为了正常的体验网站,请在浏览器设置里面开启Javascript功能!
首页 > 九年四月十五日

九年四月十五日

2018-03-09 11页 doc 35KB 7阅读

用户头像

is_180829

暂无简介

举报
九年四月十五日九年四月十五日 - 1 - 二??九年四月十五日 超市定价手法 大型连锁超市定期大卖广告,推出令人眼花撩乱的优惠和折扣。 但消费者在两大连锁超市 —百佳及惠康— 看似是长期减价战中,是否真的受惠, 实情是,就某些货品而言,看似优惠的并没有为顾客带来得益,而只是促销手法,吸引顾客选购,及购入更多。 以上观察乃消费者委员会分析了於2008年10月至2009年,月期间,在该两间连锁超市的每日网上288件货品(在全调查期都有价格资料)售价所得。 报告以一款330毫升罐装啤酒的价格变动为例。 两间超市同时在11月14日将每罐售价由5....
九年四月十五日
九年四月十五日 - 1 - 二??九年四月十五日 超市定价手法 大型连锁超市定期大卖广告,推出令人眼花撩乱的优惠和折扣。 但消费者在两大连锁超市 —百佳及惠康— 看似是长期减价战中,是否真的受惠, 实情是,就某些货品而言,看似优惠的并没有为顾客带来得益,而只是促销手法,吸引顾客选购,及购入更多。 以上观察乃消费者委员会了於2008年10月至2009年,月期间,在该两间连锁超市的每日网上288件货品(在全调查期都有价格资料)售价所得。 报告以一款330毫升罐装啤酒的价格变动为例。 两间超市同时在11月14日将每罐售价由5.9加至6.1,再在11月15日加至6.5,短短两日的加幅达到10.2。 在短时间内加价后,一间超市在同日(11月15日)提供买两件12.3的优惠,另一间在翌日亦作出相同变动。 不过,折算后的平均优惠价6.15(12.3/2),比未加价前的每件售价5.9贵了0.25,或4.2。 消费者在优惠期间被吸引不但买多了,亦买贵了。 在上述例子中,消费者若在优惠期前购买该货品,付出会较低。而研究亦发现,即使在优惠期后亦可能较便宜。 再看看同一例子的罐装啤酒,在12月19日优惠期过后,两间超市同时将每罐售价减0.05至6.1,比起优惠期内买两件12.3,即每件6.15,还要低。 同样的定价手法亦可见於其他纳入调查的288件货品中,先提高单件售价,再声称提供优惠,包括「多买多送」、「买一送一」、「加一元送多一件」等。 在调查的21个星期内,又发现有79次如消费者在优惠期内购物,可能因买多而多付了钱,其中38次是比优惠期前买贵了,另外41次则比优惠期后买贵了。 - 2 - 为保持市场占有率,参考竞争对手的价格而定价的手法非常普遍,导致相同产品在不同商店的售价相近。 报告亦分析两连锁超市在研究期间同时有售的375件货品,是否有互相「跟价」的情况。 报告引用另一款330毫升12罐装啤酒为例。 两间超市同时於10月11日将网上售价由37减至35.8。而在10月17日,又同时调高售价至之前的37。在研究期间两间超市大多数同时间调整该货品的售价。 在10类共375件货品(两超市在调查期内同时有售)中,有55件货品有跟价的情况。 跟价最常见於面包/蛋糕类(50),10件货品中有,件。最低的类别为家居用品/衞生纸(0),之后是粮油食品(6.7)— 30件中有,件。 整体来说,有14.7的货品出现跟价情况。故市场上仍有大量货品存在价格差距,消费者若多格价即可选购到较便宜的货品。 超市经常在星期五大卖减价广告,那麼超市货品是否在星期五最平, 根据调查,288件在21个星期都有价格资料的货品中,其中一间超市的207件(71.9)货品在周五最贵,另一间则有158件(54.9)。 相反,同样的288件货品出现最低平均价最多的日子是星期四,一间超市有151件(52.4),另一间有137件(47.6)。 消费者如要到该两间超市购物,星期四买到「平价货」的机会会较大。 年度超市价格调查 大型连锁超市的热卖货品中,大部分(75,)的售价在去年上升,由0.8至77.2。 整体来说,去年一篮子200项超市货品的总平均售价比2007年上升了12.6,货品主要为日用品及食品。 调查资料来自三间连锁超市 —华润万家、百佳、惠康— 200项货品的电子扫描数据,将2007年的与2008年作比较。 - 3 - 去年基本食品价格大幅上升,消费者饱受通胀之苦。 根据年度调查,除了一个组别外,其他的全年总平均售价都上升,幅度由2.5至34.9。 「粮油食品」和「罐头/浓汤」可能是影响最多消费者的两个类别,亦是升幅最大的,分别为34.9和21.9。 唯一录得跌幅的类别是「酒类饮品」,下跌8.3。 各类别再细分为39组货品作详细分析。 调查显示除了,组外,其余33组的总平均售价都录得升幅,由0.3至36.7。 食油的升幅最大,总平均售价上升了36.7,其中一款粟米油更上升了77.2。 紧随的组别为罐装猪肉(35)和食米(32.6)。 其他有显著升幅的大部分为食品:罐装鱼(24.3)、即溶咖啡(19.5)、即食面(16.8)、急冻食品(13.1)、蛋糕(12.9)、芝士(12.2)、奶粉(11.7)、牙膏(11.6)、乳酪/乳酸饮品(11.1)和饼乾(11.1)。 录得跌幅的,组货品为果酒(-9.7)和啤酒(-5.1)。一组货品维持不变,为女士衞生用品。 摺合式单车 若将单车摺合后存放在车尾箱或家中的话,可以省却不少烦恼。 防盗虽然重要,但摺合式单车可否安全使用,同样值得关注。 消费者委员会测试11款摺合式单车的安全程度,包括,款车轮直径20吋,,款16吋和,款,吋。重量介乎5.8至14.3公斤,售价由670至9300。 摺合式单车的有不少铰位以便调校及摺合。大部分样本都用较传统的摺合方法,即铰位在车架的中间位置,收藏时将单车对摺,令前后轮重叠。 有两个样本的摺合方法较特别,车架呈三角形,铰位设在车架的顶端,将车架的前后支柱摺合。 摺合式单车的铰位较多,使用时能否稳固锁实,特别是当骑单车者较重 - 4 - 或路面崎岖不平。 样本经过严格的测试项目,评估其安全现,包括垂直坚固程度、轴向坚固程度、震动和煞车能力测试。 坚固程度测试模拟骑踏时样本所承受的压力。 震动测试模拟骑踏时的震动情况,检视铰位在骑踏后是否依然稳固锁实。 所有样本都通过坚固程度和震动测试,没有出现损坏,结构亦没有受影响。 此外,所有样本的煞车能力无论在晴雨的环境都有不俗表现。 整体来说,所有样本都通过以上测试,因此,各样本的评分基於其功能设计和使用方便程度。 使用方便程度由多位评审员试用样本,并评审样本在搬运、携带、摺合、打开及骑踏方面的表现。结果显示车轮直径,吋的样本最方便搬运及携带。 但该样本由於车轮较细,在凹凸不平的路面骑踏时不够稳定,特别是骑踏者是较重的话。 摺合及打开的方便程度结果令人满意,各样本没有显著分别。 评级标准为功能设计(40)和使用方便程度(60)。得分最高的在,分评分中得,分,共,个样本,售价由4600至9300。售价最低的样本为670,得3.5分,比得分最高的只低0.5分。得分最低的为2分,是车轮直径只得6吋的样本。 详细的测试结果可参考,月分《选择》月刊。 牙刷及漱口水 必须使用漱口水才可保持口腔衞生, 答案是并不一定。但需要有好的牙刷,与及正确和持续使用,及用牙线彻底清洁牙齿,才能有效去除牙垢。 ,月份《选择》月刊详细报告了清洁和保持牙齿健康的两款基本口腔用品,牙刷及漱口水。 报告强调要令口腔健康,最有效的方法是每日早晚刷牙及每天使用牙线彻底清洁牙齿。 - 5 - 怎样才是好的牙刷,刷头的大小以细小、易放入口腔内为佳,且能操作自如,能刷到口内所有位置的牙和牙龈,配以柔软的刷毛。 刷毛用至歪斜或散开时,是时候更换了,旧牙刷不但无法有效清洁牙齿,更可能蕴藏引致牙龈炎或牙周病的有害细菌。 一般来说应每,至,个月更换新牙刷。 至於要清洁牙缝,市面上有不少相关产品,例如牙线和牙缝刷。 牙线分含蜡和不含蜡两种,对牙齿和牙龈较温和。牙缝刷有不同大小,适合用於牙齿间的牙齿邻面。