考虑策略型消费者和退货的零售商定价和订货决策研究

考虑策略型消费者对产品估值的异质性和无缺陷退货行为，应用理性预期（RE）均衡构建了两期决策模型，引入产品的耐用性参数，得到了允许（不允许）无缺陷退货两种模式下零售商的定价区间和订货策略。研究发现，产品的耐用性越弱，零售商可制定的价格越高；高类型的消费者越多，零售商定价越高；产品折扣率越低，第二阶段购买的消费者越多；零售商允许消费者无缺陷退货时，消费者退货成本越低，零售商定价越高。在两种模式下，产品定价与其耐用性程度呈负相关，当产品具备高度潮流性特征时，不允许退货更占优势；随商品耐用性程度的提升，允许退货带来的优势逐渐明显，而且退货成本越低，允许退货优势越强；随产品耐用性参数增加，允许退货缓解策略型消费者消极影响的作用愈加明显，退货成本越高，缓解越有效。本文合理刻画了策略型消费者的行为，考虑了消费者跨期决策中产品耐用性的影响，同时考虑了现实中广泛存在的消费者无缺陷退货行为与零售商的退货补贴政策，从而为零售商的定价和订货退货决策提供了理论参考。     

面对策略型消费者的企业最优创新与定价策略

本文研究企业的最优产品创新策略及其对企业运营的影响。通过构建两阶段动态博弈模型，分析企业在渐进式创新与突破式创新两种模式下和策略型消费者之间的定价与购买博弈，以及企业和消费者的策略性程度对于最优产品创新策略的影响。研究结果表明，第一，企业的最优产品创新策略受到高创新产品相对于低创新产品的创新提升程度、二者成本差异，以及消费者的策略性程度的共同影响。第二，在考虑策略型消费者购买行为的背景下，当高创新产品的创新程度足够高，或者二者成本差异有限时，突破式创新策略对于企业而言不仅能提供更高的利润，还能占据更大的市场份额。第三，消费者与企业策略性程度的增加，均在一定程度上提高了突破式创新相比渐进式创新而言的优势。     

考虑跨渠道退货的双渠道闭环供应链决策研究

双渠道闭环供应链存在制造商网络直销渠道和零售商实体店零售渠道。消费者会对购买不满意的产品进行退货，由于网上商店购买的产品缺乏现场体验故退货率较高。相比线下实体商店，线上退货流程更为复杂，这往往容易影响消费者购物体验。因此本文设计考虑跨渠道退货的双渠道闭环供应链结构，并分析跨渠道退货率以及渠道消费偏好对供应链的决策影响，基于Stackelberg博弈和Nash均衡博弈理论，从集中式决策与分散式决策两方面研究不同闭环供应链结构下的定价决策与利润分配，并结合数值算例进行分析。研究结果表明，跨渠道退货率以及消费者渠道偏好对闭环供应链的定价策略以及利润分配等决策具有显著影响。     

消费者失望厌恶下全渠道零售商退货策略研究

全渠道零售环境下，线上线下渠道高度融合，为消费者随时随地购买产品或退回不符合自身需求的产品提供了极大的便利。在考虑消费者对线上产品估值不确定以及存在失望厌恶行为下，针对全渠道环境中的退货问题，研究了全渠道零售商的退货策略选择。从产品退货渠道出发，分别构建了无退货、同渠道退货、全渠道退货策略下消费者效用函数及全渠道零售商利润模型，探讨消费者对产品估值不确定导其致失望厌恶对零售商市场需求、最优定价以及利润的影响。研究结果表明：退货策略在一定条件下可以增加零售商的市场需求，但退货策略并不总是对零售商有益，只有当消费者失望厌恶程度较高时，零售商才会实施退货策略。当产品匹配率较高且消费者失望厌恶程度中等时，零售商提供同渠道退货策略；当消费者失望厌恶程度较高时，零售商提供全渠道退货策略，从而为全渠道零售商的退货策略选择提供决策支持。     

考虑消费者后悔的库存及退货策略研究

消费者预期后悔对在线零售商的决策有显著影响.在考虑消费者预期后悔、需求不确定性以及是否提供退货的情况下,构建了零售商定价和库存优化模型.研究发现,当零售商不提供退货时,消费者的保留价格、零售商的最优价格、最优订货量和期望利润均随着迟疑后悔强度的减弱或购买后悔强度的增加而减小.零售商提供全额退款提高消费者的保留价格,并使得零售商在一定条件下不受消费者预期后悔的影响.零售商是否提供全额退款受到消费者预期后悔、消费者退货成本、产品边际成本和回收残值的综合影响:当退货成本较小且预期后悔满足一定条件时,提供退货是有利的;否则,提供全额退款会降低零售商的期望利润.研究强调在制定退货决策时考虑消费者预期后悔和退货成本的重要性.     

