The theoretical models in the Next document aids in creating discussion foundation on the required topics. Theories are crucial in modeling ideas and give room for discussing the idea. It is through this discussion that the writer can tackle the requirements of the paper. Through the theories, the group was able to formulate points and argue out explanation. However, after going through the Rayanair’s document. It is clear that the Next document failed to effectively use the applied theoretical models.

It takes ages for a reader to realize the focus of the next document. The writer took a lo0t of time than is necessary to introduce the focus of the document that is the company. Failure to do this makes the document rather long than is necessary since the reader wants to jump into the next page so they can get a glimpse of what the paper is all about. Human beings are not patient in nature. That is why it is important to include a hook or hint the main purpose or focus early enough so as not to lose audience.

The first question requires the student to write about a certain company. It is, therefore, expected that the name of the Company and the feature to be discussed to appear at least in the first page. Instead of introducing the company, the group opted to lay out an executive summary. That was a rich though, but its essence got lost upon being misplaced. Instead of having the intended significance, the summary is counterproductive.

On the other hand, the Ryanair document does not waste a lot of time but introduces the name of the company in the second paragraph, and that is one of the strengths in their report. The reader can have a glimpse of what they are reading about, and this triggers their curiosity to more of the company’s For instance, when the author of the Ryanair document points out that the balance between being a low cost airline and maintaining a positive image is a challenge make the reader want to read more and know how Ryanair has managed to maintain that balance or whether the balance has challenged them also. It is after this introduction that the Ryanair documents lay its summary. Through this strategy, the reader is likely to understand better the summary and even relate to some of the concepts included because they already have a clue of what the document is all about.

Another weakness that led to loss of flow in the Next document is the introduction of objectives between the market overview. The objectives are wrongly placed, and they interrupt the flow of content in the overview subtopic. As a result, the overview looks like two differing topics instead of the intended one. In addition, the misplacement of the objectives makes the whole work look disorganized. Disorganized work is usually a put off to a marker of any audience for that matter. Therefore, there is a great possibility that the group lost some market due to this. The objectives would have instead been incorporated within the Paper as discussion points. That is how the Raynair paper group did it, and it has worked well for them.

According to the original instructions, groups were supposed to discuss financial positions of the brands that they had chosen after the introduction. The Rynair document obeys these instructions as it discusses the financial issues in the pestle analysis subtopics. The document not only uses figures and tables to elaborate the financial standings of the brands but also uses discussions that enhance understanding levels of the reader. Due this simplified framework of events, it was very easy for the marker to connect with the writer and therefore marketing was more favorable.

On the other hand, the Next document does not follow instructions keenly. They do not embark on discussing financial matters of their chose brands but instead they have presented the information in graphs that are not accompanied by explanation. Due to this is becoming hard to efficiently understand the content for the graph and its relation to the issue at hand. Provision of explanatory notes for the graph would have come in handy, as they would have enabled in creating points of reference in case clarity is needed.

The Next document is also very brief on its subtopic on the second question. The brevity limits the amount of information provided also, reduces on the scope of the information. A marker or anybody else going through this document is likely to conclude that the writer lacked enough material for the topics. It would be an indication that they were either not attentive in the assignment, were not attentive in their lectures and also, that they were reluctant to conduct research on the allocated topic. Failure to take assignment seriously accounts for some punishment and in this case, dedication of marks.

The Rynair document is much aware on the significance of exhausting details in subtopics. That is why a read through their subtopic feels like dipping in a source of knowledge. The group members or the authors had evidently done adequate research and, therefore, was more confident I handling the paper. That is why they chose to use words that are more appreciated instead of graphs. However, it should not be taken, as use of graphs in the report was very inappropriate. The issue was more in the fact they were not associated by explanatory notes.

The inclusion of bullets in the second question also acts in reducing the NEXT documents credit. Bullets and numbers are usually used in point taking and not discussions. Sharing information in more of a discussion form would have aided a lot in achieving the formality of a report that is expected. The other document seemed to understand this, that is why they chose to go the discussion way, and it works well for them.