两种产品都比用牙签佳。 大部分人只需每日两次使用含氟牙膏彻底清洁牙齿及每天使用牙线,即可保持口腔衞生。 一般来说,并不一定需要使用漱口水才可保持口气清新。 一些漱口水可能含有杀菌成分,帮助降低牙龈疾病和控制牙菌膜。 含有葡萄糖酸氯己定的漱口水已被证实有效抑制牙菌膜滋长,适合刚完成口腔手术人士。但不应长期使用该类产品,以免令牙渍容易沉积。虽然沉积物可以请牙医或口腔护理员清除。 使用前应徵询牙医意见,并跟从制造商的使用指引。 漱口产品可能含有酒精,颜色鲜艳,但未必有防止儿童误用的樽盖。家长须妥善存放,防止儿童错误饮用。 此外,用漱口水后不应再用清水漱口,半小时内不要饮食或吸 烟,才能发挥产品的最佳功效。保持口腔衞生的其他建议包括: , 彻底清洁牙齿; , 培养良好的饮食习惯,减少摄入过量糖分、酸性食物或饮品; , 定期接受口腔 检查; , 不要吸烟。 网上保安软件 使用互联网已成为不少人生活的一部分,电 脑病毒和黑客等保安问题绝对不容忽视。故此应小心选择和使用网上保安软件。 消 费者委员会与国际消费者研究及试验组织(ICRT)联合测试了15款网上保安套装、 ,款免费防毒软件和评估了,个电脑操作系统。 - 6 - 测试包括保护效能(60)、 易用程度(25)、管理及资源占用(10)、安装及解除(5)。保护效能测试时使用 不同病毒和恶意程式例如特洛伊木马、蠕虫和巨集病毒。 15个网上保安套装中,, 个声称具备了,个主要功能:防恶意程式、防火墙、防间谍程式、防网络钓鱼、防 拨号程式、家长监控功能和防垃圾邮件。 在最高为,分的评级中,没有一个套装在 整体表现上得到满分,但有一个在防火墙效能测试中得到,分。 表现最佳的,个样 本得,分,,个只得2.5分。 消费者应留意不同保安软件对电脑的资源需求相差很 大,包括记忆体和硬碟空间。 一些软件在操作时会占用系统的大量资源,选购前应 了解电脑的配备能否配合软件的硬体要求。 举例说,软件安装后占用硬碟空间由 39MB至380MB,占主记忆11MB至93MB。 购物网上保安套装要注意的事项还包括: , 售价一般由312(,台电脑使用)至802(,台电脑使用); , 大部分软件已设 多台电脑版本,例如供,台、,台、,台或10台电脑使用; , 部分防毒软件可免 费下载; 《选择》月刊现已上网,网址为,同时可透过电讯 盈科固网及流动电话服务接收。 今日(四月十五日)《选择》月刊记者招待会主持 为消委会及社区关系小组主席何沛谦先生。 欢迎被邀出席新闻发布会的传媒引 用新闻稿的。 消费者委员会保留所有关於《选择》月刊及网上《选择》的权利 (包括版权)。 - 7 - Supermarket Pricing Tactics Major supermarket chains regularly churn out and advertise a dazzling array of promotional packages and price discounts. But are consumers really benefitting from this seemingly perpetual price competition between the two biggest supermarket chains – ParknShop and Wellcome – in the market The truth is that in some cases they are not what they appear to be but mere promotional sale tactics to lure customers into buying – and buying more. The revelation was borne out in an analysis of the Consumer Council based on its daily surveillance of online prices of the two supermarket chains on 288 items over a 5-month period between October 2008 and February 2009. Prices of these 288 items were available and monitored throughout the entire study period. The analysis cited as an example the case of the price movement of a popular brand of canned beer 330ml in a promotion. On November 14 both supermarket chains raised the unit price of the item from 5.9 to 6.1 and again on November 15 to 6.5 bringing the increase to a total of 0.6 or 10.2 within a brief span of two days. Having raised the price in rapid succession later on the same day November 15 one of the chains offered a promotional package priced at 12.3 for 2. This was matched by the other chain the following day. It transpired that however the promotional unit price of 6.15 at 12.3 for 2 was actually 0.25 6.15 – 5.9 or 4.2 higher than the individual selling price prior to the price escalation immediately before the promotion. Consumers lured to the promotion had not only purchased more of the item but also paid a higher cost. In this case the consumers would have been better off had they made the purchase before the promotion. Or indeed as observed in the - 8 - study after the promotion. Using the same example of the canned beer it was shown that on 19 December both supermarket chains simultaneously adjusted the price to 6.1 each down from the promotional package price of 12.3 for 2 6.15 each thus a reduction of 0.05 after the promotion. This similar pattern of pricing tactic was observed in some other commodities of the 288 items under study – by first raising the unit price then offering purportedly