1、市場營銷專業(yè)英語電子教案第六章市場營銷專業(yè)英語電子教案第六章市場營銷專業(yè)英語電子教案第六章Chapter 6 Product decisions一、教學目標1. 了解產(chǎn)品類型；2掌握產(chǎn)品生命周期概念；3了解新產(chǎn)品開發(fā)；4掌握品牌和包裝策略。二、課時分配共四節(jié)，安排4個課時三、教學重點難點1. 產(chǎn)品類型2. 產(chǎn)品生命周期3新產(chǎn)品4. 品牌和包裝四、教學大綱第一節(jié)Product types1. Durable products and non-durable products2. Tangible and intangible products3. Consumer products and in

2、dustrial products第二節(jié)Product life cycles1. Introduction Stage2. Growth Stage3. Maturity Stage4. Decline Stage第三節(jié)New product development1. Research and Development of Products2. Test Marketing New Industrial Products3. Commercialization第四節(jié)Branding and packing1. Brand2. Branding Strategies3. Packaging

3、Decisions五、主要概念1. product types2. plc3. new product4. branding 5. packaging六、教學案例（注：不要與教材的案例重復）The Worlds Top Ten BrandsCompanies around the world invest large amounts of money each year to create awareness and preference for their top brands. Powerful brand names command strong consumer loyalty and

4、 provide competitive advantage in the marketplace. What are the worlds most powerful brands? Interbrand, a consultancy that specializes in branding, released a new piece of research in 1996, naming McDonalds as the worlds leading brand. Interbrand drew up an initial list of some 1,200 brands by poll

5、ing staff in its 12 offices, spread across Europe, America, Asia, Australia and South Africa. This long list of brands was then trimmed down arbitrarily to 500 global brands and the survivors graded according to four criteria to give a final score. The criteria were: brand weight (or the brands mark

6、et share within its category), which accounted for 35 per cent of the final total; breadth (how wide a slice of the world in terms of age, gender, religion and nationality the brand appeals to) was another 30 per cent; depth (die loyalty of its customers) was 20 per cent; and length (how far the bra

7、nd has stretched or is likely to stretch beyond its original category) was 15 per cent.Under Interbrands system, McDonalds scored 856 points against 849 for Coke. The most striking absence from the new top ten (see Table 1) was Kelloggs, which fell from second to 17th. The cereal maker has been over

8、taken by high-tech arrivals such as Microsoft, and by old brands that have done more to extend their appeal. Whereas Kelloggs influence is confined to the breakfast table, names such as Disney and Levis are no longer just confined to the cinema and jeans. Disney also gained from being die only brand

9、 in an otherwise unbranded industry; nobody asks you to go and see a Paramount film or talks about Warner characters.Given die obvious power of brands, some argue that they should be included alongside other assets in their owners balance sheets. Various accounting standards boards (including the Un

10、ited Kingdoms) are looking at this issue. At present, most balance sheets concentrate on historic-cost assets, rather than trying to guess the future value of intangible assets, such as brands. Interbrand is one of several firms that tries to calculate the value of brands by estimating each products

11、 expected net cash flow and discounting it at a rate that reflects how secure Interbrand guesses the brands future is. The suspicion remains that putting brands on a balance sheet would simply be an excuse for excessively ereafi-re accounting. Brands may be deep, but some argue that valuing them is

12、not necessarily meaningful. Although there is still disagreement among business analysts and academics about how to measure brand power, few marketers doubt die value of a powerful brand. As one brand consultant states, almost anywhere in die world, When you mention Kodak, Im pretty sure everyone sees that yellow box.SOURCES: Assessing brands: broad, deep, long and hiwy. The Economist (16 Nove