Extensive research has shown that the effects of short-term price promotions on sales are themselves Line short-term. Companies’ hopes that (5) promotions might have a positive aftereffect have not been borne out for reasons that researchers have been able to identify. A price promotion entices only a brand’s (10) long-term or “loyal” customers; people seldom buy an unfamiliar brand merely because the price is reduced. They simply avoid paying more than they have to when one of (15) their customary brands is temporar- ily available at a reduced price. A price promotion does not increase the number of long-term customers of a brand, as it attracts virtually (20) no new customers in the first place. Nor do price promotions have linger- ing aftereffects for a brand, even negative ones such as damage to a brand’s reputation or erosion of (25) customer loyalty, as is often feared. So why do companies spend so much on price promotions? Clearly price promotions are generally run at a loss, otherwise there would (30) be more of them. And the bigger the increase in sales at promotion prices, the bigger the loss. While short-term price promotions can have legitimate uses, such as (35) reducing excess inventory, it is the recognizable increase in sales that is their main attraction to manage- ment, which is therefore reluctant to abandon this strategy despite its effect on the bottom line. Q5: The passage suggests that evidence for price promotions’ “effect on the bottom line” (line 40) is provided by
- the lack of lingering aftereffects from price promotions
- the frequency with which price promotions occur
- price promotions’ inability to attract new customers
- price promotions’ recognizable effect on sales
- the legitimate uses to which management can put price promotions
Answer: B
考古了以前的贴子,还是不大明白。 既然 effect on the bottom line 是在盈亏问题上的影响。但是我们已经知道了这个price promotion 一定是亏的啊。只是对减少库存有帮助而已啦。 那这里evidence 不就是去说明哪些evidence 可以证明为什么亏吗? 请哪位NN帮忙看看。谢谢啦。 |