Optimal Pricing and Rebate Strategies in a Two‐Level Supply Chain

For many product categories, manufacturers and retailers often offer rebates to stimulate sales. Due to certain adverse effects, however, some manufacturers and retailers are contemplating the elimination of their rebate programs. This paper sheds light on the debate about the value of rebate programs by presenting a model for evaluating the conditions under which a firm should offer rebates in a competitive environment. Specifically, we consider a two‐level supply chain comprising one manufacturer and one retailer. Each firm makes three decisions: the regular (wholesale or retail) price, whether or not to offer rebates, and the rebate value should the firm decide to launch a rebate program. We determine the equilibrium of a vertical competition game between the manufacturer (leader) and the retailer (follower), and we provide insights about how competition affects the conditions under which a firm should offer rebates in equilibrium.     

Gray Markets and Supply Chain Incentives

“Gray markets” are unauthorized channels that distribute a branded product without the manufacturer's permission. Since gray markets are not officially sanctioned by the manufacturer, their existence is assumed to hurt the manufacturer. Yet manufacturers sometimes tolerate or even encourage gray market activities. We investigate the incentives of a manufacturer and its authorized retailer to engage in (or tolerate) gray markets. The firms need to consider the trade‐off between the positive effects of a gray market (price discrimination and cost savings) and the negative effects (cannibalization of sales and a loss in consumer valuation). Generally, gray markets can be categorized into two types: (i) a “local gray market,” where a retailer diverts products to unauthorized sellers operating in the same region as the retailer; and, (ii) “bootlegging,” where the retailer diverts products to unauthorized sellers in another market where the manufacturer sells through a direct channel. We characterize the equilibrium in each type of gray market and identify conditions under which the retailer will divert products to the gray market. Incentive problems are more complicated when the retailer bootlegs and, in this case, we show that conflicting incentives may lead to the emergence of a gray market where both the manufacturer's and retailer's profits decrease.     

Manufacturer encroachment with advertising

This paper studies manufacturer encroachment in a supply chain wherein the manufacturer and/or the retailer should invest in informative advertising. Using a game-theoretic framework, we explore three schemes of advertising and their influences on manufacturer encroachment. First, if the manufacturer controls advertising, encroachment will result in higher advertising intensity relative to the non-encroachment case, sometimes leading to a win-win situation for both the manufacturer and the retailer as the boosted demand flows into the wholesale market under encroachment. Second, if the retailer controls advertising, an encroaching manufacturer should further reduce the wholesale price as compared to the counterpart with no advertising. This downward pressure on wholesale price can benefit the retailer, but might hurt the encroaching manufacturer. Third, we incorporate manufacturer advertising and retailer advertising into a cooperative advertising scheme, where the manufacturer can set a participation rate to adjust the advertising cost for the retailer. Interestingly, an encroaching manufacturer will pay the retailer more to subsidize his advertising cost. Under this scheme, the manufacturer is always better off under encroachment, and the retailer can also gain as a result of advertising cost-sharing from the manufacturer. Our results also apply to the case of persuasive advertising. Although persuasive advertising leads to different prices or advertising decisions, there are always chances for the retailer to benefit from manufacturer encroachment.     

The Value of Category Captainship in the Presence of Manufacturer Competition

This research investigates the value of category captainship (a management practice in which a retailer relies on a manufacturer for recommendations regarding strategic category management decisions) in retail supply chains. We consider a setting where the scope of category management is limited to assortment decisions and demand enhancing activities. We assume that the retailer selects a category captain among multiple competing manufacturers with privately known capabilities for driving category traffic. First, we consider a benchmark scenario where the retailer is responsible for category management. Then, we consider the category captainship scenario where the retailer selects one of the manufacturers as a captain to manage the category. We find that captainship is more likely to emerge in categories where the cost of managing variety, the retail margins, and the competition for captainship are moderate and the captain is more capable of driving traffic compared to the retailer. In such categories the collaboration between the retailer and the captain ensures sufficient surplus for both parties. Finally, we show that captainship can also benefit the non‐captain manufacturers.     

