The advantages of keeping the marketing research function of a firm internal are the capacity to generate actionable research results, shared information across a firm, research method consistency, and reduced research costs.
The advantage of getting an inner advertising and marketing research branch is rapid consequences. In preference to bringing 3rd party consultants up to the mark approximately a challenge and then looking ahead to the outcomes, an organization has in-house experts to which it may flip for insights or facts. Internal studies can encompass looking at: identifying new customers. Identifying and comparing new markets. upgrading your product/layout. Assessing the effect of a brand new product or service on the commercial enterprise.
Some of the advantages of market research are
- Hold a client-Centric technique.
- Hook up with Your audience greater correctly.
- Identify opportunities for increase.
- Reduce risks through testing ideas.
- Make extra informed selections.
Marketing research blend purchaser behavior and monetary trends to affirm and enhance your enterprise concept. it's essential to understand your consumer base from the outset. Market studies help you to lessen dangers even at the same time as your commercial enterprise is still only a gleam for your eye.
Learn more about Marketing here brainly.com/question/25369230
#SPJ4
Answer:
The concept illustrated is prejudice.
Explanation:
Prejudice refers to a negative opinion of an individual or collective, without real previous knowledge and usually bordering on racism. It is often based on previous customs and traditions about a certain group.
These opinions generally generate a hostile attitude towards the individual or collective and they are usually based on stereotypes.
One of the main concepts presented throughout the film is the stereotype of each character who <em>belongs to a certain group</em>. As Brian's essay states at the beginning of the film, we have a <em>jock, a princess, a criminal, a basket case and a nerd. </em>
Since these students don't interact with people outside of their circle, their <em>idea of each other is based on </em><em>stereotypes</em> and thus develops into prejudice against them.
Andrew thinks Bender is beneath him, implying that "he doesn't even count" and if he disappeared it wouldn't make a difference since he is a criminal. He is being prejudicial against Bender.
<span>The eyewitness is guided to visualize the scene of the crime. This allows the person to go back to where everything took place and more accurately envision the events. By doing so, the eyewitness can recreate the scene with the most detail possible and can give testimony that would be more likely to be believed or accepted.</span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Argue a case for appointing judges and then argue a case for having them elected.
In the case of appointing judges, many experts agree on the idea that appointed is better because judges have to be neutral. They serve the Constitution, they do not serve any political party or particular interests.
Once appointed, the judges are going to ratify, so it is supposed that their integrity is double-checked.
In other cases, some arguments favor the election of judges, stating that people should be trusted to elect judges. Through this election, judges will be driven to serve the people who put their trust in them to impart justice.
If they are elected, some voices agree that judges should be elected for a determined period, so people could evaluate if they did a good during their tenure.
However, in both cases, some advantages and disadvantages have to be resolved by law experts and politicians in their respective states.
In England, the king appointed judges and could remove them at will, so judges had strong incentives to issue rulings that pleased the king to keep their jobs.
The Framers of the Constitution instead wanted an independent judiciary able to act as a buffer against an oppressive legislature or executive. As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 78, the Framers granted federal judges life tenure to protect them from undue political influence: “In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”
Life tenure is intended to allow judges to issue rulings that go against the majority or ruling elite without fear of retribution. And these protections are necessary: Federal judges routinely rule on the most important and controversial issues of the day and consider whether state and federal laws are constitutional, raising claims of “countermajoritarian” behavior by scholars and politicians alike.
Public criticism of judicial decisions is also nothing new: Newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson vehemently derided the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, perhaps the most consequential Supreme Court decision, which ultimately established the power of judicial review, or the ability of courts to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Jefferson even tried to block the court from ruling on the case by canceling the court’s June 1802 term.
President Barack Obama famously criticized the justices of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Citizens United v. FEC while they sat silently at the 2010 State of the Union.
<em>Hope it helps </em>
.... Pls mark brainliest