考虑策略性消费者的生鲜农产品定价和库存决策

消费者的策略性行为使零售商的生鲜农产品的定价和库存决策面临更大挑战。本文基于报童模型，综合考虑消费者的策略性行为，对生鲜农产品价值下降进行离散化处理。刻画策略性消费者的决策行为，构建零售商的单阶段和两阶段定价及库存决策模型，分析了产品价值剩余率对消费者行为、零售商最优定价、最优库存水平以及零售商利润的影响机理。研究发现，在单阶段模型中零售商最优价格和最优库存水平均随产品价值剩余率的递增而递增；而在两阶段模型中，第二阶段最优价格随价值剩余率的变化趋势可能存在阈值。     

考虑多种等待成本策略型消费者的零售商定价研究

策略型消费者为选择购买时机而估计立即或推迟购买产品的效用时，除了考虑价格和可得性，还应考虑等待成本。考虑消费者等待成本的差异性，将消费者分为高等待成本消费者、居间等待成本消费者和零等待成本消费者。基于报童模型和理性预期均衡原理，考虑三种类型策略型消费者的不同比例，构建了零售商的定价决策模型。分析比较了三种情形的定价决策：以高等待成本消费者为销售目标的定价（TM定价）、以高等待成本和居间等待成本消费者为销售目标的定价（TMξ定价）以及以所有消费者为销售目标的定价（TA定价）。研究显示，即使消费者都是理性的，由于等待成本的差异也会表现出短视型或者是部分理性的消费特征。采用TM定价时，零售商最优收益随高等待成本消费者比例的增大而提高；采用TMξ定价时，零售商最优收益随零等待成本消费者比例的提高而降低；采用TA定价时，零售商有固定的最优收益，零售商可以通过权衡每个消费者群体的保留价格和相应的买家数量来获得最优的定价策略。当零等待成本消费者的比例大于阈值，不管其他消费者的类型和比例如何，都应采用TA定价策略。在存在降价销售期的情况下，零售商在两个销售阶段的均衡价格与消费者在这两个销售阶段的等待成...     

考虑消费者策略行为的供应商产品升级策略

随着科技的发展和市场竞争的加剧，企业不断频繁地进行产品升级更新以应对消费者快速变化的需求；同时，消费者也越来越具有策略性行为，主要表现为跨期选择购买产品的类型和时机。本文考虑消费者策略行为研究供应链上游供应商的最优产品升级策略，分析捆绑、模块化和整合三种产品升级策略中消费者的购买决策和供应链企业的均衡定价决策。研究表明：当消费者耐心程度和升级模块的价值升级系数满足一定条件时，供应商将选择模块化升级策略，相对于捆绑升级策略，将获得更高的利润；而只有当消费者耐心程度较小时，采用整合升级策略相对于其他两种升级策略更有利于提高利润。     

考虑参照依赖与产品展示的体验式商品定价与订购策略

消费者在购买体验式商品时面临着产品价值的不确定性，因而会产生参照依赖行为。本文研究了考虑消费者参照依赖行为的定价与订购问题，并分析了产品展示策略的影响。研究发现，给定产品满足率时，只有当消费者获得高价值的概率大于某个临界值时，参照依赖下的最优价格才会高于没有参照依赖下的最优价格，并且产品价值维度与产品价格维度的参照依赖对最优价格起着相反的作用。进一步给出了最优订购量满足的条件，并发现在一定条件下最优价格随着订购量的增大而增大。当企业采取产品展示策略之后，会产生两方面的效应，一是消费者数量减少，二是剩余消费者的保留价格增大，此时最优价格随着展示系数的增大而增大。最后，通过数值分析得到了更多的管理启示。     

电子商务企业产品最优定价与退货策略研究

本文分析了电子商务企业退货物流的现状,并回顾了国内外学者关于退货策略和定价的相关研究成果.将退货策略与最优价格引入消费者效用和企业利润的研究之中,基于此构建了消费者效用模型与企业利润模型,给出了最优退货策略与产品价格的组合,分析了不同定价和消费者偏好变化对消费者效用与企业利润的影响.实例研究验证了本文推理的合理性和有效性,为企业决策提供了理论依据和有效方法.     

