Manufacturer-Optimal Wholesale Pricing When Retailers Compete

The existing marketing science literature on channels of distribution has emphasized pricing strategies that maximize either channel or manufacturer margin. This emphasis has implicitly assumed that optimal wholesale prices are independent of any fixed fees charged by the manufacturer. While this assumption is justified in a single-manufacturer, single-retailer world, it generally does not lead to manufacturer profit maximization in a world of competing retailers. In this paper we derive a manufacturer-optimal wholesale pricing strategy by simultaneously determining both elements of a two-part tariff (consisting of a wholesale price and a fixed fee). We show that the manufacturer will always prefer this sophisticated pricing strategy to one that maximizes either channel or manufacturer margin. We also show that both elements of the optimal tariff are functions of the absolute difference between retailer fixed costs.     

Optimal Returns Policy under Demand Uncertainty

Multiple categories of retail products suffer limited shelf life, demand uncertainty, and, in some cases, long lead times. To provide retailers with an incentive to increase the stocking quantity of such products, manufacturers may offer an option to return unsold items at wholesale or less than wholesale prices. This article extends the additive price-dependent demand model in three ways. First, partial returns are optimal for the manufacturer but do not induce higher stocking quantities compared with when the manufacturer offers no returns. Second, in terms of the effect of investment in demand-enhancing activities, when retailers invest, they set higher resale prices, but an optimal partial returns policy still does not induce higher stocking quantity, whereas when manufacturers invest, the optimal returns policy induces higher stocking quantity. Third, when the manufacturer and retailer have different expectations of demand uncertainty, the retailer's estimate influences the expected profits for both, whereas the manufacturer's estimate has a major impact on its profits only.     

品牌权益影响下的双渠道供应链定价决策及协调研究

针对一个制造商开通直销渠道销售产品与零售商的价格竞争问题,文章基于制造商与零售商共享品牌权益的视角,研究在制造商双渠道供应链结构中,价格和品牌权益同时作用下的双渠道供应链定价决策,分别分析在集中决策下和分散决策下,品牌权益对两种渠道价格和利润的影响。研究发现：在集中决策下,两种渠道的价格、利润与品牌权益成正相关;在分散决策下,当品牌权益超过一定临界值时,其对制造商直销渠道的价格和制造商总利润的影响大于零售商。鉴于品牌权益对供应链定价决策的重要影响,文章建立制造商和零售商之间的品牌权益成本共担机制,并通过数值仿真分析发现,当实施品牌权益成本共担机制时,制造商和零售商的销售价格和利润均是最优的。因此,零售商应加强与制造商的互动,共同创造高品牌权益的同时,也应共同分享高品牌权益。     

Incorporating balance of power in channel decision structure: Theory and empirical application

The objective of a manufacturer is to maximize the profits of its brands. The retailer, on the other hand, is not interested in the profitability of any particular brand but concentrates on the overall category profit. In spite of these apparently diverging profit objectives, both manufacturers and retailers are increasingly realizing that profit margins for both may be increased when retailers and manufacturers recognize the strengths of each other and utilize them to maximize the overall category profit. We develop a game theoretic model to demonstrate that when the retailer allows a few large manufacturers to practice independent brand management but manages the rest of the brands, the category profit is indeed higher than the profits generated when it allows independent brand management by all manufacturers or acts as an uncompromising category manager. We also provide an empirical application of our model on scanner data.     

