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.     

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.     

Manufacturer Rebate Competition in a Supply Chain with a Common Retailer

We consider manufacturer rebate competition in a supply chain with two competing manufacturers selling to a common retailer. We fully characterize the manufacturers’ equilibrium rebate decisions and show how they depend on parameters such as the fixed cost of a rebate program, market size, the redemption rate of rebate, the proportion of rebate‐sensitive consumers in the market and competition intensity. Interestingly, more intense competition induces a manufacturer to lower rebate value or stop offering rebate entirely. Without rebate, it is known that more intense competition hurts the manufacturers and benefits the retailer. With rebate, however, more intense competition could benefit the manufacturers and hurt the retailer. We find similar counterintuitive results when there is a change in some other parameters. We also consider the case when the retailer subsidizes the manufacturers sequentially to offer rebate programs. We fully characterize the retailer's optimal subsidy strategy, and show that subsidy always benefits the retailer but may benefit or hurt the manufacturers. When the retailer wants to induce both manufacturers to offer rebate, he always prefers to subsidize the manufacturer with a higher fixed cost first. Sometimes the other manufacturer will then voluntarily offer rebate even without subsidy.     

The Role of Slotting Fees in the Coordination of Assortment Decisions

Large numbers of new products introduced annually by manufacturers may strain the relationship between retailers and manufacturers regarding assortments carried by retailers. For example, many retailers in the grocery industry will agree to broaden their assortments only if the manufacturer agrees to pay slotting fees for the new products. We investigate the role played by slotting fees in coordinating the assortment decisions in a supply chain. To do so, we study a single‐retailer, single‐manufacturer supply chain, where the retailer decides what assortment to offer to end customers. Double marginalization results in a discrepancy between the retailer's optimal assortment and the assortment that maximizes total supply chain profits. We consider a payment scheme that is analogous to slotting fees used in the grocery industry: the manufacturer pays the retailer a per‐product fee for every product offered by the retailer in excess of a certain target level. We show that, if the wholesale price is below some threshold level, this payment scheme induces the retailer to offer the supply‐chain‐optimal assortment and makes both parties better off.     

Competing for Shelf Space

In recent years, the competition for shelf space has intensified, as more products now compete for a retail space that has remained roughly constant. In this paper, we analyze the dynamics of this competition in a multi‐supplier retail point. Assuming that sales are shelf space dependent, we consider a retailer that optimizes its shelf space allocation among different products based on their sales level and profit margins. In this context, product manufacturers set their wholesale prices so as to obtain larger shelf space allocations but at the same time keep margins as high as possible. We analyze the equilibrium situation in the supply chain, and find that generally the retailer's and the suppliers' incentives are misaligned, resulting in suboptimal retail prices and shelf space allocations. We however find that the inefficiencies induced by suboptimal shelf space allocation decisions are small relative to those induced by suboptimal pricing decisions.     

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.     

Promotion Planning and Supply Chain Contracting in a High–Low Pricing Environment

Demand forecast errors threaten the profitability of high–low price promotion strategies. This article shows how to match demand and supply effectively by means of two‐segment demand forecasting and supply contracts. We find that demand depends on the path of past retail prices, which leads to only a limited number of reachable demand states. However, forecast errors cannot be entirely eliminated because competitive promotions entail some degree of random (i.e., last‐minute) pricing. A hedging approach can be deployed to distribute demand risk efficiently over multiple promotional campaigns and within the supply chain. A retailer that employs a portfolio of forward, option, and spot contracts can avoid both stockouts and excess inventories while achieving the first‐best solution and Pareto improvements. We provide an improved forecasting method as well as stochastic programs to solve for optimal production and purchasing policies such that the right amount of inventory is available at the right time. By connecting a stockpiling model of demand with the supply side, we derive insights on optimal risk management strategies for both manufacturers and retailers in a market environment characterized by frequent price promotions and multiple discount levels. We employ a data set of the German retail market for a key generator of store traffic—namely, diapers.     

两生产商单零售商的货架展示量与定价决策模型及协调策略设计

研究两个生产商和单个零售商的供应链,生产商生产的产品为可替代产品,产品需求是货架展示量和零售价格的函数。首先分析了零售商以最大化自身利润为目标的分散式决策,然后分别研究了供应链系统利润最大化、以及生产商与零售商组成联盟后的渠道利润最大化下的集中式决策模型,进而提出了与零售价和展示量相关的批发价加补贴合同、以及与零售价和展示量相关的批发价加补贴加利润共享合同,两种合同能分别协调零售商的分散式决策达到与系统利润最大化和渠道利润最大化决策一致。最后的算例表明了上述决策模型的差异和协调合同的有效性。     

