Which one of the following is not an attractive way to reduce the design, assembly, marketing, and other costs per action$-$capture camera sold in an effort to achieve a sizable low$-$cost competitive advantage over rivals?

Spending aggressively $($but also taking care not to overspend$)$ on camera product R&D

Striving to keeping marketing costs per action camera sold in all $4$ geographic regions to levels that are several dollars below the industry$-$average benchmark $($as reported on p$.6$ of the Camera & Drone Journal$)$

Pursuing actions to keep the company's warranty period in each region below the all$-$company average and, more ideally, close to the industry$-$low benchmark $($as reported on p$.6$ of the Camera & Drone Journal$)$

Trying different combinations of components, product enhancements, and extra performance features to be used in action cameras in order to discover the lowest cost combination for achieving a competitively appealing P$/$Q rating

Paying PAT members an attractive assembly quality incentive to help reduce warranty claims on cameras sold and also boost PAT productivity