Shopping in the omnichannel supply chain under price competition and product return

In recent years, omnichannel retailing has created value for prospective consumers. The rise of omnichannel retailing has changed consumers' buying habits, and manufacturers are facing stiff competition from retailers. To reduce this competition effect, manufacturers and retailers often work together to reduce showroom display costs. Despite this practice, there is little understanding of how omnichannel retailing impacts supply chain (SC) profit under competitive conditions. We investigate the test-in-store-and-buy-online (TSBO) retailing strategy and its impact on SC profit and price competition between manufacturers. The retailer sells products of both manufacturers through its website but displays products of only one manufacturer in the showroom, which bears the displaying cost. The retailer adopts a return policy for the other manufacturer. Stackelberg game was used to examine how members of the chain interact, and Nash equilibrium was used to find optimal strategies for players under decentralized and integrated channels. The results show that the TSBO strategy in retailing benefits all supply chain players under the integrated channel. A further interesting finding is that omnichannel SC profits are highest when retailers adopt a return policy. When two manufacturers compete and adopt different sales models, the manufacturer who uses the TSBO retail model reaps the most profit. Several other managerial insights are drawn from sensitivity analyses.     

Efficient replenishment in the distribution channel

Efficient replenishment (ER), a business process that involves the reduction of order cost to facilitate deliveries of goods from the manufacturer to the retailer, is becoming increasingly important in distribution channel management. While a well-executed ER program is expected to lower total channel costs and increase channel profit, very little is known about how this incremental channel profit is distributed between the manufacturer and the retailer and how it varies across the two common channel relationship structures, retailer price leadership and manufacturer price leadership.In this paper, we develop the conditions under which the manufacturer and the retailer gain more or less from the adoption of ER based on a game theoretic channel model of bilateral monopoly under the two channel relationship structures. We develop analytic results on the impact of ER on purchase quantity, price and the distribution of profits in three cases, namely, (1) when only the retailer adopts ER, (2) when both the manufacturer and the retailer adopt ER, and (3) when the manufacturer and the retailer are vertically integrated in the distribution channel, which adopts ER.The results, which can be generalized for all demand functions, show that the manufacturer benefits from the retailer's adoption of ER only when the manufacturer's holding cost relative to the retailer's is sufficiently large, relative to its order cost relative to the retailer's. By adopting ER, the retailer gains more than what the manufacturer gains even if the manufacturer is the price leader. Both the parties are likely to gain more if they both adopt ER than if only the retailer adopts ER. The incremental channel profit due to the retailer's ER adoption is highest in a vertically integrated distribution channel and is greater in a retailer-led channel relationship than in a manufacturer-led relationship.     

Why would a big retailer refuse to collaborate on manufacturer SPIFF programs?

Big retailers that carry a large assortment of products rely on knowledgeable salespeople to provide purchase advice to customers and match customers with suitable products. Interestingly, big retailers vary in their policies regarding whether to allow their salespeople to receive manufacturer SPIFF (Sales Person Incentive Funding Formula) payments, which motivate salespeople advising at no cost of the retailer. In this study, we investigate a big retailer’s incentive to block manufacturer SPIFF programs, which has the consequence of demotivating salespeople from advising customers, from the perspective of vertical channel interactions. We scrutinize a big retailer’s decision to maximize its profit through managing its channel interactions with upstream manufacturers offering horizontally differentiated products, customers uncertain about true fits with competing products, and its salesperson who can match customers with suitable products through offering purchase advice. Our analysis shows that motivating the salesperson to advise customers is profitable for the retailer only if the such advising has moderate effectiveness in matching consumers and suitable products, and only in this case would the retailer collaborate on manufacturer SPIFF programs. Otherwise, salesperson advising hurts retailer profit and the big retailer benefits from blocking manufacturer SPIFF programs. Our study reveals the interesting theoretical insight that the incentives of a big retailer and upstream manufacturers to motivate sales advising reside in their incentives to battle for a more favorable channel status.     

