横向差异化竞争企业交叉持股背景下概率销售策略研究

竞争企业可以通过概率销售策略来实现市场细分和价格歧视,从而减弱竞争以及提高企业的销售利润。交叉持股在很多同行业企业中也普遍存在,企业可以通过交叉持股来加强合作、软化竞争和消除不信任。因此,本文考虑了两个有交叉持股的寡头企业之间的概率销售策略,旨在研究企业采用概率销售策略的动机。本文运用Hotelling模型来表征市场中的竞争企业的特点,构建了一个纳什静态博弈模型,对产品横向差异化市场中的企业间交叉持股模式下的概率销售策略进行研究。结果表明,在对称交叉持股情形下,当边际成本较高时,竞争企业将采用概率销售策略;在不对称交叉持股情形下,当边际成本较小时,引入概率销售策略总能使持股多的企业获益,并且当持股少的企业的被持股量大于一个阈值时,它也可以通过概率销售策略获益。     

不同减排合同下企业间纵向持股对供应链决策的影响

本文针对节能服务公司融资难、回款难及其与用户之间缺乏信任等现象,结合实际中节能服务公司与制造企业采取的不同减排合同机制,分别构建了减排效益分享型合同和减排量保证型合同下企业间纵向持股的三级低碳供应链模型,并对比分析了不同减排合同下持股策略对供应链企业决策及利润的影响。通过模型分析并结合案例及数值算例发现,在减排效益分享型合同中,当制造商单独持股节能服务公司时,增加持股比例会使产品减排量和链条上其他成员利润增加,同时低碳产品市场价格增加;当零售商和制造商同时持股节能服务公司时,两公司增加持股比例同样会使企业决策和利润得到优化,实现真正意义上的供应链企业大联盟,但该种情形会加大持股比例与企业决策和利润的协调难度。此外,在减排效益分享型合同下,制造商对节能服务公司持股可使环保红利和企业效益均得到增加,建议此种减排模式下的供应链企业实施持股策略;但对于减排量保证型合同,持股策略对各企业决策及利润并无明显改善,因此该种减排合同下不建议企业间采取股权合作策略。     

竞争环境下主导电子零售商的销售模式选择和信息共享策略

考虑由单一供应商、单一电子零售商和单一传统零售商组成的供应链，研究了占主导地位的电子零售商的在线销售模式(转售和代理销售)选择及信息共享策略。首先，针对两种在线销售模式，构建了信息共享和不共享情形下以供应链成员利润最大化为目标的优化模型，并通过求解模型得到了供应链成员的均衡定价和订货策略；然后，比较了不同策略组合下供应链各成员的期望利润，分析了各成员的信息共享策略偏好以及电子零售商的销售模式选择策略。研究表明：1)在转售模式下，当市场需求波动程度较小时，信息共享会增加电子零售商的利润，降低供应商和传统零售商的利润；当波动程度较大时，则相反；当市场需求波动处于中等水平时，电子零售商不共享信息能使供应商、电子零售商和传统零售商达成三赢局面。2)在代理销售模式下，信息共享能增加传统零售商的利润，但不一定能增加供应商和电子零售商的利润。只有佣金费率较低，高市场类型的概率较低且市场需求波动不大时，信息共享才是电子零售商的最优策略。3)主导电子零售商应该选择转售模式。本文的研究可为主导电商企业销售模式选择和信息分享决策提供理论依据;为相关零售企业在不同策略组合下定价和订货决策提供支持。     

考虑交叉持股的低碳供应链减排与定价决策研究

在碳交易机制下,将交叉持股战略引入到制造商减排决策中,研究供应链企业的减排和定价问题。构建了供应链企业集中决策下的决策模型和交叉持股前后制造商与零售商间的Stackelberg博弈模型,分析比较了不同情形下的企业最优决策和绩效,并以数值算例演示了交叉持股和碳交易价格对企业决策和绩效的影响。研究发现,制造商与零售商交叉持股能够改变碳交易价格对制造商减排量的影响,使得制造商的单位产品减排量一定提高,市场需求提高,在一定条件下批发价和零售价降低;当交叉持股比例满足一定条件时,交叉持股能同时增加制造商与零售商的利润并使供应链达到协调。     