不同渠道权力结构和信息结构下供应链定价和销售努力决策

本文针对零售商销售努力和销售价格影响需求情况下的制造商-零售商两级供应链,研究不同渠道权力结构和信息结构下供应链的分散决策。基于博弈理论和建模方法,对几种权力结构和信息结构情景建立相应模型,通过理论与数值分析对不同博弈均衡进行比较。研究表明,随着零售商势力逐步增强制造商利润会逐步恶化;但零售商势力增强能否带来更多利润,取决于需求对价格和销售努力的敏感度、销售努力成本以及信息结构。占优一方可以通过获取对方更多信息来改善自己处境。若占优零售商不得不依赖于对制造商成本先验分布进行决策,当估计的均值大于真实成本时,适度的方差对零售商更有利。最后,讨论了销售努力成本分担的合作机制,针对非合作博弈给出了帕累托改进的合约区间和 Nash讨价还价均衡。     

Joint Mail‐In Rebate Decisions in Supply Chains Under Demand Uncertainty

We study the joint decisions of offering mail‐in rebates (MIRs) in a single‐manufacturer–single‐retailer supply chain using a game theoretic framework. Either party can offer an MIR to the end consumer if it is in his best interest. The consumer demand is stochastic and depends on the product price and the amount of MIRs. When the retail price is exogenous, we show the existence of a unique Nash equilibrium under both additive and multiplicative demand functions and characterize it completely. We show that any of the following four scenarios can be the equilibrium: both parties offer MIR, only one party offers MIR, none offers MIR. When the retail price is a decision variable for the retailer and the rebate redemption rate increases with the amount of MIR, we once again prove the existence of a unique Nash equilibrium where both the retailer and the manufacturer offer MIRs. Using a numerical study, we show that the average post‐purchase price of the product is higher not only than the perceived pre‐purchase price but also than the newsvendor optimal price without an MIR. This implies that an MIR makes a product look cheaper while the consumers actually pay more on average.     

Two-period pricing and ordering policy for the dominant retailer in a two-echelon supply chain with demand uncertainty

Retailing channels are increasingly being dominated by ‘power’ retailers who are in a position to dictate prices and ordering schedules to manufacturers and suppliers. A dominant retailer, such as Wal-Mart, has the ‘power’ to decide retail prices of products because there are so many manufacturers who are keen to sell their products through or to such a large and powerful retailer. Several products, such as electronic products, can be sold in the market for some periods during their lifecycles before they retreat, except when they are not popular with consumers after been introduced. Therefore, in case of such products, the retailer should not just consider a single-period pricing and ordering policy. It should make dynamic pricing and ordering decisions based on market demand forecast, in order to obtain maximum cumulative profit from the product during its lifecycle. In this study, we consider this scenario and construct a two-period model to discuss pricing and ordering problems for a dominant retailer with demand uncertainty in a declining price environment. We show that the maximum expected profit function is continuous concave, so the optimal solution to pricing and ordering policy exists and it is the one and only. We also analyze sensitivity of retailer's expected profit to the effects of parameters of price-discount sharing scheme and market demand.     

Supply Chain Coordination in a Market with Customer Service Competition

We consider a market with two competing supply chains, each consisting of one wholesaler and one retailer. We assume that the business environment forces supply chains to charge similar prices and to compete strictly on the basis of customer service. We model customer service competition using game‐theoretical concepts. We consider three competition scenarios between the supply chains. In the uncoordinated scenario, individual members of both supply chains maximize their own profits by individually selecting their service and inventory policies. In the coordinated scenario, wholesalers and retailers of each supply chain coordinate their service and inventory policy decisions to maximize supply chain profits. In the hybrid scenario, competition is between one coordinated and one uncoordinated supply chain. We discuss the derivation of the equilibrium service strategies, resulting inventory policies, and profits for each scenario, and compare the equilibria in a numerical study. We find that coordination is a dominant strategy for both supply chains, but as in the prisoner's dilemma, both supply chains are often worse off under the coordinated scenario relative to the uncoordinated scenario. The consumers are the only guaranteed beneficiaries of coordination.     

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.     

不同权力结构下碳税对供应链减排水平的影响

随着我国生态文明建设的不断推进,促进供应链协同减排成为生产和消费领域落实绿色发展理念的重要举措。在绿色供应链的管理实践中,不同类型的供应链核心企业在进行减排决策时会有不同的侧重点,因此供应链权力的结构成为影响供应链减排水平的关键因素。本文在一个由两个制造商和一个零售商组成的两级供应链中研究了不同权力结构下的供应链最优减排和定价决策问题,分别给出了零售商主导和制造商主导的Stackelberg-Nash博弈均衡解,并分析了产品的单位生产成本、单位批发价格、碳税税率等参数对供应链最优决策的影响。本文的研究结果表明：（1）在两种供应链权力结构下,当产品的单位批发价格固定时,降低产品的生产成本都可以促使制造商提高减排水平;但是当产品的单位生产成本固定时,提高产品的批发价格却不一定总是能够激励制造商提高减排水平;（2）在两种供应链权力结构下,对于低排放行业的制造商来说,提高碳税税率可以增加产品的减排水平,但是对于高排放行业的制造商来说,提高碳税税率反而会降低产品的减排水平;（3）一般来说,零售商占主导地位的供应链中产品减排水平和供应链总利润相对较高,供应链碳排放总量相对较低。最后,与供应链集中决策模式相比,随着产品批发价格的增加,两种分散决策模式下的供应链双重边际效应逐渐增强。数值实验结果显示：在碳税税率的一定取值范围内,这种双重边际效应会使得两种分散决策模式下的产品最优减排水平和供应链碳排放总量均优于集中决策模式。本文的研究可为碳税政策下供应链的协同减排提供有益的管理启示。     