Empirical investigation of channel reactions to brand introductions

We investigate how incumbent manufacturers and retailers alter their pricing behavior in response to new product introduction. In performing our analysis, we need to be cognizant of the fact that the observed price changes can be due to entry-induced changes in a) demand conditions or b) costs or, on the other hand, to the competitive behavior of c) manufacturers and/or d) the retailer. In order to separate these four changes, we posit that manufacturer and retailer pricing is an outcome of maximizing a combination of shares and profits. This enhanced objective function allows us to measure competitive conduct benchmarked as less or more competitive than under the Bertrand-Nash framework. Our empirical analysis is based on the toothpaste category for the time period January 1993–February 1995. During this period, there were three brand introductions in two rounds of entry. Using the estimates from the demand and the supply model, we compute the changes in the retail and wholesale prices that are attributable to changes in demand conditions, manufacturer and retailer competitive conduct, and cost changes. These results support our conjecture that inferring the change in conduct solely based on a change in observed prices is likely to be erroneous. For the first new brand entry, we find that the brand introduction did not significantly increase competition between manufacturers. As a result, the balance of channel power between the manufacturers and the retailers remained unaltered. Both retailer and manufacturer profit margins increased after the first entry. However, subsequent to the second entry, retailer share of channel profits increased at the expense of the manufacturers; manufacturers even saw a decline in their absolute profit margins. We believe that this research will provide insight for manufacturers and retailers regarding how the various channel participants are likely to react to new product introduction. Furthermore, policymakers interested in understanding competitive reactions to new product introduction should find this research useful.     

Pricing Decisions in Dual-Channel Supply Chain Including Monopolistic Manufacturer and Duopolistic Retailers: A Game-Theoretic Approach

Emergence of the Internet as a new distribution channel has led to increasing attention by researchers to dual-channel supply chain in recent years. In this paper, pricing and ordering decisions are investigated on a dual-channel supply chain which consists of monopolistic manufacturer and duopolistic retailers. The market is assumed to be controlled by the manufacturer. Thus, the manufacturer becomes leader and the two retailers act as followers. Due to establishing this new structure, different game-theoretic models including Bertrand, Collusion, and Stackelberg are developed to analyze pricing strategies under the various interactions between the two retailers. Then, the equilibrium decisions are compared under the considered scenarios and valuable managerial insights are presented. We found that the various games do not have any effects on the manufacturer’s responses. The retail prices given by the Collusion game are higher than by the other games. In the Collusion model, demands in the retail channel are lower than in the other games. Moreover, the manufacturer and retailers receive respectively the lowest and the highest profits under the Collusion game.     

Developing a framework to improve retail category management through category captain arrangements

Manufacturers and retailers have divergent profit objectives. A manufacturer wants to maximize the profits of its own brands. The retailer, on the other hand, wants to maximize the profit of the entire product category. In spite of these apparently diverging profit objectives, both manufacturers and retailers are increasingly realizing that profit margins of both can be increased through cooperation rather than confrontation. Category management is one such cooperative strategy that often involves the appointment of a leading manufacturer as the “category captain”. A category captain advises the retailer on the best way to price, display, and promote products in a category, including those of the competitors. This arrangement, therefore, ensures retail efficiency but raises doubt about possible misuse of power by the category captain to circumvent fair competition. In this paper, we outline the antitrust concerns about this arrangement, and provide a framework that effectively addresses these concerns.     

Pricing and return strategy of online retailers based on return insurance

With the development of e-commerce, online shopping has become increasingly common, and as a result, consumers inevitably encounter the problem of returns. Therefore, pricing, return policy and return insurance strategy have attracted considerable research attention. In this paper, we construct four models to study pricing, return policy and return insurance strategy. We show that when a product's net residual value is greater than or equal to zero, online retailers should offer a money-back guarantee (MBG) return policy; however, they do not have to offer free return insurance because the latter does not increase their market share and profit, nor does it increase consumer surplus. The optimal strategy of insurance providers is unaffected by whether the policyholder is an online retailer or a consumer and should be neutral, which helps insurance providers gain the trust of policyholders. Consumers should buy products only when online retailers offer an MBG return policy; however, consumers should not do so if the online retailer provides free return insurance.     

