[越毒] 拾壹月贰拾舞日起越毒整理 （12.17 58骗 4：28）

Rebeca

我觉得密码的话LZ不要写成英文的paasword啊，这样跟没设密码不是一样了...希望LZ参考下我的建议啊

Rebeca

我觉得密码的话LZ不要写成英文的paasword啊，这样跟没设密码不是一样了...希望LZ参考下我的建议啊

Rebeca

我觉得密码的话LZ不要写成英文的paasword啊，这样跟没设密码不是一样了...希望LZ参考下我的建议啊

didosun72

1.1.21manufacturer和retailer那篇的古文

V1还有篇阅读是说什么制造商战略的，说商店的促销战略好像会对制造商不利吧，然后说制造商自己出招干嘛干嘛；说是因为制造商好像了解顾客的想法这类似的东西吧；
V2(v28) 2.  Trade promotion
（1）manufacture做广告的目的是什么? 我选的是提醒customer有降价活动
（2）作者同意以下哪个观点？ 我选的是customer总是认为降价活动和零售商的关系要大于和manufacture的关系
（3）那家尿布(diaper) 生产商又转回了原来的促销方式说明了什么？我选diaper生厂商意识到行业内如果有很多竞争者都采用降价的活动的话自己其实是不盈利的（选A）
考古（未确认）
越来越多的生产商开始抱怨渠道促销(trade promotion).生产商应零售商要求提供低价促销产品,但零售商往往利用两边信息不对称赚取利润.消费者虽然知道大致哪些产品在促销,但不是很清楚 具体的开始和结束日期.部分生产商开始采取天天低价(everyday low price)的措施,但至少有一家尿布(diaper) 生产商又转回了原来的促销方式.(后面有一道题是考这句话).还有些生产商转而自己做广告,告诉消费者什么时段有促销.manufacturer发现他们打折处理货物时retailer并没有打折销售,于是manufacturer自己打出一个活动,活动叫什么忘了….原谅我吧(这里有个题,问举行这个活动是为了?选manufacturer为了让消费者知道有打折).


V(by天山怪路子 V38)第三篇长,有关供应链,制造商和零售商之间微妙的关系.大致就是讲制造商有时候对于零售商的opportunism举动无可奈何.制造商有时候为了促销会做 discount promotion,但是零售商抱着机会主义的想法,由于信息不对称(有考题),他们以折扣价进货按原价售卖,扩大利润.这样就让零售商的营销策略的效果 打了折扣.中间的内容记不太清了,好像是分析了inventory,比较零售商和制造商他们在不同商品有不同库存的情况下通常会怎么做,提及 inventory surplus.后来最后一段介绍零售商为了制止零售商opportunism,他们有时候也会自己打广告,让顾客知道.(有考题问当顾客了解制造商打的 广告之后他们probably会如何如何)


O长,1.3屏左右,
第一段,生产商如果库存过大,生产商的库存成本就会增大,但销售商如果库存过大,那销售商的销售压力也会很大,并且一旦卖不出去,销售商也会面临损失.但为了让销售商多压货over-stock,现在通行的做法有两个:markdown和return一个是卖不出去的可以退还(return)给生产商,另一个是当卖不出去后,生产商把后续的货多打折,这样用多打折而少收销售商的钱来补偿销售商在前一批货中没卖出去的损失(markdown)(关于markdown我不确定一定是这个意思,另一种意思是事前多打折给折扣折价销售,我没仔细去研究,但以我工作中的经验,我倾向我现在的理解).由于有这两种方法,打消了销售商对压货的抵触,改善了生产商和销售商之间由于压货而导致的Channel关系.最后,本段介绍了这两种策略是要基于两种假设(assumption)的.
第二段:return策略广为使用,学者们常常强调return这种策略的好处,并推荐使用return.但return的有效性是基于两个假设:一个是return不会造成额外某些方面的成本;会产生货物的运输,并且在运输过程中还会出现破损,丢失等现象,这些全都是生产商要考虑的成本. 另一个大家读到这一定要好好注意 第一题考的是这两个最后亮黄字的推论题. Return策略的使用有一个重大需要考虑的的问题,那就是return举例说如果是时装厂商,那么他的运输,破损等方面的损失才几十刀,这对他来说是很少的成本,完全可以忽略.但是有个人站出来,对return 策略之所以成立的两个assumption 进行分析,批驳assumption的合理性.讲了上末的一个假设不成立,所以一种不好.第一个假设不成立,事实上return会造成各个方面的额外成本.然后又根据第一段末说的假设应用到return 策略上进行分析(好象没有出题点,我也就没仔细看).
第三段:超长,针对第二个假设.好像讲了它的一个优点好像讲了其中一个得优点.(有题:给了四个具体事例,问哪一个具体的例子符合这段的说法)说这些销售商多压了这么多货,那它怎么卖呢,好象只能用打折的方法向它现有的客户多卖,但估计还是会有剩,于是生产商最终还是不得不在事后的订货中用折扣的方法补偿销售商多进了但卖不出去的货的价钱,那么对于生产商来说,他是有经济利益损失的,所以这种方法不应该被广泛使用.而对于return的情况,那些return回来的货就算没有破损,对生产商来说很可能也已经没什么用了,比如前文说到的那个时装厂商,那些时装可能已经不时髦了,就算想便宜点儿卖出去也没人买了.? :
Q1:文中第二段举例说时装厂商想说明什么.我选举例说明return时是会有成本的 :
Q2生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略会有什么后果.我选影响生产商的利润 :
Q3生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略有什么好处,我选让销售商对压货没有太多顾虑
Q4 问和Markdown有关,我看文章的时候没注意到这个点,也不想再花时间回原文去找,随便选了一个.但个人感觉应该是在介绍那两种假设的部分去定位(仅供参考).? 好像讲了其中一个得优点.(有题:给了四个具体事例,问哪一个具体的例子符合这段的说法)
Q5我补充第三段的问题,题目问下列哪个例子符合生产商可购回存货再利用的原则,有个选项说某衣服含有很贵的fiber可以拿来再利用的

