In the last article on markdown analysis, I made a point:
Price reduction is the least important thing in the industry right now!
At the same time, I also asked a question:
What is the purpose of the price reduction?
It should be to make customers satisfied, comfortable, and feel that they are worth the money, so they are willing to pay for the fork, right?
However, due to the fact that manufacturers have jumped into the tide of price reduction, they have jointly caused the "synthesis fallacy" with their respective "strengths". As a result, every company's price-cutting efforts and sales expectations were heavily diluted by this synthetic fallacy.
But I think the previous article still hasn't articulated the more serious and essential reasons for the price cuts.
Today I will add an analysis, which is simply one sentence:
Collective price cuts destroy collective minimum decency!
"Collective" here refers to both the demand side and the supply side.
For the success of a brand, low price is an important magic weapon, but it is not the only means.
To succeed a brand, I think its core essence, or bottom-line principle, should be:
This brand and its products are able to provide a minimum of decency!
Like what:
I sell clothes, and the clothes I sell are not luxurious, but, guaranteed decent. At least you usually wear it to meet anyone, without falling and without shame.
With so many brands in the motorcycle industry, what is the purpose of increasing the variety of models? In order to increase sales. What is the purpose of everyone to improve the configuration? Or to increase sales. What is the purpose of everyone's desperate price reduction? Still to increase sales.
The larger the sales, the more market share you can occupy, and you can become a national brand and make more Chinese people accept you, right?
So what kind of brand can become a national brand?
It is to make people in first- and second-tier cities feel faced;
It is to make people in third- and fourth-tier cities feel that there is a lizi;
Or that everyone needs both face and lizi.
You see, what I'm talking about, I'm actually talking about:
There must be a minimum of decency in both face and inside.
On top of the material needs of food, clothing, housing and transportation, users actually have a layer of emotional needs, which is the minimum sense of decency.
But price reductions, especially collective ones, spoil this sense of decency!
In the previous article I mentioned:
Thinking about whether to buy a car, I started to buy a car, and the people who had already bought a car were unhappy and uncomfortable. Their sense of decency is ruined!
Although they are all medium and large rows, high-end cars, and low luxury, because they are too cheap (at least compared with foreign brands), and similar competitors are not much different, so:
The face of those who are not poor in money is not satisfied.
People who are poor in money are not satisfied.
No one enjoys the sense of decency of being a consumer, "unique", and "outstanding"!
It's as if the belief that "diamonds last forever" has encouraged people to cut back on food and clothing and empty their wallets for the carat of stone.
As a result, in recent years, the tens of yuan of man-made diamonds on the street have made "Eternal" and "Eternal" so cheap.
Although more and more people are now beginning to know that diamonds are the world's largest marketing scam for nearly a hundred years.
But it is undeniable that because of the emergence of man-made diamonds, people lose the most in the matter of consuming diamonds, in fact, "sense of decency".
Regardless of whether the example of diamonds I gave is appropriate and appropriate, in fact, the collective price reduction has hurt the sense of decency of the car manufacturers themselves on the supply side.
I wanted to catch up with foreign cars and revitalize national brands, but as a result, the collective hit the floor by itself, and there was no sense of decency.
As I said in the previous article:
If "falling" can reduce the expansion of consumption fundamentals, and "volume" can roll out stronger ones, it is also a good thing.
I'm afraid of the national brand nest fight, and finally cheap foreign brands, internal and external are not flattering, standing in the perspective of the entire industry is not worth the loss!
In a business society with many brands, why oppose monopolies and promote diversity. It is because the brand naturally has a grade, good or bad, high and low.
Sociologist Nicholas A. Christakis repeats in his book Blueprint:
There is no order without hierarchy.
Hobbes also emphasized in Leviathan:
Without a hierarchical order, society would fall into a war of all against all.
When all domestic motorcycle brands collectively reduce prices to the floor, in fact, there is no hierarchy and order in this industry, and the industry will fall into the war of all brands against all brands.
To sum up, my point about collective price reduction is two sentences:
1. When everyone is reducing prices, price reductions become the least important thing!
2. The real serious consequence of collective price reduction is the destruction of the dignity of the collective, which includes both the demand side and the supply side!
(Some pictures come from the Internet, invaded and deleted)