So the second article I looked at was from the London Development Agency looking into London’s Retail Street Markets. Even though it is specific towards London, I still felt that it would still have some value.
Now this article was completely different from the first one I read which was more of a persuasion review; this was more of a in-depth review looking at every single point in a business way. There was no opinion at all, which was quite good as it avoids any type of bias at all.
So the beginning of the article starts off by looking at a variety of the points that the market has/brings to the area. For example, at the end of everything it gives a review of all the points made, saying “clear evidence in the wider research of the contribution that markets can make to a range of economic and social policy goals.”
It then went on to talk about the different types of markets that were in the area, which was interesting as I was able to decide what Coventry Market is; a covered market.
This article reminded me of the scholarly article we looked at a while ago; the style of writing is very similar. There isn’t as much academic writing, but rather it is point after point made, making it really not that interesting to read. It seemed like figures were the main importance for the writers, as every other point seemed to be chucking a figure into my face. With so many, it is impossible to remember everything.
In a plain yet simple truth, this article was not interesting at all, and was of no value at all. I can’t see why it was made in the first place, as it just seems to be describing what the markets are and how many customers they are getting.
Perhaps this would be a good article if someone was perhaps interested in investing into one of the markets, but it is quite boring. This is the type of thing I would avoid trying to do for my presentation, as it would make the viewers lose interest pretty quickly.