9. 另外是一个前人提到的问题,生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略有什麽好处,有混淆选项A是让零售商更愿意存货B是让零售商愿意存足够数量的货,我回第一段定位,发现零售商不是不存,只是都存不够,所以选了B,各位到时可以再自行判断

考题:
部分生产商开始采取天天低价(everyday low price)的措施,但至少有一家尿布(diaper) 生产商又转回了原来的促销方式.(后面有一道题是考这句话)
问举行这个活动是为了?选manufacturer为了让消费者知道有打折
制造商有时候为了促销会做 discount promotion,但是零售商抱着机会主义的想法,由于信息不对称(有考题)
有考题问当顾客了解制造商打的广告之后他们probably会如何如何)他们有时候也会自己打广告,让顾客知道
考古加背景
32.制造商策略 -----这篇的考古V3有问题，V1和V2都是是对的，V3是另一个版本（overstock)
附上overstock考古：

V1byDoraZhao

manufacturer跟retailers对overstock的现象的解决方案。一个是return policy，一个是discount。说虽然这两种方式都能减缓retailers有overstock时的net cost，但是公认的第一种比较好，因为...但是第一种的成立建立在两种assumption上。然后分别两段讲这两个assumption的优劣。（超长，一屏半，最后一段的第二个assumption整段highlight问作用）

V2byjill88630（680 V35）

还有一篇是讲retailer 没卖完的货退给manufacturer。Return policy 和markdown money.

第一段介绍这两个概念，但说学者的传统的Return policy定义是基于两个assumption的：1.retailer没卖出去的products退回时没有costs（比如运费吧） 2. Manufacturer处理这些退货和retailer处理这些积压货是equal效力的。然后一段说assumption1 questionable. 在一段着重讨论assumption2. 大意就是M，R两方处理都各有利弊。全文大意是question traditional的理论.

V3by xiaotuchen(730)

最后一段长且貌似没有在考友们提供的原文里.最后一段主要说manufacturer 可以benefit from return policy and how to. 有一题把最后一段highlight直接问最后一段的大意。
V4byyuzheng（710 V35）

印象最深的一题就是把最后一段第二个assumption整篇highlight, 问这一段大至内容和作用什么之类的。我选了E，但是是什么我记不清了。但是感觉对。选项有提到markdown 和return的比较，让我很纠结，想了很久。其他题目没什么印象了，不好意思。不过原文就是JJ里用红色highlight出来的，那就是原文，大家可以好好看看。特别是最后一段
V5by mostovoi(710)

overstock那篇基本就是原文，原文为其的精简版，把jj看明白了原文就没问题了。题目有点忘了，但是要重点把握两种方法的优缺点，强烈建议把最后一段给看明白（我看得还不算太明白），我遇到两题是考最后一段的，一个细节题和一个整段全划线，所以请大家把这段好好分析分析。


考古by XYXB[目前考完的同学反馈遇到的内容与考古一致]

注：曾经传闻这个话题存在2个版本，长文章出现在高分库，短文章出现在低分库，文章侧重点不同。目前是根据原作者提供的关于assumption的描述找到的考古版本，所以大家使用时务必谨慎。

