login
和平饭店50元可乐是否合理
2025/08/05·StepFun can make mistakes, check important info.
和平饭店的可乐卖50元合理吗
Reason
来源
上海和平饭店的一杯可乐卖到了50元,价格背后隐藏着什么秘密?
上海市黄浦区市监局外滩市场监督管理所工作人员称,和平饭店可乐卖50元属于市场调节价,商家拥有自主定价权,只要消费者自愿购买即可。这一高价策略具有一定的合理性,具体原因如下: 符合市场定价规则:根据我国《价格法》,餐饮服务价格属于市场调节价范畴,商家有权自主定价。和平饭店在点菜单中明确标注了“可乐(杯装)50元”,服务员点单时也会口头确认价格,做到了明码标价,未违反相关法律规定。存在场...
https://s2.zimgs.cn/ims?kt=url&at=smstruct&key=aHR0cHM6Ly9ndy5hbGljZG4uY29tL0wxLzcyMy8xNTYyODEzMjI0L2I0LzExL2Y3L2I0MTFmN2ExMGZlNzgxYzNhNjMwYzYxYWU2NmE0ODY2LnBuZw==&sign=yx:VnmFtuBPyzBrSG70neamT35QLU4=&tv=400_400
今日头条
和平饭店50元可乐,合理定价还是宰客?
2025年7月20日,有网友在上海和平饭店点了一杯可乐,服务员当面将罐装可乐倒入杯中后,竟收费50元。这则视频一经发布,迅速在网络上引发热议,不少网友直呼“价格离谱”。7月23日,针对此事,上海市黄浦区市监局外滩市场监督管理所给出了明确回应
https://s2.zimgs.cn/ims?kt=url&at=smstruct&key=aHR0cHM6Ly9ndy5hbGljZG4uY29tL0wxLzcyMy8xNTYyODEzMjI0L2I0LzExL2Y3L2I0MTFmN2ExMGZlNzgxYzNhNjMwYzYxYWU2NmE0ODY2LnBuZw==&sign=yx:VnmFtuBPyzBrSG70neamT35QLU4=&tv=400_400
今日头条
上海和平饭店服务员当面倒入一罐3元的可乐卖50元, 这合理吗?
上海和平饭店服务员当面将罐装可乐倒入杯中并以50元售卖的行为,在官方界定上属于合法操作。上海市黄浦区市监局外滩市场监督管理所明确回应称,此类定价属于市场调节价,商家拥有自主定价权,只要明码标价且消费者自愿买单即符合法规;同时,饭店收取的服务费也需提前告知消费者方可实施。综上而言,其合理性取决于消费者对价格透明度和服务价值的个人评估,而法律层面不存在强制干预依据。本人观点:之所以能差出来10倍的价格,还...
https://s2.zimgs.cn/ims?kt=url&at=smstruct&key=aHR0cHM6Ly9ndy5hbGljZG4uY29tL0wxLzcyMy8xNTY1NjAwMTUyLzAyL2RiLzYzLzAyZGI2MzZjOTA0M2I0ZTVjYjdkZTM3MDI1OTBlODM1LnBuZw==&sign=yx:PZv9ecg3NGV1G_nKXagZJrE3JNI=&tv=400_400
mparticle.uc.cn
10 web pages
今日头条
今日头条
mparticle.uc.cn
什么值得买
央视网
央视网
手机光明网
上游新闻
中华网
思考过程

Hmm, the user is asking about whether it's reasonable for the Peace Hotel in Shanghai to charge 50 yuan for a can of Coca-Cola that's poured into a glass. This is a pretty interesting question about pricing strategies at high-end establishments.

Looking at the search results, I can see this was actually a viral news story in July 2025. The Peace Hotel in Shanghai was caught on video charging 50 yuan for a can of regular Coca-Cola (which normally costs about 3 yuan), simply by pouring it into a glass. The same price applied to Sprite, and they even charged 90 yuan for a bottle of Evian water.

The Shanghai Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau responded to this by stating that the pricing falls under "market-adjusted pricing" - meaning the hotel has the legal right to set their own prices as long as they clearly display the prices and consumers agree to pay. The hotel also mentioned they charge service fees and allow bringing your own drinks but with a 300 yuan corkage fee.

This situation really highlights the tension between legal pricing and perceived value. On the legal side, the hotel is completely within their rights to charge this premium. But ethically and perceptually, many consumers feel it's unreasonable to pay 16 times the standard retail price for the same physical product, especially when the only "service" provided is pouring the soda into a glass.

The key factors here seem to be:

  1. The Peace Hotel's historical prestige and prime location (they're charging for the experience and ambiance)
  2. The service fees that get added on top
  3. The lack of clear justification for the massive price difference
  4. The fact that similar luxury venues often use similar pricing strategies

For my response, I should clearly separate the legal perspective from the consumer perception perspective. I'll explain that legally it's permissible, but whether consumers consider it reasonable is subjective and depends on their expectations of value at high-end establishments. I should also mention the related practices like corkage fees and service charges that contribute to the overall cost structure at such hotels.

基于搜索结果,关于和平饭店50元可乐是否合理的问题,需要从法律合规性消费者感知两个层面分析:

一、法律层面:定价行为合法,但需满足前提条件

根据《中华人民共和国价格法》,餐饮服务类商品属于市场调节价范畴,商家享有自主定价权。从公开回应看,和平饭店的操作满足法律要求的关键前提:

  1. 明码标价:点菜单标注“可乐(杯装)50元”,服务员点单时也会口头确认价格;
  2. 无强制交易:消费者可自主选择是否购买,不存在“不买就不能消费”等强制行为。

上海市黄浦区市监局明确表示,只要商家明码标价且消费者自愿买单,该定价行为符合法律规定

二、合理性争议:溢价逻辑与消费者认知的冲突

尽管法律上合规,但“50元可乐”引发舆论争议的核心,是**“价格是否匹配价值”**的消费心理问题:

  1. 溢价基础:和平饭店作为百年历史地标(外滩核心区位、文化遗产属性),叠加“高端服务体验”(如环境氛围、品牌背书),将场地租金、服务成本等通过商品售价分摊,属于高端场所常见的“场景溢价”逻辑;
  2. 消费者质疑:罐装可乐物理形态未改变(与市面3元/罐的可口可乐无差异),单纯“倒入杯中”的服务动作,难以支撑16倍的溢价幅度;且“服务费”“开瓶费”等附加规则(如自带酒水收300元开瓶费)缺乏透明定价依据,易让消费者觉得“名不副实”。

三、总结:“合法”不代表“合情”,商家需平衡商业逻辑与公众认知

  • 从法律维度,和平饭店定价行为无违规
  • 从消费体验维度,50元可乐的“合理性”高度依赖消费者对“高端场景价值”的接受度——愿意为历史底蕴、社交属性买单的客群,可能认可溢价;但对价格敏感的消费者,会认为这是“品牌割韭菜”。

因此,“合理”是相对且主观的概念:若商家能更透明地解释定价逻辑(如服务链条、成本构成),或能减少争议;但本质上,高端场所的溢价策略,考验的是商家在“自主定价权”与“消费者信任”之间的平衡智慧。

(注:以上分析参考了712等多方信息整合。)