GWD-5-29

dreamchaserdan

读了lawyer和ethyl的观点，我还是对B有疑问：

Over the past five years, the price gap between name-brand cereals and less expensive store-brand cereals has become so wide that consumers have been switching increasingly to store brands despite the name brands’ reputation for better quality. 这句话说明：wide price gap导致consumers switching，而至于quality，因为句子中有reputation，所以有两种可能性：第一种、switching的consumer知道store-brand的cereal质量上的确不如name-brand因为巨大的price gap所以switch了；第二种、switching的consumer发现所谓better quality其实根本就不是想象当中那么好（也就是说实际质量可能差不多）

To attract these consumers back, several manufacturers of name-brand cereals plan to narrow the price gap between their cereals and store brands to less than what it was five years ago.这句话说明plan of action：缩小price gap来吸引consumer back

在上面的第一种情况下：

B.generally been satisfied并不表示store-brand和named-brand没有质量差距，B需要有一个assmption：consumer只要对>=generally satisfied态度都是一样的

D.因为有significant lower price，因此存在这种可能性：无论name-brand的manufacturers无论如何降价也不能trigger switching（这时取决于consumer更看重price还是quality）

在上面的第二种情况下：

B.五年前发现quality就是这样，五年后也不会有什么变化，也就只能看price

D.因为质量不变，只有price这个变量，所以同样存在上面D的可能性。

个人觉得如果说D不好的原因是因为它并未明确表示出这是五年前到现在还是五年后，但是因为题干中有reputation，我觉得偏向于第二种情况。

请大家指点

sophia725

B选项很好的bridge了"客户流失"和"价格差"这2个factors.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-1-3 16:32:42编辑过]

leoozop

打个比方，有Armani和Niarma两个服装品牌，Armani服装售价5000刀，Niarma售价100刀，两者外形相似，人们由于PRICE GAP巨大，倾向买Niarma，Armani为了吸引更多买Niarma的潜在购买者，打算缩小PRICE GAP,决定降价到3000刀，Niarma减价到50刀（算significantly了吧）应对，但买Niarma而不买Armani的人会大幅升高吗，不见的吧～也就是不能一定削弱～

而如果，消费者认为认为Niarma代表了和Armani一样的品牌效应，不仅外形像，其他方面也几乎相同，（两者等同，但价格相差N倍）那么买Niarma的人还会去买Armani吗？

另外这里D，significantly不具体，到底多少算significantly？

myoo

以下是引用leoozop在2007-1-3 22:42:00的发言：

打个比方，有Armani和Niarma两个服装品牌，Armani服装售价5000刀，Niarma售价100刀，两者外形相似，人们由于PRICE GAP巨大，倾向买Niarma，Armani为了吸引更多买Niarma的潜在购买者，打算缩小PRICE GAP,决定降价到3000刀，Niarma减价到50刀（算significantly了吧）应对，但买Niarma而不买Armani的人会大幅升高吗，不见的吧～也就是不能一定削弱～

而如果，消费者认为认为Niarma代表了和Armani一样的品牌效应，不仅外形像，其他方面也几乎相同，（两者等同，但价格相差N倍）那么买Niarma的人还会去买Armani吗？

另外这里D，significantly不具体，到底多少算significantly？

恩 很形象！

mixtec

俺的观点：

D不正确

argument说name brand厂商要narrow price gap，基于price gap已经被narrowed的情况，问能否吸引客户。这个是本题的基础。

D的描述使得price gap没法被narrow，基於此，D应该是无关项。

不知大家认为如何

mypiao

唉这些破题
我的一点思路.Cisco希望把被华为低价吸引走的客户拉回来:他们的手段是降价,把价格差拉小到5年前的水平.
问哪个最有效的击破了Cisco的这个思路??
B:客户对华为得质量总体满意.
D:华为可以把自己的价格压得很低很低.

个人支持选D,因为更直接,哥们,别指望降价这个策略了,降价你降不过华为得.直接击破了Cisco思路得前提.所以整个计划根本不可行!
B,你价格降下来了,但现在华为质量跟你差不多了.有没有可能客户被拉回来?牛人们得思路是既然对华为得质量总体满意,那就拉不回来了.但我觉得这里大家得思维多走了一步,那就是既然对总体满意那就不需要更好得质量了,我觉得这里有点问题.很有可能有些顾客还是会考虑选择Cisco更高得质量得,不能完全排除拉回部分顾客的可能性.
总之,个人觉得B 跟D的差别差在B在批判整个计划的效率,D在批判计划的可能性,所以这里我选D.谢谢

Drakedirect

支持D, 个人认为本题的focus不在质量，而是价格起绝对作用。因为第一句强调了因为价格的差距，顾客全跑了（不论顾客是否满意store brand,或许客户5年前就satisfy 或许没有)， 所以公司决定用降低价格差距的方法来拉回客户。 D选项恰好推翻了这种方法的可行性，即然方法不可行，这道题那么多话都等于白说。
继续讨论吧！有些GWD的逻辑让人头痛。。。。

gan4sula

以下是引用WONDERLAND2004在2004-7-15 18:41:00的发言：

感觉这道题目选D说服力更强些，请NN指点。多谢。

Q29:

Over the past five years, the price gap between name-brand cereals and less expensive store-brand cereals has become so wide that consumers have been switching increasingly to store brands despite the name brands’ reputation for better quality.  To attract these consumers back (purpose), several manufacturers of name-brand cereals plan to narrow the price gap( the plan)  between their cereals and store brands to less than what it was five years ago.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the likelihood that the manufacturers’ plan will succeed in attracting back a large percentage of consumers who have switched to store brands?

1. There is no significant difference among manufacturers of name-brand cereals in the prices they charge for their products.
2. Consumers who have switched to store-brand cereals have generally been satisfied with the quality of those cereals.
3. Many consumers would never think of switching to store-brand cereals because they believe the name brand cereals to be of better quality.
4. Because of lower advertising costs, stores are able to offer their own brands of cereals at significantly lower prices than those charged for name-brand cereals. ( Plan to narrow gap, but store can extend the gap bigger by means of "lower", making manufacture's plan unsuccessful )
5. Total annual sales of cereals—including both name-brand and store-brand cereals—have not increased significantly over the past five years.
                       

I think its quite clear here, only way to undermine the manufacture's plan is to attack on its plan regardless with other factors such as quality, unless the plan is to narrow the quality gap.

I hope this helps....

allenhb

支持B

To attract these consumers back, several manufacturers of name-brand cereals plan to narrow the price gap，文中已经提到name-brand生产商会narrow the price gap，所以即使store能够提供更低的价格，price gap还是减小了。所以D没有起到削弱作用。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-9-15 21:53:08编辑过]

isuer

以下是引用mixtec在2007-6-8 15:37:00的发言：

俺的观点：

D不正确

argument说name brand厂商要narrow price gap，基于price gap已经被narrowed的情况，问能否吸引客户。这个是本题的基础。

D的描述使得price gap没法被narrow，基於此，D应该是无关项。

不知大家认为如何

I agree.