Strategic Decentralization and Channel Coordination

In this paper, we show that under certain conditions, strategic decentralization through the addition of a retailer in the distribution channel can increase a manufacturer's profits. The specific case on which we focus is the quantity coordination (double marginalization) problem for a manufacturer selling durable goods in a two-period setting. We show that the standard solution that coordinates a channel for non-durables does not coordinate the channel for durables. In particular, even though a manufacturer can achieve channel coordination by offering per-period, two-part fees, the equilibrium wholesale price in the first period is strictly above the manufacturer's marginal cost. This is in stark contrast to the two-part solution for non-durables where the equilibrium wholesale price is equal to marginal cost. We also identify a strategy that solves both the channel coordination and the Coase problem associated with durable goods. In this strategy, at the beginning of period 1, the manufacturer writes a contract with the retailer specifying a fixed fee and wholesale prices covering both periods. We show that by adding a retailer and using this contract, the manufacturer makes higher profits than it could if it were to sell directly to consumers.     

Attack and defend: the role of targeting in a distribution channel

This paper studies the role of targeting in a distribution channel composed of one manufacturer and one retailer. In channel interactions, the manufacturer can deploy targeted advertising while the retailer can initiate targeted pricing. Using a game-theoretic framework, we find the following results: (1) Targeted advertising increases the manufacturers profit at the expense of the retailer; (2) The retailer may be worse off using targeted pricing; (3) Targeted pricing discourages the manufacturer from launching targeted advertising which is a more severe threat to the retailer. Therefore, the retailer may optimally use targeted pricing, even when it hurts profit, to defend against the attack of targeted advertising by the manufacturer.     

Compete in Price or Service?—A Study of Personalized Pricing and Money Back Guarantees

Retailers use both pricing and service strategies to respond to intensified competition. Here we develop a duopoly model to investigate the impact of the increasingly popular personalized pricing strategy (PPS) and the widely used Money Back Guarantee (MBG) customer returns policy. We consider two retailers who differ in customer satisfaction rates. Each retailer chooses a pricing strategy, PPS or uniform pricing, and a product return strategy, MBG or ‘no returns.’ We show that both PPS and MBG are dominant strategies, but their impact on retailers’ prices and profits are different; while PPS intensifies price competition and may lead to a prisoner’s dilemma in which both retailers may lose profit, MBG mitigates price competition and may result in a Pareto improvement in both retailers’ profits. Both PPS and MBG increase the size of the overall market, but not the total duopoly profit. The total customer surplus and social welfare may increase under either strategy. In addition, we obtain some interesting observations as to how our results may change if the product quality/customer satisfaction rate is endogenously chosen in the duopoly. Some of our findings are in contrast to related results reported in the literature.     

Perceptions of price (un)fairness in a channel context

This article extends prior research on perceptions of price (un)fairness by attempting to disentangle where in the marketing channel (un)fairness inferences lie. Extant research in this area overwhelmingly considers (un)fairness perceptions with respect to the pricing action only, ignoring attributions aimed at specific channel actors. This article illustrates differences in (un)fairness inferences with respect to retailers and manufacturers given price increases accompanied by decreased product supply, increased demand, or increased variable costs. We show that a retailer is considered relatively more unfair than a manufacturer given a price increase accompanied by a demand increase, as well as when no explicit reason is given for the price increase. Conversely, a manufacturer is considered relatively more unfair given a price increase accompanied by a supply decrease. Both channel entities are considered equally fair given a price increase accompanied by a channel (both retailer and manufacturer) or manufacturer cost increase, while a retailer is deemed relatively more unfair given a price increase accompanied by a retailer cost increase. This research generally suggests that inferences of causality for specific pricing actions may differentially skew toward upstream or downstream channel entities depending on the particular economic circumstances of the price change.     

Dynamic cooperative promotion in the presence of consumer reference effect with competing retailers

This paper studies the cooperative promotion problem in the presence of the promotion reference effect. We consider retailer price-reduction promotion activities that enhance their sales but may impair brand image for the manufacturer. Moreover, because frequently used promotion induces a promotion reference effect on customers, we investigate how the promotion reference effect influences cooperative control strategies. We do so by examining the context in a supply chain with one leading manufacturer and two competing retailers, where the manufacturer implements a cooperative promotion program for the retailers. We use differential game models vis-a-vis dynamic promotion control strategies and cooperative promotion strategies under the scenario of existence and non-existence of the reference effect. Findings show that the presence of a promotion reference effect increases profit for the manufacturer but generates reduced profit for the retailers. We also find that the manufacturer augments the level of national brand advertising when incorporating the reference effect, and retailers raise (lower) their degree of promotion when the negative effect is low (high).     