A Note on Optimal Selling to Asymmetric Retailers

I consider a channel with one manufacturer selling the same product to two retailers engaged in imperfect competition. The retailers are asymmetric because one has a lower marginal selling cost (or a higher demand potential) than the other. I design the manufacturer's optimal selling mechanism, whereby the manufacturer must offer the same contract options to both retailers. I fully characterize the manufacturer's optimal selling mechanism for varying degrees of retailer asymmetry and competition intensity. I find that under certain conditions, the manufacturer is better off selling a larger quantity through the high‐cost (or low‐demand potential) retailer. I also show how the optimal mechanism can be implemented using a menu of two‐part tariffs with quantity controls.     

The Effect of Delayed Incentives on Supply Chain Profits and Consumer Surplus

We examine the use of consumer cash mail‐in rebates offered by a manufacturer in a Stackelberg game where the manufacturer is the leader and the retailer is the follower. Our analysis indicates that rebates are profitable for manufacturers if consumers are inconsistent in the sense that their rebate valuation when they make purchase decisions is independent of their redemption probabilities when they make redemption decisions. If the manufacturer keeps the wholesale price unchanged, then the rebate increases the retailer's profit by a larger amount than the increase in the manufacturer's profit. If the manufacturer jointly optimizes the wholesale price and rebate, then the increase in the manufacturer's profit is twice the increase in the retailer's profit. The retailer responds to rebates by increasing the retail price, which increases the margin paid by consumers who do not redeem the rebate. On average, consumer surplus decreases when it is optimal for manufacturers to offer rebates. We suggest incentive schemes that make it worthwhile for retailers to limit the price increase. In these incentive schemes, the manufacturer imposes a negative relationship between the rebate value and the retail price. We show that such incentives increase supply chain profits.     

Manufacturer–Retailer Negotiations in the Presence of an Oligopolistic Input Market

When a manufacturer relies solely on its own inputs in making products, the focus of negotiations between the manufacturer and retailer is exclusively on profits in the output (retail) market. In such cases, absent retail competition concerns, standard two‐part tariff negotiations set the per‐unit wholesale price equal to marginal cost, and require fixed transfers from the retailer to the manufacturer. In this article, we recognize that manufacturers often rely on imperfectly competitive markets for at least some inputs. Incorporating this seemingly natural feature has profound implications for manufacturer–retailer negotiations since it shifts their focus from being exclusively on output markets to one that balances strategic concerns in both input and output realms. The article's main result is that the added need to discipline input prices can lead the manufacturer and retailer to write contingent contracts that are cost‐plus and prescribe lump‐sum slotting allowances (i.e., fixed transfer from the manufacturer to the retailer).     

Supplier Encroachment and Investment Spillovers

It is conventional wisdom that a manufacturer's encroachment into retail space will likely hurt an existing retailer. In contrast to this conventional belief, current research indicates that a retailer may welcome a manufacturer's encroachment despite the new competition in the final market. The encroachment may help the manufacturer have some “skin in the game” at the retail level, which will cause the manufacturer to make a selfish cost‐reducing investment that spills over to the retailer as a lower wholesale price. Such a spillover effect enhances the retailer's profit as long as the encroachment does not result in extreme retail competition by a certain degree of product differentiation, and ultimately generates Pareto gains in the supply chain. The spillover effect is so robust that the retailer's benefit from the encroachment remains even after considering potential mitigating factors such as selling costs, a nonlinear form of cost reduction, decentralized encroachment, additional retail competition, price competition, and a negotiation between the manufacturer and the retailer.     

