Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 May 2013, 00:07
Customize  |  Hide

Products sold under a brand name used to command premium

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 72
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 4

Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 11:45
00:00

Question Stats:

50% (02:36) correct 50% (00:43) wrong based on 1 sessions
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
1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1082
Followers: 505

Kudos [?]: 1051 [1] , given: 131

Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink] New post 20 Jan 2013, 19:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
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


This question is quite interesting and difficult at the same time. The problem some of us have encountered in selecting option D is that we have used our common but outside knowledge. The knowledge is that a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product. But the main question relevant to this passage is how? How does a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product?

Think like a Company

Before answering this "how", please understand that we are thinking of this advantage in terms of the company because the last line clearly says that "brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.". This marketing advantage cannot be used for the consumers, it is for the company who owns the product.

So, how does a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product? There could be only two factors: higher price or higher sales. In other words, the product could generate greater profits per unit or sell more units. In either way, the company would be at an advantage.

In our current case, it is given that the product doesn't sell at a higher price but still it given a marketing advantage. So, now the other way of giving advantage is through increased sales.

So, if an option statement suggests that people will buy branded products more than unbranded products, that would resolve the paradox - The paradox is that even though the branded products don't offer higher price, they are still a marketing advantage

Guaranteed Quality at the same price

Now, as we go through the options, we see that option A provides a very valid reason to suggest that branded products will sell more than unbranded products. Why? Because at the same price, you are getting a guarantee of quality if you buy a branded product.

Therefore, option A is the correct choice.

However, let's also look at option D.

This basically says that brand names are difficult to get established now. But it doesn't say that how these brand names are a marketing advantage even though they don't allow us to charge higher. Here, some of us have used our common knowledge that brand names are an advantage in all situations. But we can't use this common knowledge here.

Hope this helps :)

Feel free to ask in case of further queries.

-Chiranjeev
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session (May 25): : Learn how to master Sentence Correction. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 13:27
just thinking out loud here...the way i picked up the paradox is "...bigger MARKETING advantage than ever...". The paradox, in my opinion, is stressing on the MARKETING advantage of the brand names. Hence it has to do with the impact of brand names on consumers i.e. how brand names (or lack thereof) impact on consumers help market a product.

hence i'll go with option (B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time. which tells that brand name still holds some value in consumer's thinking even though there is no special quality associated with brand products.

I guess, the problem with option (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 is that it talks about the difficulty of creating a brand in modern (today's) world but doesn't relate it to its MARKETING impact.

My 2 cents. Do let me know the correct choice though!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 13:29
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]Correct[/b]
(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time. >>>>Does not resolve the paradox.
(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.>>>>Does not resolve the paradox.
(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. >>>>If its easy to get a brand name, then anyone can have a brand name, and then having a brand name is not an advantage.
(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency,
especially when sales are declining.>>>>Does not resolve the paradox.

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
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 13:38
Thanks for posting the correct option.
So, i guess, even though my selection was wrong but my "marketing - consumer impact" theory may be right! :-)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 153
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 11

Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 14:40
It seems that the only choice explaining the paradox is A. what is the OA?
Manager
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 160
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 6

Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2010, 22:36
I will go with A....

Please post the OA ..
Thanks.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 95
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: LET'S DISCUSS THIS QUESTION [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2011, 09:35
+1 for A..
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2012, 21:22
The OA is A.

I chose B initially. But after reviewing the Q and A, here is why I think the answer is A:

The paradox is is why do brands have an advantage over non-brands, considering that manufacturing and quality is relatively the same across the industry. Brands should not have an advantage, but they still do. Why?

So there must be something else that is driving the use of marketing among brands.

Possible considerations-Maybe the consumer responds prefers brand that guarantee performance? Or maybe the marketing advantage that firms have provides those firms with the ability to differntiate themselves from their competition?

A addresses the use of marketing, whereas B describes the behavior of consumers. If you think about it, B makes the problem worse-if the consumer already thinks that the non-brand will degrade over time, then what is the difference between now and before the new manufacturing techniques were employed? This seems to indicate that the firm has alwayes had a marketing advantage, and it does not explain why there may be a greater advantage right now.

Those are my thoughts anyway...

A is by no means a sexy answer but, at least is explains why the brands have a greater marketing advantage despite less differentiation among the products.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 55
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 6

Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink] New post 20 Jan 2013, 07:25
Hi guys, about this question I answered D and I still am not convinced about the OA (answer A).

For me the paradox is that even though the quality of the product is no longer different the Brand still gives now a BETTER competitive advantage. Choice D answers this paradox by saying that, yes the quality is no longer different but this makes now Brand even harder to enter the market and get renowned thus giving the installed brand an even more competitive advantage.

Answer A does not really answer the paradox that Brand now are even more important than before because the argument in A was already true before.
GMAT Pill Representative
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 169
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 1

Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink] New post 20 Jan 2013, 07:46
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
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium   [#permalink] 20 Jan 2013, 07:46
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Popular new posts School Name Brand Recognition Misconception johnnyx9 25 09 Feb 2007, 09:02
Popular new posts 2 EXPERTS_POSTS_IN_THIS_TOPIC Brand Name of Employer? wcgc 10 10 Feb 2009, 13:26
New posts 1 MBA Brand Name Value bnessman 2 28 Jun 2010, 10:30
New posts 1 The Brand Name... How Much Weight? warrak2000 7 14 Dec 2010, 11:35
New posts 1 EXPERTS_POSTS_IN_THIS_TOPIC One name brand cereal manufacturer... krackgmat 7 29 Dec 2012, 14:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Products sold under a brand name used to command premium

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.