在碳交易机制下再制造授权选择以及信息披露研究

本文基于碳交易机制以及制造商无产品专利保护背景,考虑两周期情形下原始制造商(OEM)和第三方独立再制造商(IR)之间由OEM主导的Stackelberg博弈,根据OEM是否授权IR以及IR再制造成本信息是否对称分为四种情形构建理论模型。研究结果表明：当再制造成本较低时(IR受产能约束),双方都愿意接受授权合作;当再制造成本较高时(IR不受产能约束),OEM是否愿意授权取决于新产品生产成本大小;而IR是否愿意接受授权取决于消费者对于授权后再制造产品效用增量的大小。信息不对称在再制造成本较高(较低)时不利于(有利于)IR,这说明IR只有在再制造成本较高时才愿意披露成本信息;而信息不对称对OEM的影响在IR达到最大产能时较为复杂,在未达到最大产能时不利于OEM。信息不对称会降低OEM授权意愿,对IR接受授权意愿的影响还与再制造成本大小有关,并且授权策略以及信息不对称都影响着供应链环境效益。     

线上平台的定价和优惠策略研究

实施优惠策略是企业推动线上零售增长的重要方式之一。本文考虑统一定价、第三方卖家实施优惠策略、平台实施优惠策略三种方式以及按比例优惠和固定金额优惠两种形式,通过对比不同情形下的均衡解,分析了不同优惠策略以及市场特征对企业决策、利润和消费者剩余的影响。研究结果表明,消费者并非总能享受到优惠福利。企业应结合市场需求特征制定优惠策略,当消费者估值的差异化程度较小时,卖家设置较小的优惠力度;当低估值型消费者的占比较高时,平台应设置较大的优惠力度。卖家自身实施优惠策略是其最优选择,且对平台有利。平台实施优惠策略并非总能提高卖家利润,一定条件下会干扰卖家的决策,损害其利益。     

考虑过度自信的交叉持股供应链决策研究

过度自信作为一种典型的决策者非理性行为特征,会对交叉持股供应链成员的决策产生影响。鉴于此,本文旨在探讨存在过度自信的交叉持股供应链的决策问题。考虑到供应链成员的过度自信特征,在制造商和零售商均完全理性、仅制造商过度自信、仅零售商过度自信以及二者均过度自信的四种模式下,本文构建了制造商与零售商交叉持股的供应链模型,运用了Stackelberg博弈方法对模型进行求解,讨论了过度自信及交叉持股比例对供应链成员决策的影响,并通过数值仿真对结论进行验证。研究表明：当市场环境较好时,交叉持股的任何一方过度自信程度的提高会使自身利润下降,而使另一方利润提高;当市场环境较差时,制造商过度自信会使双方的收益都受损,而零售商过度自信会使自身利润提升,使制造商收益下降;制造商和零售商可以通过调整交叉的持股比例来调节过度自信对利润的影响。     

有限产能直销优先策略下双渠道供应链的定价博弈模型

针对产能约束下的双渠道供应链,考虑实际中常用的直销优先分配产能的策略,基于Stackelberg博弈研究制造商(领导者)和零售商(追随者)的定价决策,刻画均衡解并深入分析直销优先策略下产能约束对双渠道供应链利润的影响。研究发现,在不同产能水平下,制造商对两个渠道的依赖程度会发生变化。当产能短缺时,其利润主要源于直销渠道;而当产能相对充足时,其愿意分享更多的产能以换取零售渠道上的批发利润,且此时增大产能可能会损害制造商的利益。对零售商而言,当产能短缺时,其采用高溢价来弥补获得较少产能的劣势;当产能相对充足时,其采用薄利多销的策略来获取更多的利润。当产能过剩时,双方的利润不再受产能的影响,且产能过剩对双方而言不一定是最好的情况。研究结论为制造商的定价与在双渠道中的产能分配策略选择提供有益的管理启示。     