V1

第一段：生产商（manufacturer）如果库存过大，生产商的库存成本就会增大；但销售商（retailer）如果库存过大，那销售商的销售压力也会很大，并且一旦卖不出去，销售商也会面临损失。但为了让销售商多压货over-stock，现在通行的做法有两个：markdown和return，一个是卖不出去的可以退还（return）给生产商，另一个是当卖不出去后，生产商把后续的货多打折，这样用多打折而少收销售商的钱来补偿销售商在前一批货中没卖出去的损失（markdown）。由于有这两种方法，打消了销售商对压货的抵触，改善了生产商和销售商之间由于压货而导致的Channel关系。最后，本段介绍了这两种策略是要基于两种假设(assumption)的。

第二段：Return策略的使用有一个重大需要考虑的的问题，那就是return会产生货物的运输，并且在运输过程中还会出现破损、丢失等现象，这些全都是生产商要考虑的成本。举例说如果是时装厂商，那么他的运输、破损等方面的损失才几十刀，这对他来说是很少的成本，完全可以忽略。然后又根据第一段末说的假设应用到return 策略上进行分析（好象没有出题点，我也就没仔细看）。

第三段：说这些销售商多压了这么多货，那它怎么卖呢，好象只能用打折的方法向它现有的客户多卖，但估计还是会有剩，于是生产商最终还是不得不在事后的订货中用折扣的方法补偿销售商多进了但卖不出去的货的价钱，那么对于生产商来说，他是有经济利益损失的，所以这种方法不应该被广泛使用。而对于return的情况，那些return回来的货就算没有破损，对生产商来说很可能也已经没什么用了，比如前文说到的那个时装厂商，那些时装可能已经不时髦了，就算想便宜点儿卖出去也没人买了。

Q1：文中第二段举例说时装厂商想说明什么。我选举例说明return时是会有成本的
Q2：生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略会有什么后果。我选影响生产商的利润
Q3：生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略有什么好处，我选让销售商对压货没有太多顾虑

Q4: 和Markdown有关，我看文章的时候没注意到这个点，也不想再花时间回原文去找，随便选了一个。但个人感觉应该是在介绍那两种假设的部分去定位（仅供参考）。

Q5：mark down和return有哪一点不一样呢？

V2

return策略广为使用，学者们常常强调return这种策略的好处，并推荐使用return。但return的有效性是基于两个错误的假设：一个是return不会造成额外某些方面的成本；但其实有shipping cost，部分会产生货物的运输，并且在运输过程中还会出现破损、丢失等现象，这些全都是生产商要考虑的成本。另一个这部分说的是wrongly assumes that channel management ability are the same，其实我有点看不懂，不知道他说的是说retailer's ability or vendor's ability大家仔细看啰！Q：但是这一段的句末考了两题　针对最后的两个字考，大家读到这一定要好好注意　第一题考的是这两个最后亮黄字的推论题。

V3

讲生产商采取的两个策略让经销商多备库存：一个是给折扣，还有一个是可以退还给生产商。一段末说这两种策略有效基于两种假设。

第二段：讲了上段末的一个假设不成立，所以一种不好。

第三段: 超长，好像讲了其中一个的优点。有考点，问哪一个具体的例子符合这段说的。

V4

我补充第三段的问题，题目问下列哪个例子符合生产商可购回存货再利用的原则，有个选项说某衣服含有很贵的fiber可以拿来再利用的

另外是一个前人提到的问题，生产商用这两种让销售商压货的策略有什么好处，有混淆选项A是让零售商更愿意存货B是让零售商愿意存足够数量的货，我回第一段定位，发现零售商不是不存，只是都存不够，所以选了B，各位到时可以再自行判断



背景资料by dongdongkey
Managing Retail Channel Overstock: Markdown Money and Return Policies
Andy A. Tsay

Inventory strategy is fundamental to retailing, as well as to channel management. How this is handled can mean the difference between competitive advantage and financial disaster.

For their own sake as well as their mutual interest in the health of the overall distribution system, manufacturers and their retail partners share the desire to have enough inventory in place to satisfy customers and realize profits. But neither cares for the overstock that arises whenever demand falls short of expectations, and how to share the resulting costs is often a contentious issue. A number of channel policies have arisen as ways to broker this conflict. These include manufacturer return policies and markdown money (a payment made by a manufacturer to a retailer per item that must be discounted for final clearance purposes).

