Ferric Citrate,Ferrous Citrate,Magnesium Citrate,Potassium Citrate Jiangsu Kolod Food Ingredients Co., Ltd. , https://www.kolodchem.com
The old-fashioned furniture trials are not very effective in the cold consumer market.
The trend of “old-for-new†has brought new development opportunities to the home appliance industry. Now that this trend has entered the home market, can it still maintain this effect? At the beginning of this year, the government announced the news that the furniture “trade-in†policy will be introduced. Although the policy has not yet been officially introduced, it has already caused turmoil in the home furnishing industry, and more businesses have not waited until the policy is introduced. Trial, the trial effect is not as smooth as the industry expected, but also exposed in advance the problems that may arise in the home industry "trade-in". On November 1, the Beijing Municipal Commission of Commerce announced that Beijing, as a pilot area, will conduct a one-month trial of the “old-for-new†policy for furniture. Individual consumers will purchase four types of new furniture and hand over old furniture in a pilot furniture sales company in Beijing. A subsidy of 10% of the furniture sales price will be available. The subsidy is shared by the government and the furniture sales mall, with a subsidy of 5%. It is reported that the pilot furniture sales malls such as Beijing Real Home and Lan Jingli Home did not have the expected "enthusiasm". Some shopping malls did not establish a "furniture trade-for-new" sign at the door. The merchants participating in the old-fashioned furniture store were not all. Participating in the event, the participating companies also set some restrictions on the exchange. Merchants bear subsidy profits too low Consumers fear that furniture prices with water merchants to play the "old-for-new" banner, hoping to attract consumers, improve consumer purchase rate, but also received government support. But this kind of sales style with a promotional nature is not very useful for consumers. Although the government has given certain financial subsidies to the policy, the merchants themselves have to bear 5% subsidies, and the furniture recycling process is difficult and the profits are low. This is equivalent to the merchants themselves to rebate to the consumer, under the constraints of operating costs and profit conditions, the cost of recycling subsidies will eventually be re-distributed to consumers by means of increasing furniture prices. Since consumers are relatively cautious about purchasing furniture products and will not easily consume them, the “old-for-new†of merchants will cause a large fluctuation in the price of furniture. The instability of prices will cause consumers to doubt the true value of furniture products. Do not dare to rush to consume. Relative to this so-called subsidy, consumers may be more inclined to buy furniture at a discounted price in the off-season of the furniture market. There are also many consumers who believe that the amount of subsidies for businesses is too low. For example, most of the "old-for-new" businesses give 5% of the subsidy, and a piece of furniture worth 10,000 yuan, the subsidy that consumers can get is 500 yuan, which is not so good. It is cost-effective to sell furniture to the old goods market. Moreover, the average consumer is not very familiar with the market of the furniture market. Considering that this promotion method may have moisture, it is not much to decide to purchase furniture because of the new subsidy. Renewed types of furniture can be reduced to reduce consumer enthusiasm. The current policy of “trade-in†is still in the trial stage, and it is limited to Beijing. The conditions for subsidies are more demanding. For example, there are only four types of furniture that apply to this policy. Including cabinets, sofas, beds, tables and chairs, and the subsidy for single piece of furniture does not exceed 1,000 yuan. Restrictions on regional and furniture types have filtered out a large segment of consumers' participation opportunities, coupled with low subsidies and insufficient consumer appeal. The original policy of “trade-in†is to learn from the successful precedent of the home appliance industry, improve the utilization rate of furniture products, and promote the recycling of resources. However, furniture products are different from home appliances, and the recycling is difficult and the utilization rate is low. Therefore, the government’s “old-for-new†policy is under the banner of circular economy. In the eyes of consumers, it is only in the name of “environmental protectionâ€, and “save the market†is a way for the government to save the depressed furniture market. This policy does not help the interests of consumers, so consumers only maintain a wait-and-see attitude and have no enthusiasm for participation. These problems all indicate that after the introduction of the "trade-in" policy, the purchase rate of consumers will not be much improved. In general, whether it is the merchant's own trial promotion method or the government's market policy, the furniture "old-for-new" sales method is still not very helpful to promote consumers' consumption of household products.