降价或产品升级?智能音箱行业平台企业质量投资与补贴策略研究

作为智能家居的控制枢纽和家庭人机交互的切入点,智能音箱持续吸引国内外巨头布局投资。然而,对于连接制造商与消费者的智能音箱平台企业而言,产品定价乱与质量创新难始终是其盈利痛点与补贴难点。本文基于双边市场理论与Hotelling模型,构建智能音箱平台双边补贴决策模型,探讨不同市场竞争与双边成员归属情形下,智能音箱平台企业在质量投资与价格补贴之间的关键权衡。结果表明:垄断情形下,当制造商受益于交叉网络外部性时,平台企业反而应该提高消费端价格;对称竞争情形下,质量投资与价格补贴的相互作用消失;当消费者规模较小时,平台企业应提高产品质量并选择差异化战略以巩固市场地位;相较双边成员单归属情形,成员多归属可能导致平台企业补贴策略低效。此外,数值结果分析了交叉网络外部效应、竞争系数、佣金比例等因素对产品价格、质量、补贴效率的影响。研究结论丰富了双边市场理论成果,并为智能音箱平台企业破解补贴困境提供了科学思路。     

道德风险与企业动态投融资的有效策略集分析

给出了一定条件下企业多项目动态投融资的有效策略集分析.指出,企业经营者的道德风险程度及其持股比例对企业负债率的影响程度与经营者的风险厌恶程度间有密切的联系.结论:1)当投资额为内生变量时,企业负债率的变化与企业经营者道德风险程度或经营者持股比例的变化正相关.2)当经营者持股比例为内生变量时,企业负债率的变化与经营者道德风险程度的变化正相关.3)经营者的风险厌恶程度并不改变上述关系,但改变其强度,即经营者风险厌恶程度越高,上述关系的强度就越弱.4)在负债率等其他条件相同的前提下,若两个企业经营者的持股比例相同,则风险厌恶程度高的经营者道德风险程度较小;若两个企业经营者的道德风险程度相同,则风险厌恶程度高的经营者持股比例较小.     

Bertrand寡占市场企业交叉持股时定价策略和最优持股的研究

本文首先研究了公司间交叉持股的利益分配问题,导出了n个公司间交叉持股的利润分配公式。以此为基础,导出了Bertrand寡占市场公司间交叉持股时价格反应函数和均衡价格的一般表达式。通过构建一个两阶段动态博弈,着重研究了Bertrand双寡头市场两厂商交叉持股时的均衡策略问题,给出了厂商间均衡定价与最优持股,分析了均衡策略对厂商经济行为及市场绩效的影响。研究结果表明,可替代品市场的两厂商间交叉持股具有反竞争、促合作的效应。较之非交叉持股,均衡交叉持股提高了均衡价格水平,降低了两厂商各自的产量水平,使各自在较低产量水平下获得较高的利润,从而实现了两厂商间双赢的局面。然而,交叉持股将导致消费者剩余减少,社会经济福利降低。     

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。     

Capacity Investment Under Responsive Pricing: Implications of Market Entry Choice*

