• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.17-27
• /
• 2009

典型的价格促销是指降低一定数量产品的价格或以相同的价 格获得更多数量的产品, 从而增加价值和创造经济的激励购买. 价格促销经常用来鼓励没有消费过产品或服务的用户试用产品或服务. 因此, 理解价格促销对那些从来没有使用过促销品牌的消费者的此品牌质量认知的影响是很重要的. 然而, 如果消费者通过价格促销获得的产品的质量不好, 促销可能达不到用经济的刺激方法来增加销售的效果. 相反则有可能发生. 具体来说, 通过价格促销消费者产生低的质量的认知会削弱经济的和心理上的激励, 减少购买的可能性. 因此, 对市场营销人员来说理解品牌的价格促销信息如何影响消费者对此品牌的质量的不良认知是非常重要的. 先前的有关价格促销对质量认知的影响的研究有不一致的解释. 一些是关注价格促销对消费者认知的不利影响. 但是其他的研究显示价格促销并没有提高消费者对品牌的不良认知. 之前的研究发现这些不一致的结果和价格促销曝光的时机以及相关的试验得出的质量评估有关. 而且, 消费者是否经历过产品促销都可能会调节这些影响. 一些研究把产品类别的不同作为基本的因素. 本研究的目的是探讨在不同的情况下, 价格促销信息对消费者的不良的质量认知产生的影响. 作者控制了促销曝光的时机, 过去的各种促销形式以及信息发布的方式. 与以往的研究不同, 作者通过控制以前个人使用此产品的经验的潜在调节作用来测试事先设定限制的价格促销的影响. 这样的操作可以解决相关的有可能产生的争议. 这种方法对实际工作方面也是有意义的. 价格促销不仅适用于已存在的目标消费者, 而且可以鼓励没有使用过产品和服务的消费者尝试此产品或服务. 因此, 对市场营销人员来说理解品牌的价格促销信息如何影响消费者对此品牌的质量的不良认知是非常重要的. 如果没有使用过这个品牌的消费者通过价格促销获得的产品的质量不好, 促销可能达不到用经济的刺激方法来增加销售的效果. 相反则有可能发生. 另外, 如果价格促销结束, 购买了这个产品的消费者可能会出现明显的减少再购买行为. 通过文献回顾, 假设1用来探讨消费者通过过去的价格促销获得的质量认知的调节作用. 消费者对没有使用过的品牌的价格促销而产生的质量认知的影响会被此品牌过去的价格促销活动所调节. 换句话说, 消费者会对没有进行过价格促销的没有使用过的品牌产生不良的质量认知. 假设2-1:未使用过的品牌进行首次价格促销的时候, 价格促销的信息发布的方式将影响价格促销的成败. 假设2-2:消费者越不在意价格促销的原因, 越容易对产品的质量产生不良的认知. 通过测试1, 简要地解释了产品和品牌在提供四种价格促销形式之前并解释说明了每种价格促销形式. WAVEX这个虚拟品牌的质量的认知被评估为7. 网球拍被选中的原因是由于选定的产品组必须过去几乎没有价格促销活动来消除促销的平均次数对价格促销信息的影响, 正如Raghubir和Corfman(1999)所提出的. 测试2也用网球拍作为产品组, 主持测试2的管理者与测试1相同. 随着测试1, 选择了对产品组熟悉而对产品不熟悉的受访者. 每个受访者被分配到代表WAVEX价格促销的两种不同信息发布方式的两组中的一组. 在评估WAVEX的质量认知为7以前, 受访者看了每个促销信息. 不熟悉的实验品牌的价格促销对消费者的质量认知的影响被证明为会被以前有过或没有价格促销活动所调节. 与过去的促销行为一致是使品牌评估变得更糟的不良影响的重要变量. 如果此品牌从未进行过价格促销, 价格促销活动会对消费者的质量认知产生不良的影响. 第二, 不熟悉的品牌进行首次价格促销时, 促销信息的发布方式会影响公司促销的成败. 当消费者进行性格归因和情境归因的比较时, 质量认知的不良影响会更大. 与先前主要关注具有或不具有情境/性格归因中良好或不良的动机的研究不同, 本研究的焦点是检验如果公司提出了具有说服性的理由, 即使消费者在价格促销行为中有性格归因, 情境归因也可以被推断出的事实. 这种方法, 在学术方面取得了很大的成果, 意义在于它运用非数学的问题来解释固定和调整过程而不像以前的研究大部分是把它用于数学问题来解释. 换句话说, 根据基本属性错误, 有很大的倾向去性格地归因其他的行为. 当这种情况出现在价格促销时, 我们可以推断出消费者很有可能性格地归因公司的价格促销行为. 反而, 即使在这种情况下, 公司可以调整消费者的锚定性来降低性格归因的可能性. 另外, 不像多数对价格促销的长/短期影响的以往的研究, 只考虑价格促销对消费者的购买行为影响, 本 研究测试对质量认知的影响, 一个影响消费者购买行为的因素. 这些结果在实际工作方面有重要启示. 本研究的结果可以作为新产品有效的提供促销信息的指南. 如果品牌要避免错误的暗示, 比如在施行价格促销战略时被认为是产品的质量不好, 一定要为促销提供清晰合理的理由. 尤其是对那些以前没有进行过价格促销活动的公司来说, 提供明确的理由尤其重要. 不一致的行为可以导致消费者的不信任和焦虑. 这也是无止境的价格战的风险的重要因素之一. 没有事先通知的价格促销会使消费者怀疑, 但不会影响市场份额.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.