Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 12:49 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 12:49

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Levelx   Resolve Paradoxx               
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 765 [227]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4346
Own Kudos [?]: 30782 [36]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [23]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 912 [6]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
3
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Hi Jack,

Let me see if I can explain.

The question simply is:
Branded Products are the same price and quality as non-branded.
BUT
Branded products are at a bigger marketing advantage than ever.
WHY?

To put D in easy to understand language, it is saying: It is now harder to get a brand name established.

This does not say anything about why branded products, whilst they are the same quality and price are still selected. It simply says that it's harder to create a brand - this is slightly different, it would suggest that branded products are more secure in their superior position (harder to get a rival brand set up), but does not say WHY they are in a superior position.

Does that help
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 1208 [3]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Send PM
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Guys, I seriously need some help on this one. What is wrong with B? If quality of invariant brand names is expected to fade in some time, having a brand name definitely helps.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 912 [6]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
joshnsit wrote:
Guys, I seriously need some help on this one. What is wrong with B? If quality of invariant brand names is expected to fade in some time, having a brand name definitely helps.


Hi Josh,

The issue with B, is that it actually goes against what is said in the passage, where it is stated that now non-brand names have come up to the same standard.

So whilst B does give a reason for people choosing branded, it does not over come the paradox, rather stating a different point of view to the author.
James
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 1208 [0]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
plumber250 wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
Guys, I seriously need some help on this one. What is wrong with B? If quality of invariant brand names is expected to fade in some time, having a brand name definitely helps.
Hi Josh
The issue with B, is that it actually goes against what is said in the passage, where it is stated that now non-brand names have come up to the same standard.

So whilst B does give a reason for people choosing branded, it does not over come the paradox, rather stating a different point of view to the author.
James
James, Bingo.. I also thought of this exact line of reasoning but I have 2 reservations in accepting this:
1) I believe that we can definitely bring fresh information in the paradox answer choices, just as we can bring additional information in Strengthen/Weakening answers. So having a new information which can go against one of the facts seems fine to me.
2) The bigger issue is that the information brought by B is from the perspective of non-branded products, so B doesn't refer to or go directly against branded products as in the stimulus. This means I am not directly going against of what I said in stimulus by saying B. Please note that conclusion of argument is: brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices.

Just another observation, A is a perception(from past) and B is also a perception(of future). I couldn't find any way to find A better.

Any suggestions, where I could have gone wrong in assessing this.. Thanks for responding
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 912 [3]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Hi Josh,

I'm afraid I disagree with your assumption that contradicting the passage can help with paradoxes, at least in this case.

The paradox is that: branded/unbranded are the same and the same price. Yet the brands have an advantage.

You need something to resolve that tension, by giving a 3rd bit of info. Simply saying you don't agree with one or other is not actually resolving the paradox, just saying you disagree with it.

James
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Posts: 141
Own Kudos [?]: 289 [3]
Given Kudos: 156
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
WE:Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
3
Kudos
OE:

Argument Evaluation

Situation In both quality and price, brand-name and nonbrand products have now become similar. Yet brand names offer a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Reasoning How can this paradox be explained? It is given that a brand-name product’s only distinction from its rival products is a recognizable name. What must be true to give brand-name products a bigger marketing advantage? Could consumers be relying on their outdated knowledge and believing that brand names continue to guarantee that a product’s quality is at least as good as, and possibly higher than, that of the rival products at the same price? If so, they would choose to purchase the brand-name product trusting they would, at a minimum, get comparable quality for the same price.


A Correct. This statement correctly identifies the consumer behavior that explains the marketing advantage of brand names.
B Consumers would be less likely to buy brand-name products if they were unsure of their quality, so this statement does not resolve the paradox.
C Corporations value brand names, but this statement does not say why, nor does it explain the marketing advantage of brand names.
D The relative ease or difficulty of establishing brand names does not explain why they are a marketing advantage.
E The shift from one advertising agency to another to counteract falling sales does not account for the general marketing advantage brand names enjoy.

The correct answer is A.
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1115
Own Kudos [?]: 2162 [9]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
9
Kudos
I was thrown off by the word "invariant" as I interpreted it to refer to the no-name-brand products when in fact it means "never changing".

Substituted into (B) Consumers realise that the quality of products sold under never changing brand names can drift over time.

This actually weakens the statement that "brand names are a bigger marketing..." whereas we want something that allows both brand / unbranded facts to co-exist.
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - Had a question on the OA specifically (OA - A)

I didn't believe A helped explain the paradox.