Return policies are often observed when demand is unpredictable and/or the risk of obsolescence is high. Markdown money also has a rich tradition among products facing such environments, including fashion apparel, cosmetics and fragrances, toys, specialty products, certain food categories, and over-the-counter medications.

Return policies are relatively well-studied, with numerous existing works advocating these as a way to improve the efficiency of the channel to the participants' mutual benefit. But none explain the reality that markdown money is sometimes paid to retailers expressly to avoid product returns. For example, Procter & Gamble's 1997 initiative "Streamlined '97" featured the use of markdown money in place of return privileges for discontinued items through its "Discontinued Products Transitions Program."
The objective of this article is to provide a mathematical framework within which these channel practices may be differentiated. This entails relaxing the following two key assumptions that are common to the existing literature of return policies.

(1) the physical return of product does not incur additional cost, and
(2) the channel members are equally effective at liquidating overstock.
This framework will enable what appears to be the first analytical study of markdown money.

Our work seeks to address a number of open questions. What circumstances call for the use of one policy instead of the other? How significant is the penalty for using the less appropriate policy? Are these policies examples of retailers imposing their will on weaker manufacturers? To what extent can the manufacturer recover the cost of providing such forms of insurance, for instance through increases in the wholesale price? How do such policies influence the determinants of the end consumer's experience (i.e., the retail price and the inventory made available for sale)? To address these and other important questions, we will present ideas about the management of overstock, introduce and assess existing research by discussing various modeling approaches, and provide new theoretical and numerical results that illuminate these practices and the extent to which they reflect the balance of strategic power in the channel.

This research reveals some surprising findings. For instance, while some recent evidence suggests a shifting of channel power towards retailers, this is not necessarily the root explanation for the existence of either return policies or markdown money. Notably, a theme that recurs throughout our theoretical and numerical investigation is that these policies are not simply the dictates of a powerful retailer. Instead, they can derive from the interests of manufacturers seeking to insure that adequate inventories are held in the channel. And in fact, there may be circumstances under which manufacturers may have a greater desire to implement such policies than their retail partners. Indeed, the Procter & Gamble initiative would be difficult to rationalize otherwise.

Another key insight is that the loss in channel efficiency from the simple act of ignoring handling costs, and consequently implementing a return policy when markdown money might be more appropriate, can be quite significant. The effect is the composite of two factors: (1) handling costs render a return policy logistically more costly, and (2) handling costs depress the retailer's order away from the system-optimal level. When the handling cost for returns is significant, there is some value to be recovered by properly adjusting the design of the return policy, and even more by using a different channel policy altogether.

In generalizing the existing literature our main conclusions are the following: (i) the proper design of a return policy must take into account any costs of product handling, especially in their influence on the retailer's behavior, (ii) a return policy may be inefficient if it entails liquidating any overstock in an inferior way, (iii) markdown money can coordinate the channel when a return policy cannot, (iv) unawareness of the issues differentiating these policies may result in a substantial loss of system performance, and (v) markdown money policies are not simply the dictates of a powerful retailer, but instead can derive from the interests of a manufacturer seeking to insure that adequate inventories are held in the channel. These findings can serve as the basis of empirical investigation about an important set of issues in the management of distribution channels.


考友frankmfg确认意见：我可以确定那篇overstock背景资料是原文。但是考试的是缩影版。但是有些句子是identical的！资料只是一篇paper的abstract，如果能找到全文，考试时可以直接做题。


考友piggyuu提供的近似原文（红色字体标注的是与考试原文完全相同或相似的句子）

If a product has a finite selling season and uncertain demand, retail overstock is a possibility. Anticipating how such surplus will devalue, the retailer may stock less of the item than the manufacturer would like, if any at all. As illustrated by P&G, manufacturer return policies and markdown money are two common strategies used by manufacturers to combat this tendency. Both work by decreasing the retailer's net cost of overstock.

Return policies are often observed when demand is unpredictable and/or the risk of obsolescence is high, as extensively documented by Padmanabhan and Png (1995) and Kandel (1996). Markdown money also has a rich tradition among products facing such environments, including fashion apparel (Ryan 1998; Monget 1998), cosmetics and fragrances (Parks 1996), toys (Leccese 1993), specialty products (Gallagher 1999), certain food categories and over-the-counter medications (Tenser 1997). However, nothing in our discussion thus far suggests if, when, or why either method might be preferable to the other.

The academic literature is silent on these questions. Return policies are certainly relatively well-studied (Pasternack 1985; Kandel 1996; Padmanabhan and Png 1997; Emmons and Gilbert 1998; Donohue 2000; Webster and Weng 2000), as will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. These works advocate return policies as a way to improve the efficiency of the channel to the participants' mutual benefit. However, this conclusion relies on two assumptions that mask the differences between the practices in question:
(1) the physical return of product does not incur additional cost, and

(2) the channel members are equally effective at liquidating overstock (2).

