Discounts Can Be Dangerous
打折很危险
by Jeffrey M.Stibel and Peter Delgroo
During tough economic times, companies often rush to reduce prices on their products and services.That seems like common sense: People can’t afford to spend as much, so charge le to keep them buying.But discounting has its perils.
每当步入经济困难期，许多公司都会争先恐后地降低产品及服务的价格。这似乎也合乎常理：既然消费者花不起那么多钱，那就降价促销。殊不知，打折蕴藏着诸多风险。
To be sure, discounting is effective when done wisely and strategically.It can get consumers excited about a product, encourage them to buy more, and help your short-term bottom line.However, whether the purchase is a hot dog, a handbag, or a stay at a five-star hotel, customers want good value for their hard-earned money.The price of something is often an important determinant of its perceived value, as Dan Ariely points out in Predictably Irrational.Often, the more consumers pay, the more value they ascribe to a purchase.If you discount prices purely to boost sales, buyers may begin to question that value.
毋庸置疑，如果能站在战略的高度，以高明的手段打折，那肯定有效果。它会激发消费者对产品的兴趣，鼓励他们增加购买，这样就能在短期内提高公司的利润。但是，消费者无论是购买一个热狗、一只手袋，还是下榻五星级酒店，他们都希望自己辛苦赚来的钱能够花得物有所值。丹〃艾瑞里在Predictably Irrational（中文版译为《怪诞行为学》，中信出版社2008年出版）一书中指出：价格是决定产品可感知价值的一个关键因素。消费者通常认为，他们付的钱越多，购买到的价值就越高。如果打折只是为了刺激销售，那么买家就可能会怀疑自己买到的价值。
Consider Abercrombie & Fitch, which lowered prices by roughly 15% during the 2000–2002 downturn.When the dust cleared, the company realized that it had sacrificed much of its brand’s cachet and lost significant market share.A&F didn’t recover until 2004—and then only after returning to higher prices.In August 2008, having learned its leon, the company announced that it was considering another price increase, despite a decline in second-quarter
Page 1 of 3
profits.The goal: to enhance what the CEO called the ―iconic status‖ of the brand.
且以美国时装品牌Abercrombie&Fitch（A&F）为例，在2000年~2002年的经济衰退期，该公司产品降价约15%。当经济风暴尘埃落定后，公司才意识到，降价已经大大地损害了品牌的形象，也导致公司丧失了相当大的市场份额。直到2004年，A&F回归高价路线后，业绩才恢复元气。2008年，洗去了教训的A&F公司在第二季度利润下滑的情况下，仍然在8月份宣布考虑新一轮的提价计划，目标就是提升CEO所提倡的品牌的“标志性地位”。
But discounting is so easy that some companies simply can’t resist.Starbucks, which posted its first-ever earnings lo in July, has begun to offer lower-priced options, such as a cup of coffee for $1, with free refills.This strategy may boost sales in the short term, but we suspect that, as with A&F, it will hurt the Starbucks brand in the long term.
然而，打折是如此简单易行，另一些公司无法抗拒这一诱惑。2008年7月，星巴克（Starbucks）有史以来首次公布业务亏损，并开始提供低价产品，比如可免费续杯的一员咖啡。这种策略或许能在短期内刺激销售，但是正如A&F的前车之鉴所示，长远来看可能有损星巴克的品牌形象。
Discounting is not always a bad idea, though—there are safe ways to lower prices.Earlier this year, Chrysler discounted something that does not affect its core brand: gasoline.It guaranteed to purchasers of new cars a price of no more than $2.99 per gallon of gas for three years.The idea was to subsidize the fuel that a new car uses, not the car itself.It’s similar to what GM did in 2001 by discounting its financing rather than its cars.Obviously, the auto industry has more problems than brand deterioration.Nonethele, this is smart marketing during a downturn: It couples the appeal of a discount with an implicit meage about the value of the core product.当然，打折并非总是危险，我们还是可以找到一些安全的降价方式。2008年年初，克莱斯勒公司（Chrysler）的打着手电就丝毫没有影响到它的品牌价值——它的方法是给汽油打折。公司承诺向购买新车的客户提供三年售价不超过每加仑2.99美元的汽油。这种做法看起来是在为新车使用的燃油提供补贴，而不是针对汽车本身。该策略与2001年通用汽车（GM）为购车贷款提供折扣而不是给车打折的做法很相似。当然，美国汽车业的问题显然不仅仅是品牌式微的问题。但是在经济衰退时，这的确是一种精明的营销方式：它兼顾了消费者对折扣的需求，同时又微妙地维护了核心产品的价值。
So if you’re eyeing a simple, traditional discount strategy during the present slowdown, first consider the potential for damage to your brand and then evaluate the brand insurance that a
more nuanced approach may offer.If you inadvertently shatter your brand’s mystique, reestablishing the value proposition to consumers may be tougher than you expect.
在当前经济下滑的情况下，如果你还在考虑采用简单的、传统的打折策略，那么我们奉劝你首先考虑一下打折给品牌带来的潜在危害，然后评估一下对传统打折策略稍作变通所能带来的品牌保障。如果不小心损害了品牌形象，那么，在消费者心中重塑品牌价值或许比你想象的要困难得多。