We consider a manufacturer’s new market entry problem when it already has some established facility in its existing market. We consider two common market entry strategies: the export strategy and the foreign direct investment (FDI) strategy. In the export strategy the firm increases the capacity at its existing facility and subsequently allocates the output to the existing and the new market dynamically, depending on realized market conditions. The export strategy is a flexible strategy. In the FDI strategy, the firm invests in a dedicated capacity to serve the new market only. The FDI strategy is a (partially) dedicated strategy. We study these two strategies from a planning perspective, that is, how the firm’s strategy choice influences the optimal capacity levels. We find that the firm’s strategy choice can significantly impact the optimal capacity investment levels. We prove, for example, that the firm may enter the new market in the export strategy but not in the FDI strategy, even if the capacity investment cost is identical in the existing and the new market. In addition, we prove that the firm may invest a strictly higher capacity level in the export strategy than that in the FDI strategy. We also prove that new market entry in the FDI strategy may strictly decrease the firm’s supply to its existing market but this is not so in the export strategy, and hence policy makers should carefully consider the implications of trade regulations on firms’ market entry choices.     

Disentangling the European airlines efficiency puzzle: A network data envelopment analysis approach

In recent years the European airline industry has undergone critical restructuring. It has evolved from a highly regulated market predominantly operated by national airlines to a dynamic, liberalized industry where airline firms compete freely on prices, routes, and frequencies. Although several studies have analyzed performance issues for European airlines using a variety of efficiency measurement methods, virtually none of them has considered two-stage alternatives – not only in this particular European context but in the airline industry in general. We extend the aims of previous contributions by considering a network Data Envelopment Analysis (network DEA) approach which comprises two sub-technologies that can share part of the inputs. Results show that, in general, most of the inefficiencies are generated in the first stage of the analysis. However, when considering different types of carriers several differences emerge – most of the low-cost carriers’ inefficiencies are confined to the first stage. Results also show a dynamic component, since performance differed across types of airlines during the decade 2000–2010.     

Horizontal capacity sharing between asymmetric competitors

A common practice to address supply-demand mismatch is capacity sharing, whereby a firm possessing excessive capacity collaborates with its rival that is incapable of meeting captured demand. However, previous studies have seldom focused on the role of capacity sharing in shaping market competition. In this paper, we investigate coopetition strategies under two widely used contracting mechanisms of capacity sharing, namely, the linear transfer payment contracting mechanism and the revenue sharing contracting mechanism. In a model of two competitors with asymmetric capacities, we find that the larger firm becomes less aggressive in market competition and benefits more from capacity sharing. Competition between the firms will be softened by capacity sharing. Moreover, competition intensity is more likely to be higher under the linear transfer payment contracting mechanism than under the revenue sharing contracting mechanism, while it may be lower if the total capacities are slightly larger than the aggregate demand.     

On the Effects of Capacity Agent on Market Equilibrium

We consider a setting of two firms and one capacity agent. Each firm serves a primary market, and the capacity agent sustains a common market to draw demand for capacity from the external firms. The firms can partner with the capacity agent under her contract to serve the common market. When they use the common market mainly as an outlet for their unused capacities, the capacity agent will only specify a variable fee for each capacity unit deployed through her, and prefer to partner with one firm in most circumstances. When the firms adjust capacities to accommodate the businesses created by serving the common market, the capacity agent will specify a lump‐sum payment and a variable fee, and will be more likely to incentivize only one firm to partner with her, when the common market is sufficiently large or the demands in the common and primary markets are strongly correlated. She will always use a fixed fee to extract, while not necessarily all, the profit gains to the firms serving the common market, but will use a variable fee only when partnering with both firms. The key results are robust with respect to market configuration and contract type.     

跟单服务与溢短交易驱动下产能分享供应链均衡策略选择

考虑由于信息不对称等原因导致的产能分享双方订单与实际交付不一致的情形,本文构建了由产能买方,产能卖方和第三方跟单服务商组成的产能分享供应链系统,并研究“溢短交易”和“跟单服务”对产能交付率提升发挥的作用。考虑产能卖方决策是否选择溢短交易模式,产能买方决策是否接受跟单服务,本文采用博弈论分析了产能买卖双方的占优策略以及双方的均衡策略组合。研究发现,溢短交易和跟单服务都可以降低产能分享的加入门槛,使得更多企业加入到产能分享中。当次品率相对较高,或跟单服务效果相对较好时,买卖双方倾向于接受跟单服务,采取普通交易模式;相反,当次品率相对较低,或跟单服务效果相对较差时,买卖双方倾向于采取溢短交易模式,不接受跟单服务。本文进一步给出了溢短交易和跟单服务的均衡策略及其条件,为产能买卖双方对合作对象的选择及相关决策提供了依据。     