If brand names are a guarantee to be as good as the best rival products ONLY , then how does this explain why branded products have higher market favorability

All consumers are getting is something "AS GOOD AS" the next best rival product

This does not explain why branded products then get good marketing favorability.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64899 [4]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
4
Kudos
Expert Reply
zest4mba wrote:
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products. Technical expertise in product development has become so widespread, however, that special quality advantages are very hard to obtain these days and even harder to maintain. As a consequence, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. Paradoxically, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

I answered D but it is incorrect- D states that it was easier to get brand names established. What it means is that today is it difficult to establish a brand name. I believe that explains the paradox as even though good quality products can be made by any one it is difficult to create a brand name and for those who have created it- they have a marketing edge and that is what the question is asking.Can someone tell me whats wrong with this logic



In the past, brand names sold better because their products were better quality than non-brand rivals.
Today, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. (quality of all is same and the price they command same too)
But still, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever. (people still buy predominantly brand names)

Why? When the quality and price are usually the same, why do people prefer brand names today too?
We need something that will explain this.

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.

This tells us that brand names reassure consumers that the quality is at par with best rival products. They do not have this assurance about non branded products. So though technical expertise may have become widespread and quality may not be different, assurance about quality today also comes from brand names only. That is why brand names sell.
Correct. Helps explain the paradox.

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

This is against brand names if their quality drifts over time. So it cannot be the reason why people buy brand names.

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

Irrelevant. We need to explain why people buy brand names.

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

Irrelevant. The question is about today.

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

Irrelevant.

Answer (A)
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64899 [2]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - Had a question on the OA specifically (OA - A)

I didn't believe A helped explain the paradox.

If brand names are a guarantee to be as good as the best rival products ONLY , then how does this explain why branded products have higher market favorability

All consumers are getting is something "AS GOOD AS" the next best rival product

This does not explain why branded products then get good marketing favorability.


Brand names are a guarantee of quality. The consumers think that the branded product will be as good as the best rivals. Among non branded products, they do not know which are the best products. When faced with 1 brand name product and 5 unbranded ones, they cannot differentiate between the quality of unbranded products but the brand name guarantees quality.

Say you have 10 chocolates in front of you - 1 Lindt and 9 others unbranded of same category.
You know that Lindt is a popular brand name (though quality of all may be same) so you know that its quality will at least not be worse than the others. The name is a guarantee that the quality will be as good as the best rivals.
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - Had a question on the OA specifically (OA - A)

I didn't believe A helped explain the paradox.

If brand names are a guarantee to be as good as the best rival products ONLY , then how does this explain why branded products have higher market favorability

All consumers are getting is something "AS GOOD AS" the next best rival product

This does not explain why branded products then get good marketing favorability.


Brand names are a guarantee of quality. The consumers think that the branded product will be as good as the best rivals. Among non branded products, they do not know which are the best products. When faced with 1 brand name product and 5 unbranded ones, they cannot differentiate between the quality of unbranded products but the brand name guarantees quality.

Say you have 10 chocolates in front of you - 1 Lindt and 9 others unbranded of same category.
You know that Lindt is a popular brand name (though quality of all may be same) so you know that its quality will at least not be worse than the others. The name is a guarantee that the quality will be as good as the best rivals.


Thanks VeritasKarishma - makes sense now

One follow up on the word " marketing advantage"

When I first read that -- I didn't know exactly what " marketing advantage" really meant. I know what the two words "marketing" and "Advantage" mean individually but together, it did not make sense to me.

This is what went through my mind when I tried to play out what "marketing advantage" even means

-- If there is an online ad on YouTube for example on branded products (Lindt for example) -- that ad probably gets more "likes" or "Hits"
vs.
-- If there is an online ad on YouTube for example on non-branded products -- that ad probably DOES NOT get as many "Likes" or "Hits"

Could this be an example for the term "Marketing advantage"
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64899 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - Had a question on the OA specifically (OA - A)

I didn't believe A helped explain the paradox.

If brand names are a guarantee to be as good as the best rival products ONLY , then how does this explain why branded products have higher market favorability

All consumers are getting is something "AS GOOD AS" the next best rival product

This does not explain why branded products then get good marketing favorability.


Brand names are a guarantee of quality. The consumers think that the branded product will be as good as the best rivals. Among non branded products, they do not know which are the best products. When faced with 1 brand name product and 5 unbranded ones, they cannot differentiate between the quality of unbranded products but the brand name guarantees quality.

Say you have 10 chocolates in front of you - 1 Lindt and 9 others unbranded of same category.
You know that Lindt is a popular brand name (though quality of all may be same) so you know that its quality will at least not be worse than the others. The name is a guarantee that the quality will be as good as the best rivals.


Thanks VeritasKarishma - makes sense now

One follow up on the word " marketing advantage"

When I first read that -- I didn't know exactly what " marketing advantage" really meant. I know what the two words "marketing" and "Advantage" mean individually but together, it did not make sense to me.

