Who switches first, what leaving costs them, and how the incumbent answers: a classmate's adoption claim meets those three questions in this sixth-week DDBA 8161 critique. Searches like "ddba 8161 week 6 assignment example", "ddba8161 week 6 sample" and "ddba 8161 week 6 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8161 Week 6 peer critique looks like
Some three hundred and fifty words, addressed to one classmate, open on the contested sentence quoted exactly. The second paragraph grants the price difference and the startup's cleaner interface. The third sorts employers by what switching would cost them, using the typology Burnham, Frels and Mahajan developed, procedural, financial and relational costs, and argues that the first movers would be firms with a handful of employees and no benefits integration, which are also the accounts the incumbent earns least from. The fourth turns to the incumbent, citing Klemperer's analysis of switching-cost markets, where firms compete hard for new buyers and then price against locked-in ones, to predict a targeted retention offer rather than a cut in list prices. A closing question asks for evidence the classmate could find.
How a DDBA 8161 Week 6 example is structured
Quoting the disputed sentence first keeps the critique attached to a claim rather than to the classmate. The concession follows so the disagreement is visibly about adoption, not about whether the startup is better. The sorting paragraph carries the analysis. Each switching-cost type is applied to employer size, and the result is an order of adoption the classmate's post never gave: tiny firms first, firms with integrated benefits last. The incumbent paragraph converts that order into a prediction about the rival's response, which the course treats as the missing half of any adoption claim. The closing question is chosen to be answerable, asking whether published data show retention offers in payroll software, so the classmate can reply with evidence. A reference line follows, and the critique stays inside the word count most sections set.
The sentence under dispute
The critique quotes the classmate's prediction that small employers will leave the incumbent within two years. The rest of the critique answers to that one sentence, so the reply cannot drift into a general discussion of payroll software.
What is granted
Lower price and a simpler interface are real advantages at the point of sale, and the critique says so. The concession narrows the dispute to who moves, when, and what happens next.
An order of adoption
Procedural, financial and relational switching costs rise with headcount and benefits integration. Applying the typology produces a sequence: sole proprietors and very small firms first, employers with retirement plans tied to payroll last or never.
The incumbent's morning
Switching-cost markets reward firms that defend installed customers selectively. The critique predicts retention pricing aimed at the exposed accounts, leaving list prices untouched, and cites Klemperer for why that response costs the incumbent little.
A question with an answer
The closing question asks whether any published pricing data show payroll providers offering retention discounts. That gives the classmate a search to run and a way to strengthen the original claim.
Where marks go in DDBA 8161 Week 6
Critiques in this week are scored on whether the classmate would need to revise the post. Quoting the claim, conceding the price gap and then showing an adoption order the post missed earns the analysis share, because the order is new information. A critique that disputes the startup's quality misses the question and scores as disagreement. The incumbent paragraph separates strong critiques from adequate ones: predicting the rival's response, with a source for why that response is rational, is the course's central move applied to a peer. Sources are expected and weighed by fit, so a general diffusion citation earns less than a switching-cost study. Tone is graded implicitly, and disagreement pinned to a claim reads as scholarship where disagreement pinned to a person does not.
Get a DDBA 8161 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Paste in the classmate post you are critiquing, if your section allows sharing it, together with the Week 6 rules and rubric, and a critique ready to post arrives in 24-48h at no cost the first time. Mention the word limit and whether a follow-up reply is required.
DDBA 8161 Week 6 questions, answered
Should the critique soften its disagreement?
No, but it should aim precisely. The example disputes one sentence, grants what the classmate got right, and adds a source the post lacked, so the disagreement lands on evidence rather than on the classmate. Instructors credit that precision more than politeness, since a pointed gap sends the classmate off to find a study instead of drafting a rebuttal.
Do I need to cite adoption theory?
Only if it does work in the critique. The example cites switching-cost research because the classmate's claim depended on customers moving, and moving has a cost. A diffusion framework could support a different critique, for example of who would hear about the startup first, but citing one without applying it adds length and nothing else.
Can a peer critique end up agreeing?
It can, provided the agreement arrives with something new. A published account of small employers changing payroll providers would support the classmate's prediction, and adding it strengthens the thread. The critique would still predict the incumbent's reply, because a sound forecast about who switches leaves open whether the startup can hold the accounts it wins.