不同信息透明度对分销系统及各成员的影响

考虑由一个供应商和多个零售商组成的分销系统。研究高、中、低三种不同信息透明度模式下系统的最优补货及分配策略以及相应的系统和各个零售商的期望成本。证明无论从系统的角度还是从零售商的角度,并非信息透明度越高,期望成本越低。从整个系统的角度来讲,虽然系统的期望成本总在高信息透明度模式下取得最低,但是,中低两种信息透明度模式谁取得第二低的系统期望成本取决于系统内各节点之间的距离以及零售商所面对客户需求的性质。从零售商的角度,高信息透明度并不能降低零售商的期望成本。零售商是否可以从较高的信息透明度水平中获益则取决于零售商在送货路线上所处的位置,系统内各节点之间的距离,以及零售商所面对客户需求的性质。     

Sourcing Decisions with Stochastic Supplier Reliability and Stochastic Demand

Supplier sourcing strategies are a crucial factor driving supply chain success. In this paper, we investigate the implications of uncertain supplier reliability on a firm's sourcing decisions in an environment with stochastic demand. In particular, we characterize specific conditions under which a firm should choose a single versus multiple supplier sourcing strategy. In an environment with both uncertain demand and supply, we characterize the total order quantity, the number of suppliers selected for order placement, and the allocation of the total order quantity among these selected suppliers. For deeper managerial insight, we also examine the sensitivity of the optimal sourcing decisions to interactions between uncertainties in product demand and supply reliability. We show that sourcing from a single supplier is an optimal strategy for environments characterized by high levels of demand uncertainty or high salvage values. A numerical analysis based on data obtained from an office products retailer further reinforces our analytical results. In addition, we also find that when minimal order quantities are imposed, there are situations where it is not optimal to place an order with the lowest cost supplier.     

预测信息分享对制造商开通直销渠道的影响

研究了零售商预测信息分享对制造商渠道结构选择的影响.运用不完全信息动态博弈分别建立了单渠道和双渠道供应链决策模型,得到了贝叶斯均衡的渠道价格和各方最优期望利润.研究发现当零售商的需求预测精度比较低时,制造商应当开通直销渠道.零售商没有动机将预测信息与制造商分享.设计了一个信息分享补偿机制使得零售商能自愿分享其私有信息.在信息分享补偿机制下,虽然制造商为获取零售商预测信息付出了成本,但是依然有动机开通直销渠道.     

Multiperiod Models with Capacities in Competitive Supply Chain

This paper considers a supply chain setting where several capacitated suppliers compete for orders from a single retailer in a multiperiod environment. At each period, the retailer places orders to the suppliers in response to the prices they announce. Each supplier has a fixed capacity. We consider a make‐to‐stock setting where the retailer can carry inventory. The retailer faces exogenous, price‐dependent demand. We study the problem using ideas from fluid models. In particular, we (i) analyze when there are pure equilibrium policies in this setting and characterize the structure of these policies; (ii) consider coordination mechanisms; and (iii) present some preliminary computational results. We also consider a modified model that uses option contracts to coordinate the supply chain.     

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).     

Demand Forecast Sharing in Supply Chains

This paper examines the incentives of a manufacturer and a retailer to share their demand forecasts. The demand at the retailer is a linearly decreasing function of price. The manufacturer sets the wholesale price first, and the retailer sets the retail price after observing the wholesale price. Both players set their prices based on their forecasts of demand. In the make‐to‐order scenario, the manufacturer sets the production quantity after observing the actual demand; in the make‐to‐stock scenario, the manufacturer sets the production quantity before the demand is realized. In the make‐to‐order scenario, we show that sharing the forecast unconditionally by the retailer with the manufacturer benefits the manufacturer but hurts the retailer. We also demonstrate that a side payment contract cannot induce Pareto‐optimal information sharing equilibrium, but a discount based wholesale price contract can. The social welfare as well as consumer surplus is higher under the discount contract, compared with under no information sharing. In the make‐to‐stock scenario, the manufacturer realizes additional benefits in the form of savings in inventory holding and shortage costs when forecasts are shared. If the savings from inventory holding and shortage costs because of information sharing are sufficiently high, then a side payment contract that induces Pareto‐optimal information sharing is feasible in the make‐to‐stock scenario. We also provide additional managerial insights with the help of a computational study.