”
that’s right. The strategy of cutting leeks is magical in itself.
these days, many friends in the backstage asked me about the protection of snow lotus (snow lotus is a kind of ice cube I ate when I was a child, a few cents a bag), saying that the merchants are guilty and only sell high-priced ice cream, so that consumers can’t buy cheap ice cream.
as soon as I opened the freezer, there were all ice cream assassins, sharpening their knives at their wallets.
the reality is not, because the argument that consumers can’t buy cheap ice cream itself is wrong.
to be exact, there are fewer and fewer cheap ice cream in convenience stores and supermarkets.
then why do offline convenience stores and supermarkets no longer sell cheap ice cream, and all they sell are ice cream with high prices such as “ice cream assassins”, which is not a black heart?
here we need to clarify two issues.
first, it is not the problem of the business to expect the business not to make profits, it is your problem.
businesses come out to make money. How many times has Mr. Marx told you this since childhood?
the dream and goal of every business is to accurately squeeze your last copper.
don’t expect businesses.
second, you can’t buy low-cost ice cream. It’s not only the problem of the business, not only the manufacturer, but also your problem.
because you really have money and bought high priced ice cream.
if there were not enough deals, the product would have been off the shelves long ago.
remember, friends, every penny you spend is voting for the future you want.
when you are still spending money on expensive ice cream, you are choosing the future by yourself.
why are those offline convenience stores and supermarkets unwilling to sell cheap ice cream, while these cheap ice cream still have considerable sales on the e-commerce platform?
a typical saying is.
because of channel involution and channel monopoly.
the so-called channel involution refers to that ice cream manufacturers have higher profits because they produce high priced ice cream, so they can give higher budgets and share to the channel, so offline convenience stores and supermarkets are more willing to sell their products.
squeezed out the price of cheap ice cream and finally achieved channel monopoly.
this logic seems to have no problem, but it can’t stand the test of time.
have you ever thought of one thing, such blatant business logic, which no one could have thought of 20 years ago? Why did no one cheer up and start this business model of “Whoever has money will earn it”, but let the old popsicles do what they want in the market and become the childhood memory of a generation of Sao Nian? Photo source: Sohu
the reason is very simple.
in the past, those manufacturers who tried to sell ice cream at super high prices said one by one, but they all died.
why?
because when they hit the price of ice cream to the sky, consumers will vote with their feet and directly stop buying ice cream.
that’s, really can’t afford it.
businesses are never afraid of making more money, but afraid of losing money.
although production determines consumption, it is more consumption that guides production. When consumers do not have enough spending power, businesses cannot sell anything.
it’s not that businesses didn’t want to sell high priced ice cream in the past, but that consumers’ spending power was not enough to support them to buy high priced ice cream in the past.
so what phenomenon did you find?
yes, consumers and businesses are playing games with each other from beginning to end.
it’s not that the merchants say that the sale is expensive, and the consumers have to pay according to the order, but that the merchants have to consider what price to sell, so that the consumers can accept and choose to pay.
you can sell 500 ice cream or 5000 ice cream.
give the channel 30% gross profit or 90% rebate.
needs to solve a core problem first.
this thing has to be paid by consumers.
no deal, any strategy is bullshit.
this is actually a very simple economic principle.
price increases, sales volume decreases, price decreases, sales volume increases.
for convenience stores and offline supermarkets, what they consider is neither sales volume, nor price, nor rebate, but the ultimate profit.
photo source: foodlife
for those convenience stores and supermarkets that are responsible for their own profits and losses, they are more realistic than all consumers.
it is unrealistic for them not to allow rent.
selling snow lotus has higher profit (unit price x quantity minus cost), so people sell snow lotus.
selling Menglong has a higher profit (unit price x quantity minus cost), so people sell Menglong.
convenience stores and supermarkets don’t care about the “ice cream defense war”.
people only care about money.
the landlord doesn’t allow them to care about anything else.
the convenience store will sell the products of whoever can make money.
why do convenience stores sell snow lotus unless the “ice cream defense war” can make money from selling Menglong in convenience stores?
do they have a grudge against money?
in the real world, there has never been the so-called pockmarked economics of “who makes money, who makes money”, and some are only Xie Ruolin economics of “who makes me make more money, I will make money”.
these two gold bars, can you tell me which one is noble and which one is dirty?
No.
according to your logic, why do convenience stores and shopping malls not follow the low-cost ice cream route of small profits and quick turnover, but follow the ice cream assassin mode of “who makes money, who makes money”?
the logic here is still not complicated.
for convenience stores and shopping malls, they seem to be facing an open large free market, but in fact they are only a small market facing closed areas.
this is not difficult to understand. The convenience store downstairs of the community only covers and serves this community, and the vast majority of its customers are only users of this community. For this convenience store, the consumption capacity of residents in the community is the demand it has to face.
small profits and quick turnover are not suitable for convenience stores in the service area.
because this store only serves this area.
the consumption capacity of consumers living in a region is also convergent.
house price and rent are the best filters.
for this convenience store, he will find that the customers’ demand for ice cream in the community is certain. Whether he sells snow lotus for 50 cents or Menglong Zhong Xue Gao for 10 yuan, his sales have not changed much.
why?
because the convenience store is very clear, with the consumption capacity of residents in this community, it is impossible for them to go to other communities to buy cheap ice cream at nearly 40 degrees because of the high price of ice cream.
even if there is, it doesn’t matter.
because for convenience stores, he only earns 10 cents on snow lotus, but he may earn 2 yuan on Monroe. As long as he can sell a piece of Monroe, it is equivalent to selling 20 yuan of snow lotus. Do you think convenience stores will sell snow lotus if consumption capacity allows?
even if there is no rebate, as long as his Menglong still sells, it won’t.
in addition, when you can make the action of running a kilometer at 40 degrees to buy a snow lotus that is a few dollars cheaper, you will not be the customer of this convenience store.
convenience stores always use convenience as a premium (the unit price of 24h convenience stores is higher than that of supermarkets and online stores). If people don’t cut the leeks of the poor, they don’t look down on you.
therefore, for convenience stores in the service area, he will always sell expensive ice cream, and he will not deliberately write down the price of each ice cream to consumers, because he knows one thing very well.
no matter how much he sells, consumers here are willing to pay. Photo source: etnet
this is actually a very classic phenomenon in the concept of value discrimination in economics.
for convenience stores, it can choose snow lotus (lower price) to sell to the poor and the rich at the same time, or Menglong Zhong Xue Gao Haagen Dazs (higher value) to sell only to the rich, but he will only choose the method that brings him the highest profit in the two modes in the end.
don’t think that convenience stores really bring convenience to serve everyone.
people open stores to make money.
who makes money?
earn your money.
how do ordinary people defend their ice cream freedom?
in fact, what I said earlier is very clear.
don’t buy it here, just fine.
went to the e-commerce platform to buy.
because for the e-commerce platform, it can break through the space restrictions. In the face of the open free market, consumers at every level can find their corresponding “low-cost ice cream” on it. You can place an order, then store them in the refrigerator and eat them if you want.
but what if you say you just want to eat those low-cost ice cream in a convenience store on a 40 degree day?
sorry, I can’t.
convenience stores won’t sell it.
because they know better than you, you are no longer the little fart who can insist on buying cheap ice cream in 40 degrees a day for a few dollars.
if you can buy milk tea at the same price, you must be able to buy ice cream at the same price.
when you are rich, you are also discriminated against.
that’s why I said.
this is essentially a game.
every penny you spend is voting for the future you want.
food people are “watching”
Read the original text