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.
It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!
Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club
Registration gives you:
Tests
Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.
Applicant Stats
View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more
Books/Downloads
Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Mar 2010, 11:45
5
This post received KUDOS
24
This post was BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45% (medium)
Question Stats:
61% (01:22) correct
39% (01:32) wrong based on 930 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
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!
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Dec 2012, 21:22
4
This post received KUDOS
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.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
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.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2013, 07:46
1
This post received KUDOS
1
This post was BOOKMARKED
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
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.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 10:38
1
This post received KUDOS
1
This post was BOOKMARKED
nverma 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
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.
_________________
If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that! The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy. Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING. Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough. Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 11:06
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.
Earlier - Branded Products , were priced at a premium due to perceived superiority to Non Branded Products.
Now - Techncical Expertise has narrowed the gap between branded and Non Branded Products , reducing the product differences.
Concl - Branded Products neither produce higher Quality nor are priced at a premium.
Paradox - Branded Products are bigger marketing tool....
If there is no difference in terms of Product quality , advantages and other aspects between Branded and Non Branded Products then how come Branded Products offer better Marketing Tool....
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.
Seems good - We buy Branded goods with the expectation of Quality...
Consider Apple MAC book to Say XYZ Brand...
Even if Technology someday bridges the gap between Apple and XYZ , we would still prefer Apple Product with the gurantee of a good Brand name in terms of Quality and reputation won over time...
(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.
Not as good as (A)
(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.
Out of scope and wordy...
(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.
We are trying to resolve the Paradox , and this statement is no way helpful in doing so...
(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.
Out of scope...
Hence IMO (A) looks the best..
_________________
Thanks and Regards
Abhishek....
PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 11:22
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
_________________
Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 12:00
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
_________________
If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that! The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy. Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING. Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough. Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 12:11
1
This post received KUDOS
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
_________________
Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jan 2014, 14:49
plumber250 wrote:
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
Thanks James, I think I understand your point, it makes sense and we all are here to learn. I will keep this rule/learning/observation in mind till I observe a deviation.
_________________
If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that! The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy. Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING. Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough. Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
24 May 2017, 10:55
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Aug 2017, 00:29
Paradox :brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. However, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.
Option E The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining. When Sales are declining company hires new marketing agency in order to revive sales decline . This doesn't help to resolve paradox .
Re: Products sold under a brand name used to command premium [#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Aug 2017, 19:51
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?
This is how I understood it:
CONCLUSION: "brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices"; HOWEVER, "brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever."
- How could this be correct?
(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products. - Consumers are seeing brand names as KNOWN QUANTITIES. Have you ever heard of the expression "I'd rather go with/choose the KNOWN devil over the UNKNOWN devil?" (B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time. - Over time = irrelevant, we are talking about now. (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. - Acquisitions = out of scope. Who cares? (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. - Out of scope. Who cares how easy it was to get 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. - Why do we care about advertising agencies? they may not even do a good job in the first place...
So I obviously chose "A". Please offer kudos if you find this helpful
We’ve given one of our favorite features a boost! You can now manage your profile photo, or avatar , right on WordPress.com. This avatar, powered by a service...
Sometimes it’s the extra touches that make all the difference; on your website, that’s the photos and video that give your content life. You asked for streamlined access...
Post today is short and sweet for my MBA batchmates! We survived Foundations term, and tomorrow's the start of our Term 1! I'm sharing my pre-MBA notes...
“Keep your head down, and work hard. Don’t attract any attention. You should be grateful to be here.” Why do we keep quiet? Being an immigrant is a constant...
61% (01:22) correct