Category Captainship vs. Retailer Category Management under Limited Retail Shelf Space

Shelf‐space scarcity is a predominant aspect of the consumer goods industry. This paper analyzes its implications for category management. We consider a model where two competing manufacturers sell their differentiated products through a single retailer who determines the shelf space allocated to the category. The scope of category management is pricing. We consider two category management mechanisms: retailer category management (RCM), where the retailer determines product prices and category captainship (CC), where a manufacturer in the category determines them. Our analysis reveals that the retailer can use the form of category management and the category shelf space to control the intensity of competition between manufacturers to his benefit. We also show that the emergence of CC depends on the degree of product differentiation, the opportunity cost of shelf space, and the profit sharing arrangement in the alliance. The equilibrium category shelf space under CC may be higher than under RCM if the value to the retailer of eliminating double marginalization and putting price pressure on the non‐captain manufacturer dominates the loss from sharing the profit with the category captain. CC has been criticized for disadvantaging non‐captain manufacturers. While we provide some support for this claim, we also find that CC may benefit non‐captain manufacturers when implemented by a powerful retailer in categories with sufficiently differentiated products, because the shelf space allocated to the category increases in this case.     

Co‐Op Advertising in Dynamic Retail Oligopolies

We study a supply chain in which a consumer goods manufacturer sells its product through a retailer. The retailer undertakes promotional expenditures, such as advertising, to increase sales and to compete against other retailer(s). The manufacturer supports the retailer’s promotional expenditure through a cooperative advertising program by reimbursing a portion (called the subsidy rate) of the retailer’s promotional expenditure. To determine the subsidy rate, we formulate a Stackelberg differential game between the manufacturer and the retailer, and a Nash differential subgame between the retailer and the competing retailer(s). We derive the optimal feedback promotional expenditures of the retailers and the optimal feedback subsidy rate of the manufacturer, and show how they are influenced by market parameters. An important finding is that the manufacturer should support its retailer only when a subsidy threshold is crossed. The impact of competition on this threshold is nonmonotone. Specifically, the manufacturer offers more support when its retailer competes with one other retailer but its support starts decreasing with the presence of additional retailers. In the case where the manufacturer sells through all retailers, we show under certain assumptions that it should support only one dominant retailer. We also describe how we can incorporate retail price competition into the model.     

Optimal Design of a Pharmaceutical Price–Volume Agreement Under Asymmetric Information About Expected Market Size

Price–volume agreements are commonly negotiated between drug manufacturers and third‐party payers for drugs. In one form a drug manufacturer pays a rebate to the payer on a portion of sales in excess of a specified threshold. We examine the optimal design of such an agreement under complete and asymmetric information about demand. We consider two types of uncertainty: information asymmetry, defined as the payer's uncertainty about mean demand; and market uncertainty, defined as both parties' uncertainty about true demand. We investigate the optimal contract design in the presence of asymmetric information. We find that an incentive compatible contract always exists; that the optimal price is decreasing in expected market size, while the rebate may be increasing or decreasing in expected market size; that the optimal contract for a manufacturer with the highest possible demand would include no rebate; and, in a special case, if the average reservation profit is non‐decreasing in expected market size, then the optimal contract includes no rebates for all manufacturers. Our analysis suggests that price–volume agreements with a rebate rate of 100% are not likely to be optimal if payers have the ability to negotiate prices as part of the agreement.     

Vertical Integration under Competition: Forward,Backward, or No Integration?

We consider two competing supply chains, each consisting of supplier, a manufacturer, and a retailer. The suppliers exert effort to improve product quality, and the retailers sell products competitively. Each manufacturer chooses one of the three strategies: forward integration, backward integration, or no vertical integration. We seek for a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium and study the resulting market structure. Moreover, we characterize the effect of vertical integration on profitability, product price, and quality in a competitive setting. Existing literature has shown that, when manufacturers consider only forward integration, they may choose not to vertically integrate in equilibrium. In contrast, we find that, when both forward and backward integration options are considered, disintegration cannot be an equilibrium outcome. In this case, both manufacturers either forward or backward integrate, and the degree of product perishability, cost of quality, and how much consumers value quality are critical for the chosen direction of integration. Furthermore, competition increases attractiveness of backward integration relative to forward integration. We show that, while integrating backward unilaterally is always beneficial, unilateral forward integration can harm a manufacturer's profitability. Finally, vertical integration can result in a better quality product sold at a lower price.     

Does a Store Brand Always Hurt the Manufacturer of a Competing National Brand?

