In his criticism, O’Toole points out a flaw in the U.S. Forest Service’s plan of attack. The incentives they are offering do no attain to everyone. When looking at it this way it is a good thing. It is showing the public that people are driven by different things. Which, in most cases is a given. This allows the U.S. Forest Service to take a look at what they are offering and what at scale. Thus allowing …show more content…
The reason being, if the U.S. Forest Service was in need of help/funding/people to rally, they can find an incentive that a majority of people will most likely benefit from. And with how often business works, there is the possibility of the U.S. Forest Service being manipulative and doing their incentives for the wrong reasons.
Another example is O’Toole pointing out the U.S. Forest Services marketing flaws. Telling them that yes you can continue to sell this product for under its original price; but in the end, it is going to come to bite you. For example, if they keep cutting down the trees and selling the product for less than what it is worth, consumers are going to think that it is not a valuable product and they can have as much as they want.
Which yes, we can plant more trees, but they take years to grow. But when looking at this to the point of cutting them down and using them for our personal consumer benefit it would take too long. This results in a downfall because it leads to discounting the resource of its value. Now if the U.S. Forest decides to bring the prices to their actual value more people will see the vaule of the product. As long as the U.S. Forest Service does not get greedy and make the prices unreasonable, this critique from O’Toole is a good