promotional packages such as ―the more you buy the more you get for free‖ ―buy one get one free‖ ―1 more to get one item more‖ etc. The study found a total of 79 occasions for the 288 items in the 21 weeks covered by the study period in which consumers could be lured into buying more and paying more – for 38 occasions compared to prices before the promotion and 41 occasions after the promotion. It is not unusual that in order to capture their market share businesses would take reference of the prices of their competitors in marking their own. This would inevitably lead to the same products at different shops being priced at almost the same levels. The analysis also examined the prevalence of this practice of ―price copy‖ – identical price marking – for 375 items simultaneously sold by the two supermarket chains over the study period. The study cited as an example the case of a 12-pack canned beer 330ml. On October 11 both supermarket chains were observed to reduce in unison their online price of this item from 37 to 35.8. But on October 17 both raised the price to their pre-promotional level of 37. Very similar price movements between the two chains were observed for the item throughout the study period. ―Price copying‖ was found in a total of 55 items out of the 375 items in 10 product categories throughout the entire study period at the two chains. It was most common 50 in the bread/cake category – 5 out 10 items. The least common 0 was in the household products/toilet rolls category followed by the staple food category 6.7 – 2 out of 30. Overall 14.7 of the items under study were observed to ―price copy‖ each other. There still exist therefore plenty of products with price - 9 - differences in the marketplace which consumers can take advantage of by price comparison to achieve savings. Supermarkets regularly advertise large sale on Friday. Does that indicate supermarket goods are cheaper on Friday Or vice versa According to the study out of the 288 items analysed 207 71.9 were in fact found to be most expensive on Friday based on the average price of the same item every Friday for 21 weeks in one major supermarket chain. The other chain by comparison had 158 items 54.9. Contrary to common belief the study found the same 288 items had their lowest average prices mostly on Thursday – 151 items 52.4 in one chain and 137 items 47.6 in the other chain. Consumers shopping on Thursday may probably stand a better chance of price savings in these two supermarket chains. Annual Supermarket Price Survey The vast majority 75 of some of the top-selling items in the major supermarket chains had their prices increased ranging from 0.8 to 77.2 last year. Overall the aggregate average price increase of a basket of 200 items comprising predominantly daily food and necessities was 12.6. This was indicated in the annual supermarket price survey of the Consumer Council on the three supermarket chains of CRVanguard ParknShop and Wellcome in a year of inflation and economic downturn. The annual survey was based on the actual scan data of 200 most commonly carried items in these chains to analyse the price trend of 2008 in comparison to 2007. Consumers were hard hit in their pocket last year which saw soaring prices in many basic food commodities. According to the annual survey all but one of 12 categories