It is generally believed that store brands hurt the manufacturers of competing national brands while benefiting retailers. In this study, we challenge this notion by studying the impacts of a store brand when it is introduced by a power retailer. We show that a store brand may benefit the manufacturer when the interaction between the manufacturer and retailer is modeled as a retailer‐led Stackelberg game. This phenomenon occurs because the store brand changes the nature of the strategic interaction between the manufacturer and retailer in our model. In particular, while the interaction is always vertical strategic substitutability without a store brand, it may become vertical strategic independence with one. With the store brand, the demand for the national brand becomes larger, and the wholesale price for the national brand may increase, both of which benefit the manufacturer. Finally, the store brand may lessen the double marginalization problem of the supply chain for the national brand in the retailer‐led Stackelberg game, but does so in an unconventional way: The reduction in the double marginalization effect may come from a lowered retail markup instead of a lowered wholesale price. Our results reconcile some discrepancies between theoretical predictions and empirical findings regarding the impacts of store brands on manufacturers.     

Quick Response under Competition

We consider a manufacturer serving two competing retailers that sell their products over a single selling season. The retailers place their regular orders before the season starts. In addition to this initial order, quick response (QR) provides a retailer with an additional replenishment opportunity after demand uncertainty is resolved. The manufacturer determines the unit price for QR replenishment. We characterize the retailers’ ordering, and the manufacturer's pricing decisions in equilibrium when none, only one, and both of the retailers have QR ability. We study how the profitability of the manufacturer, the retailers, and the channel depend on QR and competition. We find it may be optimal for the manufacturer to offer QR to only one of the ex ante identical retailers when demand variability is sufficiently, but not overly high. The manufacturer may also find it optimal to offer QR to both or none of the retailers, depending on demand variability. Finally, while QR ability is always attractive for a retailer when competition is ignored, we find QR may prove detrimental when its impact on competition is taken into account.     

Contracting Under Vendor Managed Inventory Systems Using Holding Cost Subsidies

Vendor managed inventory systems are becoming increasingly popular. An important issue in implementing a vendor managed inventory scheme is the contracting terms that dictate the ownership of the inventory and the responsibility of inventory replenishment decisions. Thus the performance of a vendor managed system crucially depends on these terms and on how inventory‐related costs are shared in a supply chain. We consider a system where a manufacturer supplies a single product to a retailer who faces random demand in a competitive market. The retailer incurs a fixed cost per order, inventory holding cost, and a penalty cost for a stockout (unsatisfied demand is back‐ordered). Further, the manufacturer incurs a penalty cost when there is a stockout at the retailer and a fixed replenishment cost. We assume that the players are rational and act noncooperatively. We compare the performance of retailer managed inventory systems, where the retailer places orders and makes replenishment decisions, with vendor managed inventory systems, wherein the vendor or manufacturer makes inventory and replenishment decisions. Specifically, in the vendor managed inventory system, we propose and evaluate holding cost subsidy‐type contracts on inventories offered by the retailer to improve system performance. We evaluate this contract in the context of three widely used inventory systems—deterministic economic order quantity, continuous review (Q, r) policies, and periodic review policies—and show when such contracts may improve channel performance.     

考虑商誉的双渠道供应链动态定价与联合减排策略

考虑由一个制造商和一个零售商组成的双渠道供应链，将产品商誉和减排量作为状态变量构建微分博弈模型。文章首先讨论了不同渠道结构下供应链成员的最优均衡策略，随后探讨了广告合作-减排成本分担契约对供应链协调性的影响，最后通过算例对模型进行了分析。研究发现，产品商誉轨迹随时间变化呈现多变性，而减排量轨迹则具有单调性。与单渠道相比，双渠道下零售商的广告努力和利润下降，而制造商的减排努力和利润增大，只有当传统渠道市场占有率较高且制造商竞争较小时，制造商单渠道的利润才高于双渠道，此时制造商将不会开设网络渠道。广告合作-减排成本分担契约可以实现制造商、零售商和整个供应链系统利润的帕累托改善，且消费者低碳偏好和品牌偏好越高，制造商和零售商越有动力达成合作。     

