization, which this marketing method meets.
Summarizing the Author’s Argument
The authors’ key points in the thesis and throughout the article aim to achieve a more accurate hit on the target audience and a guaranteed extensive reach of contextual advertising. According to the authors, contextual advertising enables the targeting of the target audience with precision (Gowsalya et al. 618). With an extensive reach, this tool allows us to attract potentially interested users.
If a person starts looking for information about a product or service, it means that the probability of them making a purchase or order is relatively high. Therefore, the traffic received from contextual advertising can be considered targeted. In the first logical section, scientists discuss the advantages of this digital instrument, devoting a separate subsection to each of them. In the second logical section, the authors analyze studies confirming their viewpoint.
Scrutinizing the Author’s Argument
The authors do support their assertions with relevant details and opinions. The second logical part is devoted to practical research proving the effectiveness of contextual advertising. The argument can be considered lacking since the authors highlight the advantages in the article. They do not pay enough attention to the potential drawbacks of this digital marketing method and ways to solve them. The argument oversimplifies the problem of choosing the best marketing approach. The authors do not specify what size organizations it is suitable for, offering a single solution for a range of goods and services of different orientations.
The article does not contain any contradictions; however, it does contain biases. Throughout the article, the authors support the thesis’s point of view with logical arguments. The argument rests on evidence rather than assumptions: To support their point of view, Gamrutha Gowsalya et al. cite data from five empirical studies conducted by other scholars (Gowsalya et al. 620). At the same time, all studies with evidence of the practical effectiveness of contextual advertising are selected with the necessary outcome for this study.
Evidence Analysis
The article is partially convincing. The authors cite numerous studies that confirm their accepted point of view, but do not address potential counterarguments. Thus, the article has several gaps related to the lack of consideration and refutation of alternative points of view. Scholars list the advantages of contextual advertising over other types of digital marketing. At the same time, they do not state the potential disadvantages of their proposed tool.
Although the writers lack significant practical experience, all three possess specific expertise gained from their academic training. They hold academic degrees and serve as professors in the marketing department at Alagappa University (Gowsalya et al. 618). They demonstrated adequate knowledge of the subject, allowing the writers’ claim and arguments to stand unchallenged. However, the arguments given regarding the advantages of contextual advertising are still lacking. This is because this tool is compared with other digital marketing instruments in the context of advantages, but the disadvantages are not considered.
The argument oversimplifies the problem of choosing the best digital marketing strategy by offering a single, correct solution for a fairly complex issue that requires an individual approach for each service or product. The argument does not depend on emotionally charged language. However, the authors use many evaluative adjectives that do not carry a semantic load but are intended solely to emphasize that they propose the best options.
The argument never suggests that ideas or policies are good or bad simply because they are associated with specific individuals or groups. The solution scholars provide is universal and does not explicitly relate to any particular group, but rather to the entire field of goods and services. Most article writers argue by comparing one digital marketing tool to another (Gowsalya et al. 619). The comparison could be called fair and reasonable; however, since the shortcomings of all tools except contextual advertising are acknowledged, it is not complete enough.
The argument partially suggests that contextual advertising is effective simply because everyone else believes in it and is doing it. As one of the arguments, scientists cite the frequency of using various digital marketing tools, in which, in their opinion, the best method is presented in the top place (Gowsalya et al. 619). As for the evidence presented, the authors support their assertions with relevant details, facts, and opinions. However, not all the evidence was considered; only evidence that favored the writers’ position was presented.
The bulk of the argument rests on evidence rather than assumptions. Still, the evidence does not truly warrant the general conclusions that writers have drawn, as they have not considered all the alternatives. They oversimplified the solution to the problem by offering an unambiguous answer, which led to the conclusion drawn from questionable generalizations. The scientists also reduced the mention of the disadvantages of the best digital marketing method they proposed.
The writers do not try to sweet-talk and flatter the reader; they use exclusively academic language. Scholars do not draw any conclusions beyond what their support warrants; throughout the article, they adhere to the argumentation of their thesis. No unstated assumptions, beliefs, and values underlie the argument. Gowsalya et al. do not assume that they and the audience share specific knowledge when, in fact, they are unaware of any contradictions.
The evidence presented by the authors does not contradict their argument. Scientists cite a sample of studies that fully confirm their position; they did not include research results that differ from the authors’ point of view. Writers do not use any terms that would suggest particular biases. However, the language of researchers, in which evaluative adjectives are frequently encountered, suggests that their opinions may be biased.
Work Cited
Gowsalya, Gamrutha, et al. “Opportunities and Prospects of Digital Marketing.” UGC Care Listed Journal, vol. 40, no. 12, 2020, pp. 615-621.