看不太懂的議題 - 行銷

Table of Contents

恩...先說明

這的確是學校老師要求探討的議題,

不過我們不是來問答案,

只是實在是看不太懂整個題目的意思,

才想問問看是不是有人能把整個議題換句話說一下?

(使用的是原文書,但是我們英文都不怎麼好,因此買了中文版,

只是翻譯的也看不太懂...所以想說會不會有行銷背景的人會比較理解題目的意思)



如果有任何不妥,提醒一下會自D的 ^^" 謝謝


===========================================================================

以下是要探討的議題:

行銷議題 全國性品牌製造商是否也該供應有私有品牌?


有個爭議性的行動是某些主要廠商是否應該供應私有品牌的廠商?以Ralston-Purina、

Borden、ConAgra,以及Heinz為例,全都承認供應產品---有時品質較差點的---給私有

品牌用。不過,其他的廠商批評這個「若無法打擊他們即加入他們」的策略,依然維持

這樣的活動。一旦被披露,許多顧客可能會產生疑惑,或甚至顧客會認為所有相同領域

的品牌都一樣。


選擇一個觀點:

製造商不應該將販賣私有品牌視為收入來源之一而感到不自在,抑或全國性製造商絕不

和私有品牌有所瓜葛。

============================================================================



以下是原文書英文版

Marketing Debate

Should National-Brand Manufacturers Also Supply Private-Label Brands?


One controversial move by some marketers of major brands is to supply
private-label makers. For example, Ralston-Purina, Borden, ConAgra, and
Heinz have all admitted to supplying products---sometimes lower in quality
---to be used for private labels. Other marketers, however, criticize this
"if you can't beat them, join them"strategy, maintaining that these actions,
if revealed, may create confusion or even reinforce a perception by consumers
that all brands in a category are essentially the same.

Take a position
Manufacturers should feel free to sell private labels as a source of revenue
versus National manufacturers should never get involved with private labels.

--

All Comments