A firm has no need to advertise if it has monopoly power over the product. Discuss.

"I'll be frank - while your economic knowledge is sound and evidently well read (I'll address this later), you don't exactly answer the question for most of this essay. You've dragged it out so much when it really isn't called for! In fact, I'm pretty sure you could condense this into under 1,000 words, if even that. You don't really answer the question directly until the last paragraph, which is madness! You have the right idea about explaining what a monopoly is and how it operates - however, I would have liked to seen some knowledge of what a legal monopoly is, i.e., what constitutes a monopoly in the real World, rather than just theory. But you simply talk for too long about that and go into fairly minor points when you should be concentrating on the question. A nice touch is contrasting a monopoly with perfect competition, but the end result is lacking finesse or relevance. There's really no need for that comparison in the manner you've handled it, and it doesn't add anything to your argument. You also, somehow, have managed to rattle on and on and on, yet fail to actually do as the question asks and 'DISCUSS'. There are no two sides to the argument, you haven't considered why a monopolist may want to advertise, and so your conclusion lacks conviction. Finally, I like the attempt at referencing, but you haven't done it correctly. It would be for the best if you just drop the in-article references and just provide the bibliography at the end. Evidently a lot of effort went into this, and it's just a question of focusing that effort more effectively. TSR User: chidona"