Do channel members value the multiple-cooperation strategy?

When the manufacturer distributes his products through online and traditional channels, what type of innovative marketing strategy can be utilized to solve the channel conflict and improve the performances of all channel members? Our research addresses this important question by initiating a triple cooperative strategy for channel members to employ in a manufacturer – retailer dual-channel supply chain. Our results show that when the product is less compatible with online channel than with traditional channel, channel members can utilize a triple cooperative strategy to improve channel coordination and their individual performances effectively and efficiently. First, the manufacturer can utilize supportive retail sales effort as a valuable coordination mechanism to improve the performances of all channel members in the dual-channel distribution. Second, a channel coordinative price strategy can be utilized to further improve the performance of whole channel. Finally, a profit sharing mechanism is needed to create a Pareto result for both the manufacturer and the retailer. Furthermore, we extend our model to study the value of triple cooperative strategy in a manufacturer – two competitive retailers supply chain and derive the optimum marketing strategy.     

Do you think that the home delivery is good for retailing?

Order placing and delivery always play a significant role in any business industry. Nowadays, most customers want useful products at their doorstep without visiting any retail store. In this current study, an advanced dual-channel supply chain model is constructed for a single product with two players. Customers can order online or offline from the retail store. In contrast, retailers use only offline mode to take the product from the manufacturer, and retailers charge a different amount for delivery. To optimize profit and satisfy the consumers, retailers only provide a free transportation service when customers order a certain quantity. If customers order less than the desired amount, a transportation charge will be applied to the customers. Contrary to the existing research, demand for the products varies with the selling price online and offline and is also affected by the free home delivery service. Manufacturers use a single-setup multi-delivery (SSMD) transportation strategy to enrich the system's profit. To make the study more applicable, all unit costs are considered fuzzy. Signed-distance defuzzification technique is adopted to defuzzify the fuzzy values. Finally, the total profit of the supply chain is optimized along with the optimized value of the decision-making variable through an uncertain optimization technique. Numerical experiments are carried out along with sensitivity analysis to show the applicability and optimality of this study. Though the crisp data set provided a 0.72% better result compared to the fuzzy data set, but fuzzy data set provided a more realistic result. Numerical results prove that the home delivery service provided 14.59% better profit. Finally, it can be stated that the home delivery policy with some charged amount based on ordered quantity is the best retailing strategy for the dual-channel supply chain.     

风险喜好型零售商主导的双渠道定价策略研究

一个由生产商和零售商组成的供应链中决策的顺序为:零售商率先根据自己掌握的市场信息公布最大潜在订单数量,生产商根据最大订单数量来调整其批发价格和直销渠道价格,最后零售商才确定其最优订货数量。研究表明,在一个由风险喜好型的零售商和一个风险规避型的供应商组成的供应链中,零售商风险偏好系数超过某一特定值时,随着需求方差的增加,零售渠道最优定价会越来越高;而对于风险规避型供应商,则是随着需求方差和(或)供应商风险规避程度的增加,会选择较低的产品售价以期获得稳定的收入。     

Retailer Heterogeneity,Intra-Brand Competition and Social Welfare

This paper considers a model where a manufacturer sells its product to consumers through competitive retailers who are heterogeneous in marginal distribution costs and geographic locations. We study the welfare implications of resale price maintenance (RPM), which eliminates the intra-brand competition. We show that with RPM, the manufacturer can make more profit at the cost of the consumers. RPM helps the high-cost retailers to stay competitive in the market, and therefore increases the total distribution cost of the society. We suggest that antitrust authorities should be concerned when intra-brand competition is lessened.