交易专项投资对伙伴机会主义行为影响的实证研究

以企业交易专项投资与伙伴强形式和弱形式机会主义行为的关系为研究对象,重点探讨其随伙伴交易专项投资水平和关系持续时间的变化趋势。以制造商营销渠道负责人和分销商采购人员为调研对象,通过问卷调查获得216组家电行业制造商-分销商配对样本数据,采用多元调节回归对假设进行验证。研究结果表明,随着伙伴交易专项投资水平的增加,企业交易专项投资会从引发伙伴两类机会主义行为转变为抑制伙伴机会主义行为,特别是企业交易专项投资对伙伴强形式机会主义行为的作用变化较为显著;随着交易关系的延续,企业交易专项投资始终增强伙伴的强形式机会主义行为,并不随关系持续而发生明显改变,但企业交易专项投资会从引发转变为抑制伙伴的弱形式机会主义行为。     

社交媒体中企业分享奖励营销模式研究

社交媒体中用户之间的分享行为具有潜在的经济价值,因此越来越多的企业通过分享奖励模式开展社会化营销,以挖掘新用户。本文构建“嵌套”Stackelberg博弈模型,研究了企业的最优分享奖励机制设计,并对比分析了分享奖励营销模式与传统大众广告营销模式。主要研究发现,企业的最优奖励策略包括单独奖励新用户、单独奖励分享者以及同时奖励分享者和新用户三种。不同策略的选择受到价格以及用户之间社交关系的影响。当用户之间的社交关系较弱时,由打折奖励引起用户购买概率增加的“折扣作用”强于由分享奖励金引起的“推荐作用”,企业适合采用单独奖励新用户策略;当用户之间的社交关系较强时,“推荐作用”强于“折扣作用”,企业适合采用单独奖励分享者策略。同时,企业选择大众广告营销模式或者分享奖励模式受到市场渗透率和用户之间社交关系两个主要因素的影响。     

Energy Performance Contracting in a Competitive Environment*

Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) is an important and effective energy conservation mechanism, under which an energy service company (ESCO) provides an energy‐saving service to its client and shares the resulting energy cost savings. Using a game‐theoretic model, we investigate the impacts of EPC on two competing manufacturers, of which one is more energy‐efficient in production than the other. The less energy‐efficient firm first proposes an energy‐saving sharing contract to the more energy‐efficient firm, who, if accepting the contract, acts as an ESCO that decides the energy‐saving target and helps realize it for the client. Then the firms engage in Cournot competition by producing/selling substitutable products. By solving the equilibrium solutions, we show that under an EPC project, the total production quantity of both firms increases (so the market price of the product decreases) with the ESCO producing less while its client producing more, which also leads to a higher consumer surplus. Meanwhile, both manufactures are better off under EPC and would obtain strictly higher profits when the service cost rate is high. Nevertheless, EPC may not result in a better environmental performance in that the total energy consumption of both firms may be higher under EPC, which happens when the market size is small and the ESCO has not much energy‐efficiency advantage over its client. We also study four extensions: When the energy saving service and production decisions are made separately, we find the more energy‐efficient firm is worse off when implementing EPC; when the energy‐saving sharing ratio is determined by the ESCO instead of the client, the ESCO extracts all the surplus derived from the EPC project while the total energy consumption of both firms is always reduced; when the energy‐saving sharing ratio is determined via Nash bargaining, the main insights from the base model remain valid; finally, when the client sets the target of overall cost reduction, it extracts all the surplus derived from the EPC project.