2. 职称英语
  3. Lately, everybody from industrial designers to city planners claims to be lo

Lately, everybody from industrial designers to city planners claims to be lo

游客2023-12-16  61
问题     Lately, everybody from industrial designers to city planners claims to be looking after our aesthetic interests, and there is ample anecdotal evidence that, on the margin, people do put a higher premium on the look and feel of things than they once did. That is to be expected as society grows richer. But aesthetics is not the only value -- trade-offs must be made -- and aesthetic value is hard to measure. What is "it," after all? Aesthetics doesn’t come in neat units like microprocessor speed, calories, or tons of steel. Style is qualitative.
    The value of qualitative improvements poses tricky problems for economists. It is a major challenge to tease out how much consumers value each individual attribute that comes bundled in a given good or service. If you pay $2.99 for a toothbrush, how much of that is for the cleaning ability? How much for the feel of the handle? How much for the durability? How much for the packaging? How much for the convenient distribution to your comer drugstore? How much for the color?
    Economists use statistical techniques called "hedonic pricing" to try to separate the implicit prices of various characteristics. Essentially, they look at how prices go up or down as features are added or subtracted and try to figure out how consumers value the individual features. How much will consumers pay for an extra megahertz of computing speed, for instance?
    Not every characteristic is as easily measured as megahertz. The trickier the measurement, the more difficult the problem. For aesthetics, economists generally don’t even try. It’s just too hard. How do you account for the restaurant d écor or subtle enhancements in the taste of the food? How do you measure the increased value of a typeset resume, memo or client newsletter -- the result of ubiquitous word processors -- over an old-fashioned typed document?
    That sort of detail is simply lost in crude economic statistics. Many product characteristics -- from convenience to snob appeal to aesthetics -- are hard to quantify and so tend to be undercounted. The result is that the standard of living can change for the better without much notice.
    That is especially likely if products improve without becoming more expensive. Consumers are happier, but if they aren’t spending more money, no revenue increase shows up in the productivity statistics. This isn’t unusual in competitive markets. Shopping malls redecorate, and newspapers adopt color printing just to keep up with the competition. They aren’t able to charge more. They are just able to stay in business.
    When thinking about new products, producers face two challenges. First, they need to offer something whose value to the consumer is greater than its cost to produce and distribute. Increasing the surplus of value minus cost is where both higher living standards and higher profits come from. It is the measure of real economic improvement. The second challenge is, of course, to price the offering to maximize profit.
    As a general matter, aesthetics sells. But "as a general matter" obscures all the specifics that make or break a product: What exact design will you use? How will you manufacture it? What will you charge? And, given those decisions, how will customers respond?
    The answers can’t be found through a blackboard exercise. Price theory is a useful tool, but we can’t know in advance how much people will value the characteristics of a product they haven’t yet seen or compared with real alternatives. Even market research, while helpful, cannot duplicate real-life choices. Although we all have fun predicting and second-guessing business ideas, the only way to find out is through trial and error. Market competition is a discovery process that subjects business hypotheses to unsentimental testing.
    Some managers are better than others at identifying promising new sources of value, and some companies are better than others at operations and pricing -- the skills that determine whether a product that consumers do value will in fact be profitable. Market competition tests these theories and skills. And, like all competitions, this one has its failures, some of them beautiful.
    Not every attempt at improvement works out. Sometimes value does not exceed cost. Sometimes it does, but managers fall in love with their product, price it too high and drive away potential customers. Sometimes the coolest of the cool just can’t survive the heat. With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to see that the pricey Cube was doomed. But nobody knew that a year ago. [br] Which of the following is most probably true of Apple’s Cube?
选项 A、Customers didn’t like the look and feel of it.
B、There was no surplus of value minus cost.
C、It did not reflect real-life choices.
D、It contradicted price theory.
答案 C
解析 在这篇文章中，作者主要讨论了产品的价格定位问题。在文章的后半部分，作者说明了产品的价格要通过市场竞争来检验。根据最后一段，当产品的价值超越成本时，经理们将产品定位过高，从而吓跑消费者，苹果公司Cube一款电脑十分昂贵，从而注定是失败的。选项C说明了问题的根源，为正确答案。  
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3279496.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)