Compare and contrast short distribution channels with long distribution channels

What will be an ideal response?

"Short" distribution channels, those with few intermediaries like zero-level and one-level channels, work well for
products and services that are complex (made to order or configured to suit a particular purpose), expensive (often
targeted to a niche, discriminating audience), and perishable (not able to withstand the rigors of long channels).
Short channels are suited for geographically concentrated markets (not requiring long transportation distances),
with companies that can take on some of the duties associated with channels (like processing orders and returns, as
well as providing financing).
For example, short channels are suitable to automobile sales, where autos are shipped directly from the
manufacturer to dealers' lots, bypassing other intermediaries.
By contrast, "long" distribution channels, those with many intermediaries, work well for products and services that
are standardized (all customers get the same item), cheap (sold to a mass market), and durable (not susceptible to
breakage or spoilage). Long channels are suited for geographically dispersed markets (needing long-distance
hauling), with manufacturers that lack the resources to perform channel functions. For example, long channels are
suitable for consumer packaged goods, such as snack foods, where several intermediaries may be involved.