Optimal Pricing of Two Successive‐Generation Products with Trade‐in Options under Uncertainty

To entice consumers to purchase both current and next generation products, many manufacturers and retailers offer trade‐in programs that allow buyers of the first generation product to trade‐in the product and purchase the new generation product at a lower price. By considering the interactions between “forward‐looking” consumers and a firm when a trade‐in program is offered, we analyze a two‐period dynamic game to determine the optimal prices of two successive‐generation products in equilibrium, and examine the conditions under which trade‐in programs are beneficial to the firm. Our model incorporates market heterogeneity (valuation of the first generation product varies among the consumer population), product uncertainty (the incremental value of the new product is uncertain before its introduction), and consumers' forward‐looking behavior (consumers take future product valuation and prices into consideration when making purchasing decisions). With the trade‐in option, we show that consumers are willing to pay a price that is higher than their valuations of the current product. Furthermore, trade‐in programs are more beneficial to the firm when: (i) the durability of the current product is high; (ii) the market heterogeneity is low; or (iii) the uncertainty level (or the expected incremental value) of the new product is high. Finally, when the incremental value of the new product is more uncertain, consumers are more willing to purchase the current product because of the “option” value of the trade‐in programs and thus trade‐in programs can be more beneficial to the firm in this case.     

Consumer return policies in presence of a P2P market

Retailers selling products with valuation uncertainty often offer return policies to consumers to stimulate demand. However, some products that do not meet consumers’ expectations cannot be returned to the retailers either because of retailers’ strict restrictions on returns or because of short trial period. With the development of e-commerce, consumers who cannot return their products to retailers can resell them directly to others through electronic peer-to-peer (P2P) second-hand goods markets. This paper examines the effect of the presence of a P2P market on a retailer’s optimal return policy when the consumers are strategic and uncertain about their valuations. As a benchmark, we first examine the retailer’s optimal return policy when there is only a retailer-run resale market. Then, we analyze the retailer’s optimal return policy in presence of both the retailer-run resale market and the P2P market. Theoretical and numerical results show that, first, the presence of the P2P market is detrimental to the retailer in most cases. The presence of the P2P market is beneficial to the retailer only when the unit purchasing cost is very high, the consumers’ acceptance of products in the P2P market is relatively high and the transaction cost in the P2P market is relatively low; second, the consumer surplus is improved by the presence of P2P market; third, when the retailer-run resale market is the only second-hand products market, returned products are sold out; while in presence of the P2P market, the retailer will hold some inventory when the unit purchasing cost is very low; fourth, the selling price of new products is increased and the selling price of second-hand products in the retailer-run resale market is decreased with the emergence of the P2P market while the refund amount is increased in most cases.     

焕新计划下考虑消费者细分的产品定价策略

焕新计划是生产商为提升自身竞争优势而推出的一种促销手段，加入焕新计划的消费者在第一阶段可以享受全方位服务，在第二阶段可以享受以旧换新抵扣优惠。消费者将权衡加入焕新计划的费用、服务水平以及抵扣力度等因素决策是否在第一阶段加入焕新计划。本文假设时尚型消费者每阶段都会购买最新产品，而节俭型消费者第一阶段购买产品后在第二阶段继续使用，针对这两类消费者在实施焕新计划和不实施焕新计划两种情况下，构建两阶段模型以决策产品的最优定价；运用解析方法分析了产品的生产成本等参数对最优定价的影响；运用解析方法和数值算例方法对两模型进行对比。     

基于混合定向方式的移动定向广告投放策略研究

以移动广告为研究背景,研究地理定向和消费者产品偏好定向相结合的混合定向方式下企业的定向广告投放策略,同时通过对比企业投放定向广告与大众广告,研究企业的广告策略选择问题。研究发现,企业运用定向广告策略应针对不同的消费者群体提供差异化较大的营销策略:对属于企业近距离范围且偏好企业产品的优势市场,企业应加大广告投放力度并实行高价;为了争取部分远端劣势市场的收益,企业应向其投放一定力度的广告并实行低价;对属于双方的竞争市场,企业应选择中等程度的广告和价格。同时,通过与企业投放大众广告相比较,发现竞争企业使用定向广告策略反而不如使用大众广告策略。     