recorded an upward price trend ranging from 2.5 to 34.9 in aggregate average. Staple food and canned food/prepackaged soup the two categories with probably the most impact on the widest section of consumers unfortunately were the worst hit with the highest increase of 34.9 and 21.9 respectively. - 10 - But good news to consumers of alcohol. Alcoholic drinks was the only single category that reversed the trend by registering a price decrease of 8.3. For a more detailed analysis the categories were broken down into a total of 39 product groups. The annual survey showed that all but 6 of the product groups recorded price increases of an aggregate average ranging from 0.3 to 36.7. Edible oils topped the list with the biggest aggregate average price increase of 36.7. A corn oil product in this product group rose by a hefty 77.2. This was followed closely by the product groups of canned meat 35 and packaged rice 32.6. Other notable increases were recorded in mostly foodstuffs: canned fish 24.3 instant coffee 19.5 instant noodles 16.8 frozen food 13.1 prepackaged cake 12.9 cheese 12.2 milk powder 11.7 toothpaste 11.6 yoghurt/yoghurt drinks 11.1 and biscuit 11.1. Among the 5 product groups that went down in price were: wine -9.7 and beer -5.1. The one group that remained unchanged in price went to: ladies sanitary protection products. Foldable Bikes Imagine a foldable bike that can be stored inside in the security of the home or the trunk of the car. But security from theft is one thing security from bodily injuries from riding a foldable bike is quite another. That is the chief concern and the focus of a Consumer Council test on 11 foldable bikes varying in wheel diameters from 20 inches 4 samples 16 inches 6 samples and 6 inches 1 sample. The samples also varied vastly in weight from 5.8 kg to 14.3 kg and in price from 670 to 9300. Foldable bikes are designed with more hinges and joints than the traditional types so as to allow folding and adjustment. Most samples use the conventional folding mechanism with the hinge - 11 - at the centre of the frame to fold the front and rear wheels together. 2 samples use a different folding mechanism: the frame is in triangular shape with the hinge at the top to fold the front and rear supporting tubes together. With all those hinges and joints could a foldable bike still remain safely secured and sustain the load during riding particularly if the cyclist is heavy and the road rough and bumpy In the test the bikes were put through a series of stringent tests to assess their safety performance including saddle compression and axial compression tests vibration test and braking test. The compression tests were carried out to simulate the load during riding and to verify if the foldable bikes could withstand the load. The vibration test sought to verify if the different connection parts of the foldable bikes could remain safely secured after vibration in simulated actual riding conditions. The results showed that all foldable bikes performed well in both the compression and vibration tests without any damage and all connection parts remained intact .
/
本文档为【九年四月十五日】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。 本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。 网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
热门搜索

历史搜索

    清空历史搜索