The subheading titled Weakness and Threats in the Next paper is very vague. It is as the students just wrote the subheading for the sake of visual assurance rather than for the purpose of adhering to the instructions of the paper. There are no weakness outlined and threat as well. Instead, the group opted to write on some charitable events that the company plans to be involved in. The other document, however, the author took their time to outline some weakness and threats. Some of the weakness outlined is the cheap fares charged by Ryainai airlines. The author goes ahead to explain how the cheap fare poses as a weakness and threat to the company. In order for the company to achieve cheap fares, they are forced to cut down on other expenses and consequently, leading low services. With low services, customers are likely to desert the organization leading to losses and possible closure ( Barker, 2014, p. 11).  The author ensured that all the points were exhausted before going to other.

In addition, the author for the Raynair’s documents ensured that points were separated in paragraphs for easier reading and incorporation of the content in the paper. The separation of points also reduces chances of overlapping ideas. If the Next document had done the same, the same, their work would be more appealing and probably, they would have noted their failure to exhaust points and correct the mistake in good time.

The Next document would have also been better if there were numbering of subheadings. As witnessed in the reading experience in the Raynair’s document numbering makes the work look and feel more organized. The same organization is transferred in the way the mind of the reader organizes the [points. Organized work sticks in the memory longer than work that is not. Therefore, it is not easy for the reader to forget a point read from an organized work. On the other hand, it is very easy for the reader to forget or miss the point in the Next document, which does not appear organized. There are, therefore, higher chances for a marker to reward such a paper with fewer marks than deserved since they night miss some points.

In the both documents, the authors have used tables to illustrate and to aid in lay down points. However, the tables in the Next paper contain information that is too brief for comprehension and hence, fail exhaust all there is to explore about the point outlined. On the other hand, the Raynair’s documents make good use the tables. The writer ensured that the points were not explanatory enough.

The difference between the two is small but it has far-reaching repercussions. One of these repercussions is the fact that a reader is not able to understand fully the information that they are supposed to garner in the Next document. In addition, the brief points allows for personal application of conclusion by readers. With this, misinterpretation is very likely. Therefore, the Next document lost some mark due to the brevity of the points. They should have at least escorted the points with a simple sentence with more instructions.

The layout of the tables used in the Next document do not strike as profession or serious. Due to this, a reader is likely to look down upon the information contained. Looking down the information cause prejudgment that the information is not viable which is not necessarily the case. To be able to acquire the confidence of readers and the marker as well, the group should ensure that the presentation of the information sells the content as viable. Presentation of a document involves the format of the appendixes used as well as the flow of points. A look at the Raynair’s document, an individual superficially concludes that the write of the document is enlightened on what they write and this gains their confidence.

The Next document failed to have continuation of ideas. The information in the document feels scanty. The points do not follow a chronological order that arranges the information in a flowing manner for the human mind to grasp the message without much strain. Reading the Raynair document, the marker was able to connect the presented ideas. The flow of he ideas also make the reading more interesting People love reading something that is intriguing. A reader is likely to be incited by the flowing chronology to award more marks and rate the paper highly. The Next paper lacked this and it weighed heavily on the marks awarded.

The content of words used in the document used was very rich. Evidently, the writer was familiar to the subject that they were writing. However, being familiar is not enough for a scholar or a researcher to be able to provide quality an informative work. It requires dedication of time in research on more information about the topic as well as the appropriate writing and structuring format.  The Raynair paper, defeats the Next document on the last two issues. While the writer of the Raynair document researched more on the topic and on the most suitable structure, that of the Next document did not. Instead, they just superficially stated points without exploring them. In addition, they failed in the general structure of the document. The failing in the structure can also be attributed to the possibility of not following instructions properly.

Another notable weakness in the Next document is that the students did not answer the questions asked in a consequent manner. Because of this, it is difficult to connect concepts. The Ryanair document has tried a lot to follow and answer questions subsequently. It is for this reason that is easy to connect and link information from one paragraph to the next. The framework used in the Rayanair document is very attractive, and it marked, as the paper seems more credible than the Next document.

References

Barker, A. (2014, March 20). Marketing and Brand Strategy. Retrieved June 19, 2014

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?