产品质量设计与供应链渠道优化——基于策略消费者行为的视角

策略消费者持币观望的行为对零售商和生产商的盈利都会产品负面影响，本文在二级供应链中同时考虑策略消费者的行为和产品质量设计，研究批发价格契约下策略消费者行为对供应链不同渠道利润的影响。分析表明，当生产商决定产品质量时，分散供应链下的产品质量与供应链上下游的议价能力相关，生产商议价能力越强，产品质量越高；当生产商完全掌握确定产品质量和批发价格的权利时，策略消费者的行为加剧了生产商和零售商之间利润分配的不公平，生产商能获得更大比例的利润；面对策略消费者时，厂商承诺产品数量有限能够实现比集中供应链下更高的利润，存在合适的产品质量和批发价格，使得分散供应链能实现数量承诺下的最优利润，并实现提升质量和增加供应链整体利润的双赢。     

Competition with Asymmetric Experience Uncertainty

The value of an experience good is idiosyncratic to consumers and is not fully realized until after a purchase is made. This uncertainty related to experience, or “experience uncertainty,” has been shown in prior research to have important implications in a competitive context. In this article, we consider two firms that are asymmetric along two dimensions—base quality and the distribution of experience uncertainty. The interaction of these asymmetries shapes consumer demand and thus is an important driver of the equilibrium strategies of competing firms. We show that an increase in the experience uncertainty of one competitor might in fact lead to higher profits for both firms, including the firm whose product has become less certain to consumers. These unexpected results can be understood by examining how experience uncertainty drives endogenous market segmentation and price elasticity. We provide simple conditions under which more experience uncertainty can increase the profits of both competing firms.     

基于可持续性消费的企业质量价格决策研究

随着可持续性消费理念的普及，消费者愿意为可持续性生产的产品支付更高的价格，这种绿色商品溢价能快速传导到价值链上游，进而推动绿色产业升级。本文在信息非对称环境下建立了一个可持续性制造型企业及其消费者组成的供应链模型，研究可持续性消费者比例与可持续性偏好对企业质量价格决策的影响。研究结论如下：在完全信息下，当企业只服务可持续消费者时，企业的收益随可持续性消费者比例递增；在信息非对称时，可持续性消费者比例越大，企业分离时所付出的成本越高，因此可持续性投入高的企业越倾向于混同而不是分离。另外，消费者的可持续性偏好对企业来说总是有利的。但是信息非对称时，可持续性消费者比例越高，并不总是对企业有利。     

Quality Provision with Heterogeneous Consumer Reservation Utilities

This study examines a firm's quality and price decisions when consumers differ not only in their willingness‐to‐pay for quality but also in their reservation utility for the basic product. We find that while the firm offers lower‐quality products when consumers' valuations for quality deteriorate, the optimal quality may increase with a negative shift in consumers' reservation utilities. We also investigate the optimal price and quality of the products within a vertically differentiated product line when the number of products is exogenously given. The existing literature shows that when consumers differ only in their willingness‐to‐pay for quality, the firm sets the efficient quality for consumers with the highest valuation for quality, whereas the concern for cannibalization pushes down the quality of inferior products. We find that when consumers are heterogeneous in both their reservation utility and valuation for quality, the concern for cannibalization may distort the quality upwards, even for consumers with the highest willingness‐to‐pay for quality. In addition, a low‐quality product may enjoy a higher profit margin than a high‐quality product within the product line.     

Committed Versus Contingent Pricing Under Competition

Should capacitated firms set prices responsively to uncertain market conditions in a competitive environment? We study a duopoly selling differentiated substitutable products with fixed capacities under demand uncertainty, where firms can either commit to a fixed price ex ante, or elect to price contingently ex post, e.g., to charge high prices in booming markets, and low prices in slack markets. Interestingly, we analytically show that even for completely symmetric model primitives, asymmetric equilibria of strategic pricing decisions may arise, in which one firm commits statically and the other firm prices contingently; in this case, there also exists a unique mixed strategy equilibrium. Such equilibrium behavior tends to emerge, when capacity is ampler, and products are less differentiated or demand uncertainty is lower. With asymmetric fixed capacities, if demand uncertainty is low, a unique asymmetric equilibrium emerges, in which the firm with more capacity chooses committed pricing and the firm with less capacity chooses contingent pricing. We identify two countervailing profit effects of contingent pricing under competition: gains from responsively charging high price under high demand, and losses from intensified price competition under low demand. It is the latter detrimental effect that may prevent both firms from choosing a contingent pricing strategy in equilibrium. We show that the insights remain valid when capacity decisions are endogenized. We caution that responsive price changes under aggressive competition of less differentiated products can result in profit‐killing discounting.