Brighter Cleaning Company Marketing Plan Free Essay Example, 2250 words

It is evidently clear from the discussion that after products and services have been developed, the final step before releasing to the market for the customers to buy is pricing. Favorable prices are known to be effectively competitive strategies for businesses, who are often striving to create and consolidate their market share. Myers explained that pricing can simply be described as the process by which businesses use in determining what they receive in exchange for the goods and services that they create. Some of the factors that determine the pricing process for the products manufactured include competition, company brand, manufacturing costs as well as the quality standards that have been followed in the manufacture of those goods and services. Pricing for a business goods is an essential component of the marketing mix, making part of the 4ps, with the others being the place, product, and promotion. Among these marketing mix elements, the price is the only one that generates in come, with the rest being centered on costs. However, it is important to realize that the other 4ps play a big role in reducing price elasticity, thus enabling price increases that drive the profits and revenues of the business to great heights. We will write a custom essay sample on Brighter Cleaning Company Marketing Plan or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page The process of effective distribution is managed by both direct and indirect means, where intermediaries play a crucial role. A business needs to ensure that it examines the costs involved in managing a successful distribution process such that if indirect means seem to be costly, then it can opt for direct means. Distribution plays a big role in the business because it helps to deliver the level of satisfaction, which is needed for the goods and services and services that are made by the business. The distribution process, when effectively managed enables producers to produce new goods when the other has been delivered to the consumers.

Comparing Mills Representative Government and Lockes...

Even though academic study has frequently engaged with the question as to what form of government is ideal and what should be the goal of the government , there cannot be one absolute answer to this question , not merely because there has been no consensus among the scholarly community but because these questions cannot be detached from the polities which will bear the implications of the answer. Hence , it is pertinent that they must be looked at in a particular context. Mill argues for a representative government where sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community while Locke advocates majoritarian rule where legislative is supreme, though he prescribes certain limitations on it, and is coupled with a powerful executive. At the†¦show more content†¦This , I believe will rob people of their right to decide for themselves what values they want to pursue and be in opposition with individual liberty, which Mill itself is a proponent . Hence, the government will work towards a predetermined goal but the way to go about it might result in promoting certain framework or ideologies which would result in the production of a homogenous people. Critics say that it gives the state unnecessary power and people must have a right to a democratic say in their government, even if their exercising of such rights leads to worse outcomes than might have been obtained. But it is often refuted that since the government will be truly representative, and people must have wisely chosen good representatives , all the policies that they advocate will be justified and supported. If we only talk public space this argument holds strong ground , but to improve the masses the government might have to step upon the private sphere of society which will inhibit individualism and might entice averse reactions. The state may even step outside its mandate and make give directions to other institutions like the education or healthcare systems which are privately administered , so that they follow a certain framework which the state thinks will better the people. The danger in this is that it might result in

The X Men Secretary A Dual Synthesis Of Real Historical...

My character, the X-Men Secretary, was a dual synthesis of real historical figures John Tyndall and Thomas Hirst. My character rose up from rather humble beginnings; he was raised a Catholic on a farm in Ireland, the sixth of eight surviving children, and attended public school (Driscoll, et al.). The Secretary tirelessly educated himself in the sciences during his time as a surveyor and mining engineer. When he finally decided to obtain a formal education, the English-Anglican doors of Cambridge and Oxford were closed to him because, though he had not practiced religion since his youth, he was an Irish Catholic on paper. As a result, he moved to Germany to complete a doctorate in physics in just under two years. The Secretary caught the attention of Sir Edward Sabine as a result of his research on magnetism - fictional work modeled after John Tyndall’s - and was recognized and helped to secure a position in the Royal Society. This session was my character’s â€Å"final year of a three year term as member of the Royal Society Council† with the position of secretary (Driscoll, et al.). This position gave my character â€Å"considerable power† as I worked with the A-Men Secretary and General Sabine to map out agendas for every game session, an ability which both the General and myself used to our advantage a number of times (Driscoll, et al.). We would set the agenda and ask if the others had any qualms with it, and several times we shifted speeches into more favorable time slots based