The first assumption is problematic in that the handling, logistics, and administrative overhead associated with moving product back up the channel may be substantial. For instance, P&G Cosmetics has calculated that each handling of an item (because of damage, discontinuation, or simple return) costs 34 cents, a nontrivial fraction of typical profit margins for such products (Born 1997). And Hal Upbin, CEO of Kellwood Co. (a manufacturer of ready-to-wear apparel) notes, "We don't take anything back; the cost of handling would be absurd (Infotracs 1997)."

With respect to the second assumption, the reality is that recovering value from surplus product is a substantive professional competency, and different parties likely have different aptitude and tolerance for this (Hungerford 1999). The retailer obviously has the most immediate option, i.e., to sell to the same customer base at a discount. Indeed, access to markets and comparative advantage in merchandising are among the underlying reasons a retail channel would be used in the first place, and these factors should persist at the clearance phase. However, if the residual value comes from recovering and reusing the raw materials, the manufacturer could have an advantage. Also, by consolidating the returns from multiple retailers a manufacturer might be able to assemble an assortment商品分类 that becomes economically viable for resale to a discount specialist (e.g., T. J. Maxx in the apparel industry). Additional aging of the product and potential damage during the processing of returns should be considered, of course. Similar points are raised, but not formally pursued, by Kandel (1996) and Padmanabhan and Png (1997).  

这个考古版本实在太多了，请LZ让狗主人确认吧

helenzhang1124

谢谢

wayhas

楼主，您看看考过的童子是不是有考到过狗里的1.1.20一篇是大公司和小公司的创新，狗主人说貌似是GWD的您考古一下看看是gwd24套中Q11-14这篇吗？

yu604

想问一个笨问题~
如果阅读里面考古确定放的是原文~考试的时候当时是真的考一模一样的那篇吗?连问题都一样吗???
不知道为什么看文章看得有点障碍,明明每个字都看进去了却不知道它整句再说什么

杀鸡祖师奶奶

蟹蟹~~~

vanessa57

我輸入了幾次密碼但都不對耶  可以傳訊給我嗎  謝謝你

XYXB

1.1.6考古：
V1
有一篇是对一个学者（暂且称之为A）对于美国历史上收入mobility的变化的研究结果的evaluation。引用了另一个人(称之为B）的观点来质疑A的研究，说是因为A的在研究中包括了很多关于年轻人的收入的数据，而年轻人的收入在他们工作几年之后会有较大的提高，相比之下普通家庭的收入就没有这么大的变化，因此A所得出的关于income mobility的数据是有问题的
V2
Income mobility in the U.S. is only moderate. Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers. The Hubbard study of income mobility, commonly cited by conservatives, used an extremely biased sample of unusually successful American families. Its results are therefore invalid. Allowing a society of extreme income inequality, even with high mobility, would raise child poverty, because most parents are young and incomes are lowest during young adulthood
Many conservatives admit that incomes in the U.S. are highly unequal, but claim they are highly mobile as well. That is, people tend to rise and fall considerably on the income scale throughout the course of their lives, producing a lifetime average which is much closer to everyone else. Furthermore, this mobility tends to be upward; incomes generally rise with age. Hence, inequality is not as unfair as liberals claim
V3
study of income mobility. The study found that after 5 years, 5% lowest income people will not stay at the bottom. As a result, the income of mobility is healthy. However, the study commits mistakes because it include teenage part-time workers, after 5 years, they are more likely to get full-time job and higher salary.
V4
工资mobility篇(短，也没有硅谷的例子)，出题都在第二段，有一个问举大学生业余工作的例子说明什么，答案是和family的情况对比,是第二个人用来反驳开始那个人的说法(大学生业余工作工资低，毕业挣钱立马高了;family变化小)
V5
Cox这个学者指出美国在做收入统计的时候，忽略了一个家庭的潜在收入。接着介绍他的研究：通过跟踪若干人十几年内的收入情况，cox发现最初排名落后的人在若干年后收入都有明显的增长，甚至有些人最后收入水平名列前茅，只有极少数最初排名最后的人在若干年后收入水平仍然位居末尾。接着有一学者指出，该统计有缺陷，因为它包括相当一部分在最初做兼职的学生，这些学生在毕业后，全职工作的收入自然会有明显增长，而那些在最初就做全职工作的人的收入实际收入并不明显。