Mars Opinion

无关背景：

早几天朋友生日，结果被拉去玩去玩一个叫做mysterious night的游戏——8个人，呆在一个灯光昏暗的房子里，围着一个圆桌坐下，圆桌中央摆一支蜡烛，每个人面前放一本小册子（介绍你的角色，以及提供各种指控和辩解的信息），然后大家一轮一轮讨论，相互指正，抓凶手（好复杂的杀手游戏@__@）……

由于某两位同学太过入戏，导致我们丧失了1条最关键的线索，到游戏快结束还是毫无头绪凶手是谁，无数的人有动机，却看不到谁有作案条件……偶只好反过来想问题瞎猜了一个——既然8个人里面有7个有动机，那么就只好猜那个没有动机的人是凶手了，否则她在这干嘛呢（什么逻辑……@__@）。

居然还真猜对了^__^，获得侦探小说一本。

……

好吧，其实我想说的是，和大家玩起这种变态游戏，更加发现自己英文@#$%%^$#@……所以晚上随便翻了篇英文在读想说好歹练习一下英语，看到其中有些部分蛮有趣的，所以顺手翻译了一下，所以才会有这篇奇怪的东西。

看的是Tuck商学院出的一篇关于零售业品牌塑造的论文，翻译得很生硬，而且很多市场术语我都已经忘了（虽说我好象学过不止一遍……），见谅~

节选翻译：

• To the extent “you are what you sell,” manufacturer brands help to create an image and establish a positioning for the store. 一定程度上说，“卖什么，你就是什么样子”，零售商销售的商品会塑造零售商本身的形象和定位。
• The five dimensions we use to review past research are: 1) access, 2) in-store atmosphere, and 3) price & promotion, 4) cross-category product/service assortment, and 5) within-category brand/item assortment. 我们从5个尺度来审视一家零售商：1) 易到达性；2)  店内氛围；3) 价格和促销；4) 产品线种类和丰富程度；5) 产品种类和丰富程度
• Baker et al. (2002) find that store environment factors, particularly physical design perceptions, significantly affect consumers’ perceptions of merchandise price, merchandise quality, and employee service quality. Baker et al. (2002) 发现，店内环境因素、尤其是实体设计感觉，会在很大程度上影响消费者对于商品价格、商品质量以及服务质量的认知感受。
• Brown (1969) highlighted the difference between consumers’ perceptions of price levels in various stores and reality, showing that consumers may use non-price related cues like service offerings and quality levels to form their price perceptions. Brown (1969) 突出研究了消费者对于价格水平的认知和实际情况的差异，这个差异表明消费者可能在用非价格线索（例如服务类型，质量）来形成自己对于零售商商品价格水准的认知。
• Desai and Talukdar (2003) develop a product-price saliency framework to examine how consumers form an overall store price image (OSPI). They show that products with high unit prices and high purchase frequency are more salient and therefore contribute more to OSPI, with purchase frequency dominating unit price in importance. Desai and Talukdar (2003) 发明了一种“产品-价格”框架来检查分析消费者是怎样形成整体价格印象（OSPI）的，研究表明高单价、频繁购买的商品，比低单价、不频繁购买的商品，在形成整体价格印象中起到了更大的作用，其中购买频率比价格影响更大。
• Alba et al. (1994) examine how consumers’ perceptions of store prices change with prior beliefs and information about how frequently a store has a price advantage on a set of products and the magnitude of that price advantage. They find that, although prior beliefs affect price perceptions, frequency of price advantage dominates both prior beliefs and magnitude of price advantage in influencing consumers’ perceptions of store price level. Alba et al. (1994) 调查过消费者对零售商的整体价格印象是怎样改变的。他们发现，虽然既定印象有一定影响，如果你呈现出了频繁的价格优势，既定印象是可以被改变的。而且，价格优势的频繁性，比价格优势的显著性，在影响消费者价格感知方面更重要。
• Bell and Lattin (1998) show that “large basket shoppers” prefer EDLP stores whereas “small basket shoppers” prefer HILO stores. Bell and Lattin (1998) 表示“大订单客户”更喜欢“天天平价”的零售商，而“小订单客户”更喜欢“东西不便宜，促销多多”的零售商。
• Kumar and Leone (1988) and Walters (1991) find a significant impact of promotions on store switching/traffic. Kumar and Leone (1988) and Walters (1991)发现促销活动是引起消费者转移的重要因素。
• Bucklin and Lattin (1992) show that retail promotions in any one category do not directly influence a consumer’s store choice decision, but they indirectly affect where the category is purchased. Consumers typically shop in more than one store. They may purchase a promoted product in the store they happen to be visiting whereas they would otherwise have purchased it in another store. Bucklin and Lattin (1992) 表示某个产品类别的促销，往往不会导致消费者改变自己习惯的零售商，但是会改变消费者在哪家商店采购该类别的产品。消费者往往在多家商店购物，促销可以让他们购买那些他们本来打算在别家店购买的产品。
• Ho, Tang, and Bell (1998) also explain why both EDLP and HILO co-exist in the market. They show that average prices are higher in HILO stores and average purchase quantities are lower. HILO pricing is more effective in enticing shoppers to make more frequent store visits, but, since shoppers have the flexibility to buy more on trips when prices are lower, the HILO store’s revenue per unit time is lower. In contrast, EDLP decreases shopping frequency but generates higher revenue per unit time. Thus, neither format is dominant. Ho, Tang, and Bell (1998) 解释了为什么“天天评价”和“价格促销”两种定价模式可以共存。他们表示，“价格促销”型商店的平均价格和平均购买数量会较低。这种定价模式更能吸引消费者频繁的访问，但是因为他们可以选择在促销期再进行购买，所以虽然访问频率高，但是单词访问购物金额较低；而“天天平价”的定价模式，则会带来较不频繁的访问以及较高的单次访问购物金额。两者各有千秋。
• Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister (1998) find that SKU reduction does not lower consumers’ perceptions of assortment much unless their favorite item is dropped or the total amount of space devoted to the category is reduced. Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister (1998) 发现SKU的减少并不一定会让消费者感觉产品丰富性变差，只要他最喜欢的产品仍然存在而且整体陈列空间不变。
• Simonson and Tversky (1992) show that adding an even higher quality option to an existing assortment leads consumers to prefer a higher-quality, higher-price option, with the cheapest option losing the most.On the other hand, adding a lower quality option does not shift choices to lower quality levels. Simonson and Tversky (1992) 表示往已有产品线内增加更高品质的产品，会让消费者更倾向于选择高品质、高单价产品，而最便宜的那些商品销量会损失。另一方面，增加更便宜的选择，并不会让消费者更倾向于选择便宜商品。
• Nowlis and Simonson (1997) show that low price, low equity brands are more likely to be chosen when they are displayed alongside competing options while high price, high equity brands are more likely to be chosen when they are displayed separately. Nowlis and Simonson (1997) 表示那些低价低质产品，如果放在同类的竞争性产品一起，将卖得更好；而高价高质产品，单独陈列时销售更好。