The United Kingdom Constitution

Question: Describe about the advantages of a written constitution far outweigh the disadvantages and the United Kingdom constitution should now be codified? Answer: At present there is no written constitution in the United Kingdom and in its place, there is a collection of laws and customs through which the political system of the country is governed. The UK and Israel are the only two democracies of the world where a written constitution is not present. The Constitution can be described as a set of rules to which the actions of the government are controlled in order to make sure that these actions are lawful. Therefore, it implies something that is much more significant than the idea of legality according to which, it is required that the official conduct should be according to prefixed rules. At the same time, it is also important that a constitution has the capacity to vary with the society. In the present assignment, the statement has been considered according to which the advantages of the written Constitution are much more than its disadvantages and therefore, it is time that the constitution of the UK should be codified. One major argument that needs to be considered in this regard is the fact that by enshrining the constitutional laws and customs in a document, clarity can be achieved for those who are working within the system and it will also be easier for the persons who want to scrutinise it. One more argument that is generally given in support of the need for having a written constitution is that of checks and balances. At present, it is considered that the judiciary is in a good Position regarding its ability to act as a check against the actions of the Parliament. Therefore it is argued that this power of the judiciary can be increased by a written constitution. It is believed by a large number of people that in case of party enjoys majority in the House of Commons; such political party is in a position to change the Constitution. An example in this regard can be given of the reforms introduced by former Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the House of Lords. As a result of the majority, he succeeded in completely changing half of the legislature without any referendum or other means through which consensus can be checked. In such a case, a written constitution would certainly have acted as a safeguard because it makes it difficult to change. For example, for this purpose, either 2/3 majority is required in both houses or such changes need to be passed by referendum. Another argument that is generally given in favor of written constitution is the protection from extremists. It is claimed that a written constitution may offer protection in case an extremist comes to power and wishes to disregard the democratic procedures. It is also claimed t hat without the written constitution, there is no Bill of Rights in the UK that can protect the citizens from the actions of an over powerful government. Although the Human Rights Act is present in this regard but it provides the protection because the judges can only give a ruling that the new legislations are noncompliant with the Act and at the same time, if it so wishes, the government can even ignore these rulings. At the same time, it is also easy to amend the Human Rights Act and for this purpose only a simple majority is required in both the Houses. On the other hand, this fact cannot be denied that the United Kingdom has been able to survive very well without a written Constitution. The public is not looking for a written Constitution because the conventions governing the political procedure are well understood by it. At the same time, there is another perspective from which this issue can be considered and it lies in the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Parliament. According to this doctrine, Parliament is considered as supreme and only the Parliament has the power to make or break the laws. However the Parliament cannot bind its successors or at the same time the Parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors. If the notion of a written constitution is adopted by the UK, this doctrine may become totally irrelevant and it may not be in a position to execute itself as it did in the past due to the reason that the judges rule upon the written constitutions. In the United Kingdom, the judges are unelected and as a result, it is undemocratic to take away the power from the elected representatives of the people and give the same to the judges who sometimes tend to be reactionary. Flexibility is one of the most prominent benefits provided by the present system. If the government has the political mandate, the Constitution can be reformed by the government for example, as was done in the case of the House of Lords. On the other hand, if a two third majority was required in both the Houses, it was possible that such a measure may not have been passed. At this point, it also needs to be noted that in countries like the US where a written constitution is present, it is almost impossible to change the Constitution. The question arises in this regard at how we can become sure of the fact that what is best for the country at present will also remain the best for the country for the coming years also. UK is a unitary state and the Parliament at Westminster is the only body that can legislate for the country and all the laws in the UK including the law related with the Constitution can be enacted, amended or repealed by the Queen in Parliament. No specific procedure ha s been prescribed for changing the law and even the most significant laws can be changed with the help of single majority. This means that the decision-making process has not been muted in any way as a result of the previous legislation. Apart from these obvious points, it is also a fact that having an unwritten constitution has caused concern in the United Kingdom as there is no single document that stands alone but this fact also makes the position unique in itself. The position has somehow managed to operate effectively and proved itself to be an enduring system of governance. Although concerns have been raised from time to time, the nature of unwritten Constitution has effectively ironed out these concerns and has been working quite efficiently. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is partly based on the Acts of Parliament and also on judicial decisions as well as on political practice and on the detailed procedures that have been established by different organs of government to perform their own tasks. In this way, the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom provides a comprehensive and complex system of governance which has worked well in the United Kingdom. It can also be argued in this regard that it is not necessary that by adopting a written constitution, the current flexibility may be lost altogether. However it is not possible for the written Constitution to contain all the detailed rules on which the government depends. At this way, a written constitution generally evolves a wide range of customary rules and practices that are usually easier to change that they changed the constitution itself and at the same time, the constant evolution of these rules and practices also reduce the requirement for fo rmal amendment in the written Constitution. But the same thing is already happening in the United Kingdom where the Constitution is evolving with time in order to fulfill the demands of the people. Therefore as mentioned above, each constitution varies with the society. United Kingdom has long established doctrines and principles that are embedded in the minds of the people. It has resulted in the creation of the present society and despite several obstacles (that are present in case of credit and as well as the unwritten constitution), it has succeeded in developing one of the finest legal systems of the world and at the same time an excellent system of governance. There are a lot of people who believe that the system of unwritten constitution is working well in the country. It has been created over a long time and it has also seen the country grow into its present form. The present system has been developed on the basis of not only the great events but also on the great minds of the region which have given it a distinct flavor of pride. There is nothing of its kind and certainly the system is functional. Therefore, why should we tried to fix something that is not broken. Bibliography Bruce Ackerman, 2007 , The Living Constitution, Harvard Law Review, 7, vol. 120, May Said Amir Arjomand (ed.), 2007, Constitutional and Political Reconstruction (Leiden: Brill) Hiranmay Bagchi, 1969, Inside Major Constitutions: An analytical, comparative, critical and selective treaties on five Constitutions American, British, Indian, Soviet and Swiss (Calcutta: World Press) Sir John Baker, 2009, Our Unwritten Constitution, Maccabaean Lecture in Jurisprudence, British Academy Tony Benn and Andrew Hood, 1993, Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain (London: Hutchinson) Tom Bingham, 2001, The Rule of Law (London: Allen Lane) Vernon Bogdanor, 1999, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Vernon Bogdanor, Stephen Hockman QC et al., 2010, Towards a Codified Constitution, Justice Vernon Bogdanor, Tarunabh Khaitan and Steven Vogenauer, 2007, Should Britain Have a Written Constitution?, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 78, Issue 4 Rodney Brazier, 2008, Constitutional Reform: Reshaping the British Political System (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Beau Breslin, 2009, From Words to Worlds: Exploring constitutional functionality (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press) Chris Bryant (ed.), 2007, Towards a new constitutional settlement (The Smith Institute) Russell Deacon and Alan Sandry, 2007, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)