This is what went through my mind when I tried to play out what "marketing advantage" even means

-- If there is an online ad on YouTube for example on branded products (Lindt for example) -- that ad probably gets more "likes" or "Hits"
vs.
-- If there is an online ad on YouTube for example on non-branded products -- that ad probably DOES NOT get as many "Likes" or "Hits"

Could this be an example for the term "Marketing advantage"


Sure, it is a part of it all. Having a brand name gives a marketing advantage so ads of brand names are more effective in increasing sales. It doesn't matter whether you are able to arrive at the exact intent. The context clarifies that brand names offer a big advantage today too.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Posts: 148
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
KarishmaB wrote:
zest4mba wrote:
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products. Technical expertise in product development has become so widespread, however, that special quality advantages are very hard to obtain these days and even harder to maintain. As a consequence, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. Paradoxically, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

I answered D but it is incorrect- D states that it was easier to get brand names established. What it means is that today is it difficult to establish a brand name. I believe that explains the paradox as even though good quality products can be made by any one it is difficult to create a brand name and for those who have created it- they have a marketing edge and that is what the question is asking.Can someone tell me whats wrong with this logic



In the past, brand names sold better because their products were better quality than non-brand rivals.
Today, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. (quality of all is same and the price they command same too)
But still, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever. (people still buy predominantly brand names)

Why? When the quality and price are usually the same, why do people prefer brand names today too?
We need something that will explain this.

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.

This tells us that brand names reassure consumers that the quality is at par with best rival products. They do not have this assurance about non branded products. So though technical expertise may have become widespread and quality may not be different, assurance about quality today also comes from brand names only. That is why brand names sell.
Correct. Helps explain the paradox.

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

This is against brand names if their quality drifts over time. So it cannot be the reason why people buy brand names.

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

Irrelevant. We need to explain why people buy brand names.

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

Irrelevant. The question is about today.

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

Irrelevant.

Answer (A)


Hi KarishmaB

So "invariant" brand names actually mean brand names? Or do they mean non-brand names. And why add the word invariant if it refers to brand names anyway ?
Tutor
Joined: 11 May 2022
Posts: 1092
Own Kudos [?]: 697 [0]
Given Kudos: 81
Send PM
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Expert Reply
zest4mba wrote:
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products. Technical expertise in product development has become so widespread, however, that special quality advantages are very hard to obtain these days and even harder to maintain. As a consequence, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. Paradoxically, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.



We are told that brand names generally neither offer better quality nor command higher prices. Why, then, are they now at a marketing advantage? There must be some explanation!!

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.
Hmmm, a guarantee of being at least as good despite not costing more? As a consumer, I like that. Keep it.
(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.
Close to A, but the difference is that A tells us brand name is consistently good. B tells that generic name quality drifts over time, but doesn't remove the possibility that brand names do, too. Eliminate.
(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.
This answer assumes that the brand name has a marketing advantage but doesn't help explain why. Eliminate.
(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.
What does any of that have to do with marketing advantage? Eliminate.
(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.
This doesn't explain why brand name marketing has an advantage. Eliminate.

Answer choice A.
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Hi AndrewN - is (B) referring to branded products ONLY or non-branded products ONLY or both ?

How can one figure it out if one isnt sure about what the term "invariant" means.

I thought (B) referring to non-branded products only but i am not sure
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6857 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi AndrewN - is (B) referring to branded products or non-branded products or both ?

How can one figure it out if one isnt sure about what the term "invariant" means.

I thought (B) referring to non-branded products only but i am not sure

Hello, jabhatta2. "Invariant" means unchanging, so invariant brand names logically refers to brand names that do not change. I agree with an earlier poster that the adjective adds nothing but confusion to the question, that the word could be removed to improve clarity (i.e. keep matters simple between brand names and non-brand names). That said, even if you misinterpret (B) as saying that consumers recognize that the quality of non-brand products can drift over time, it still would not explain why, at present, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever. It takes a pretty big leap to assume that consumers are so worried about future quality (which is not even guaranteed to decline—can does not mean will) that they will throw more money at brand-name products than ever before, relative to non-brand products. A paradox should have a more satisfactory answer that ties the loose ends together. A guarantee of quality that people believe in for one type of product only, the brand-name product, provides a much more compelling answer here.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Hi AndrewN - thank you for responding. Two qqs on (A), if thats okay ?

Quote:
“Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products. Technical expertise in product development has become so widespread, however, that special quality advantages are very hard to obtain these days and even harder to maintain. As a consequence, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. Paradoxically, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

“Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?

“(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.



From the yellow highlight above - we know that the quality of branded products is the same or lower than the quality of non branded products. That is per the yellow premise

So, even with this **gaurantee** mentioned in (A) - how is this something of a positive attiribute for branded products ?

We *already know** that the qualities of branded products are same or lower than the quality of non branded products

Having this **gaurantee** is a POSITIVE thing ONLY if we assume that -- the quality of many branded products IS LOWER THAN the quality of many non-branded products

If the quality of many branded products IS THE SAME AS the quality of many non-branded products -- i get the sense that this **gaurantee** is a pointless attribute for branded products

Thoughts ?


AndrewN

(ii) I thought the term "the best rival products" was ambigous. Why ?

The "the best rival products" could be referring to perhaps : rival BRANDED products.

So, if Branded products are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as OTHER RIVAL BRANDED PRODUCTS -- that wouldnt explain the paradox at all.
GMAT Club Bot
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6919 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne