| Course | PUBH 8132 Communication and Social Marketing Strategies for Public Health Leaders |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Peer critique reply |
| Length | About 530 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 8132 Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Peer Critique of Offers
Which Neighbors Did the Offer Leave Behind, and Was That Decided? A Peer Critique of Two Classmates' Social Marketing Offers, a Discounted Helmet for Adult Bike Commuters and an App Reminder for Renters Storing Emergency Water
Reply to Lena
Lena, your offer for adult bike commuters, a 40% discount on a helmet at two downtown bike shops with a free fitting, is concrete and well designed. The fitting is a smart augmented product: an ill-fitting helmet is a common reason people stop wearing one. I want to ask one question: which commuters does the offer slip past, and did you decide that?
The two shops are downtown and close at 6 p.m. Commuters who ride because they cannot afford a car, often working early or late shifts in service jobs, may never pass those shops during opening hours. A 40% discount on a $60 helmet still leaves $36, which may be more than they will spend. So the offer fits commuters who already shop at bike stores and have flexible schedules. That may be a reasonable choice if your segment is downtown office workers, but your segmentation memo described "adult commuters" broadly. Lee and Kotler (2019) argue that a strategy should be designed for a chosen segment; if the segment is office workers, say so, and if it is lower-income riders, the place and price need to change, perhaps a free helmet at a transit hub or a workplace.
Reply to Gabriel
Gabriel, your app reminder for renters to store a three-day supply of water, with a push notification every six months to rotate it, is a clever way to address the maintenance problem that undoes most emergency kits. My question is the same: whom does it slip past? Renters without smartphones, older renters who don't install apps and renters who move often and delete apps when they change addresses may never receive the reminder. And the offer assumes renters have space to store several gallons of water, which tenants in small units may not.
Again, this may be fine if your segment is young renters in larger apartments. But if your aim is the renters most at risk in an emergency, the offer may miss them. An offer that reaches only the easiest audiences can widen gaps unless the exclusion is deliberate and paired with other efforts, which is one reason reviews of public health social marketing stress choosing and stating segments explicitly (Grier & Bryant, 2005).
Turning the Question on My Own Offer
My garage brooding offer for first-time chick buyers slips past families without a garage or shed, mostly renters and families in townhouses. I decided that for now, since the kit assumes an outbuilding, but I had not said so. Children under five carry a large share of the Salmonella illness tied to live poultry in national outbreak records (Basler et al., 2016), and children in families without outbuildings are not less at risk. I'll add a statement of who the offer does not fit and a referral: advice to wait to buy chicks until outdoor space is ready.
Lena and Gabriel, did you choose your segments with these exclusions in mind?
References
Basler, C., Nguyen, T.-A., Anderson, T. C., Hancock, T., & Behravesh, C. B. (2016). Outbreaks of human Salmonella infections associated with live poultry, United States, 1990-2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 22(10), 1705-1711. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2210.150765
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144610
Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2019). Social marketing: Behavior change for social good (6th ed.). Sage.
What the PUBH 8132 Week 9 instructions ask for
Week 9 critiques have students judge classmates' strategies against the principles studied, often focusing on whether the offer, price and place fit the chosen segment. Prompts usually require identifying strengths, a specific concern with evidence or reasoning, and a suggestion, sometimes for two classmates, with reflection on the student's own work. Instructors reward critiques that ask whether exclusions were intentional, connect them to segmentation, propose changes that fit the classmate's resources and model the same scrutiny of the critic's own strategy. Generic praise or criticism without reference to social marketing principles earns little. Replies are often expected to address both classmates' offers using the same test.
Inside the PUBH 8132 Week 9 example
The reply to the first classmate credits the fitting as an augmented product, then identifies who the offer misses and links the issue to segmentation, suggesting place and price changes if lower-income riders are the target. The reply to the second classmate follows the same pattern for an app reminder. A section turns the question on the critic's own offer and adds a referral for families without outdoor space. The reply ends by asking both classmates whether their exclusions were chosen. Each classmate receives the same question, which makes the critique consistent and fair. The author's own exclusion is named and fixed in the same reply. The reply closes with one question for both classmates.
PUBH 8132 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders assess whether critiques are specific, grounded in social marketing principles and constructive. Identifying who an offer excludes, and connecting that to segmentation, earns significant credit. Suggestions should be realistic. Turning the critique on your own offer signals even-handedness. Courtesy, clarity and correct citations are expected. Critiques that address only message wording usually earn less. Critiques that suggest a realistic alternative, such as distributing helmets at transit hubs or workplaces, are more useful than critiques that only point out gaps. Graders also value replies that ask classmates whether their exclusions were chosen rather than assuming they were mistakes. Admitting a similar gap in one's own strategy builds credibility.
PUBH 8132 Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often critique a classmate's message rather than the offer. Ask who can actually accept the offer, given its price, place and timing, and who cannot. Check whether the classmate's segment explains the gap. Suggest a fix that fits their budget. Test your own offer the same way. If you would like critiques written for your classmates' posts, share the posts and the assignment. Picture the person your classmate most wants to reach and walk through the offer as that person. Note where they would drop out. Suggest one change, not five. End with a question. Thank each classmate for a specific idea you would borrow. A brief reply gives the classmate time to revise before the week closes.
Get a PUBH 8132 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Drop the critique prompt, the rubric and the anonymized strategies into the request, and replies are drafted that press those specific offers. There is nothing to pay the first time; replies arrive in 24 to 48 hours. Both strategies critiqued are made-up examples, and nothing from an actual thread appears.
More PUBH 8132 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PUBH 8132 Week 1: Discussion Post
- PUBH 8132 Week 2: Segmentation Memo
- PUBH 8132 Week 3: Competition Scan
- PUBH 8132 Week 4: Exchange Analysis
- PUBH 8132 Week 5: Offer Design
- PUBH 8132 Week 6: Cost Memo
- PUBH 8132 Week 7: Placement Plan
- PUBH 8132 Week 8: Creative Brief
- PUBH 8132 Week 10: Ethics Memo
- PUBH 8132 Week 11: Strategy Document
- PUBH 8211 Week 9: Ethics and Access Note
- PUBH 8048 Week 9: Analysis Plan
- PUBH 8410 Week 9: Peer Critique
- PUBH 8033 Week 9: Table and Figure Audit
PUBH 8132 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 8132 Week 9 sample paper?
The Week 9 critique is shown above, asking two classmates whom their offers leave behind.
Who might a downtown helmet discount miss?
Shift workers who ride because they cannot afford a car and cannot reach shops before closing.
Who might an app reminder for stored water miss?
Renters without smartphones, older renters who avoid apps and tenants without storage space.
Whom did the author's own offer exclude?
Families without a garage or shed, mostly renters, who were given no alternative until the critique.
Is excluding some people always wrong?
No, but the exclusion should be deliberate, stated and paired with other help where possible.