2. 考研
  3. Every suit-dress sold by the likes of Gucci or Givenchy is billed as a must-have that season. But, it turns out, some are more m

Every suit-dress sold by the likes of Gucci or Givenchy is billed as a must-have that season. But, it turns out, some are more m

admin2022-11-16  131
问题     Every suit-dress sold by the likes of Gucci or Givenchy is billed as a must-have that season. But, it turns out, some are more must-have than others. For all the advertisements they generate, even leading fashion brands struggle to shift much more than half their wares at full price. The luxury world is desperately searching for new ways to find a worthy closet for this unwanted inventory.
    Dealing with "end-of-season" merchandise is a particularly thorny problem for luxury brands. Offering discounts to off load ageing wares is a time-tested trick among retailers. But cutting prices to clear the shelves is a bad look for labels whose reason is to manifest exclusivity.
    Fashion brands used to bin last year’s clothing quietly rather than sell them cheap. That changed after July 2018, when Burberry, a British supplier of upscale macs, faced a furore as it disclosed having destroyed $38m of clothes and fashion accessories. France will ban the practice entirely by 2023.
    Luxury groups are reluctant to reduce production, given that goods can be sold for ten times what they cost to make. But putting up "Sale!!!" signs is considered unacceptable. Plus, says Luca Solca of Bernstein, a broker, "you have to weigh cash made from discounted sales with the damage done to the value of the brand." Prada, a posh Italian label, said last year it would end all in store discounts.
    Some brands’ offerings are so timeless—a Hermes handbag, say—that seasonality is not an issue. Others manage to get rid of old stuff by offering discreet "sample sales" to staff and their friends. Many of the clothes used to end up on the internet, sold cheaply on sites like Yoox and Saksoff5th.com.
    None of this will be enough to get rid of an outmoded collection. To really shift stocks, brands now look to outdoor malls that group together "factory outlets". The concept is booming. Out of an estimated €281bn in personal-luxury sales last year, €37bn were in such physical off-price stores, according to Bain, a consultancy. The figure has shot up by 85％ in five years. But using the outlets for anything beyond liquidating inventory—for example by stocking them with cheaper, second-tier collections—is a way to dent a brand’s prestige permanently, warns Mr Solca. Best to keep only the most questionable styles and weirdest sizes in stock, and to push a brand’s real fans to Regent Street or Avenue Montaigne.
    Two things may come to the rescue of exasperated inventory liquidators. The first is the rise of second-hand-clothes sales online: expect to see many "used" frocks on offer that are in fact brand new. The second is "up-cycling", when an unsold dress gets trimmed, combined and dyed into a new fabulous outfit. For luxury brands, these two trends are unmissable.
The reason why luxury brands rebuff offering discounts is that________.
选项 A、it will harm a brand’s prestige
B、it may end up with low yield
C、it has been banned in stores
D、it tallies with exclusiveness
答案A
解析 根据题干关键词reason和rebuff offering discounts可定位到文章第二段。该段第三句中提到cutting prices to clear the shelves is a bad look for labels whose reason is to manifest exclusivity (有些品牌存在的理由就是为了彰显它的“独特性”，而清仓降价只会让品牌掉价)，根据这句话可知，奢侈品牌拒绝打折是为了保护品牌价值，彰显其“独特性”，对比四个选项可知，A项“它会损害一个品牌的声誉”最符合文意，为正确答案。第四段第一句提到Luxury groups are reluctant to reduce production, given that goods can be sold for ten times what they cost to make. (奢侈品集团不愿意减少产量，因为商品的售价可能是其生产成本的十倍)，故选项B“它可能使生产量下降”应排除；由第三段最后两句可知，被禁止的是销毁高档服饰，而非禁止打折，故C项“它在商店中被禁止”也应排除由第二段第三句可知，打折和品牌的“独特性”是背道而驰的，D项“它与独特性一致”属于正反混淆，应排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/QBMD777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)