网络外部性对双渠道供应链信息分享的影响

研究了网络外部性对双渠道供应链信息分享的影响。分别建立了存在网络外部性和不存在网络外部性下的双渠道供应链模型,通过比较零售商信息分享和不分享下其与制造商的期望利润。研究发现：当未考虑产品的网络外部性时,零售商不与制造商分享其市场需求信息,与已有研究一致。当考虑了产品网络外部性且网络外部性较小时,零售商仍不与制造商分享市场需求信息;然而,当网络外部性较大时,零售商与制造商分享其市场需求信息。此外,零售商与制造商共享其市场需求信息有助于增加制造商和供应链利润。     

考虑异质消费者的线下到线上供应链合作广告契约设计

本文针对一个拥有线上渠道的制造商和一个零售商组成的线下到线上(O2O)供应链,考虑渠道产品差异化策略下零售商为制造商线上渠道进行广告引流,刻画消费者对产品的异质性需求,分别设计对称信息和不对称信息下制造商的最优合作广告契约,通过对比两种情形中最优决策及利润的变化分析信息不对称的影响,并进一步探讨不对称信息下消费者渠道转换的麻烦成本、单位不匹配成本等重要参数对合作广告契约设计和供应链成员利润的影响。研究发现:不对称信息下,制造商可以策略性选择三种不同策略以最大化自身利润,其中不甄别零售商真实信息的混同均衡在某些条件下是制造商的最优策略;尽管信息不对称会给制造商带来利润损失,但制造商通过策略选择可缓和信息不对称的不利影响,某些条件下信息不对称并不损害供应链总体的利润;麻烦成本的变化会改变制造商不对称信息下最优合作广告契约的策略选择,某些条件下麻烦成本的增高对制造商利润反而存在正影响。最后,通过数值仿真对上述研究结果进行直观考察和说明。     

零售商自有品牌与制造商直销渠道的互动博弈问题研究

零售商引入自有品牌与制造商引入直销渠道是普遍存在的商业现象。研究了零售商引入自有品牌产品和制造商引入直销渠道之间的博弈竞争关系,得出了制造商与零售商的博弈均衡策略。在此基础上,进一步分析了制造商和零售商在不同的博弈均衡下相对于初始状态的利润变化情况,得出了双方可能陷入囚徒困境或双赢的前提条件。研究表明,只有在SB产品质量水平较低且直销渠道销售成本较低的情况下,制造商才有可能由于引入直销渠道而利润改善。而当SB产品的质量达到较高水平时,即使制造商引入直销渠道进行竞争胁迫,零售商引入SB产品利润仍然会得到改善,且不受直销渠道竞争情况的影响。制造商与零售商均进入双赢状态的一个必要条件是自有品牌产品的质量不能超过制造商产品质量的四分之三。当SB产品质量水平较低且直销渠道的销售成本适中的时候,双方陷入囚徒困境。     

When Does a Retailer's Advance Selling Capability Benefit Manufacturer,Retailer, or Both?

Advance selling (AS) from a retailer to consumers is commonly observed in practice. With an AS capability, a retailer has the option to sell in advance or not. Having the AS option seems to increase flexibility and thus profit for a retailer. However, we show that the AS option can hurt the retailer's profit as well as supply chain performance. We identify two thresholds for a product's marginal production cost. A retailer's AS option benefits both the manufacturer and retailer when the marginal production cost is high, that is, above both thresholds. It benefits the manufacturer but hurts the retailer when the marginal production cost is moderate, that is, between the two thresholds. The result is ambiguous when the marginal production cost is low, that is, below both thresholds. We find that consumer valuation uncertainty under AS is the key driving force for the surprising result that having the retailer's AS option can hurt the retailer. When compared to the scenario where the retailer does not have the AS option, we find that the manufacturer's optimal wholesale price weakly decreases under the retailer's AS option if the marginal production cost is high. The statement is reversed if the marginal production cost is moderate or low.