Product Positioning and Pricing Under Production Cost Considerations*

A framework in a competitive environment is proposed that incorporates production cost and economies of scale in the problem of positioning a product for a market segment. The model facilitates the existence of a Nash equilibrium in prices and product positions. As such, firms can simultaneously choose prices and product positions for the segment. This result improves the traditional theory on equilibria points in prices and product positions where firms choose their product positions first and then set their prices. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates the effects of changes in the unit savings derived from economies of scale or the cost of furnishing a product with its attributes by one firm on the product positions, prices, and profits of all competing firms. More important, the paper examines the effect on prices and profits of competing firms when one of the firms repositions its product closer to the segment's ideal point. It is shown that under certain conditions, the profit of a firm may actually decrease as it redesigns its product closer to the segment's ideal point. These conditions assist management to identify the product design beyond which enhancements of the product would lead to lower profits because of increasing production costs. It is also shown that the price of this firm increases. Past research supports the idea that positioning a brand closer to the ideal point, given fixed product positions of competing firms, would lead to greater buyer preferences and eventually higher profits. The price and profits of the competing firm may increase or decrease. Conditions are derived under which a movement towards the segment's ideal point by one firm would lead to higher profits by the competing firm.     

Price Incentives and Coordination in a Two‐Product Decentralized Supply Chain

We investigate pricing incentives for competing retailers who distribute two variants of a manufacturer's product in a decentralized supply chain. Under a two‐dimensional Hotelling model, we derive decentralized retailers' prices for the products, and distortions in pricing when compared to centrally optimal prices. We show that price distortions decrease as consumers' travel cost between retailers increases, due to less intense competition. However, price distortions do not change monotonically in consumers' switching cost between products within stores. To fix decentralized retailers' price distortions, we construct a two‐part pricing contract that coordinates the supply chain. We show that the coordinating contract is Pareto‐improving and analyze increase in the supply chain profit under coordination.     

Transfer Pricing and Sourcing Strategies for Multinational Firms

Taking advantage of low tax rates using transfer pricing and taking advantage of low production costs using offshoring are two strategies multinational firms (MNFs) use to increase profits. We identify an important trade‐off that MNFs face in setting their transfer prices: the conflict between (i) the incentive role and (ii) the tax role of the transfer price. For MNFs, we find the profit‐maximizing transfer‐pricing strategies that motivate divisional management to (i) make good sourcing decisions and (ii) take advantage of favorable tax rates. We quantify the absolute and relative maximum inefficiency in terms of the after‐tax MNF's profit change from using a single transfer‐pricing system as compared to the dual transfer‐pricing system. We show that the highest relative loss is attained when the average sourcing cost and the tax differential are high. We demonstrate that the highest absolute loss is attained when the average outsourcing cost is approximately equal to the offshoring cost. We extend our results to two practical variations in MNF structures: an MNF that faces operational constraints on its offshoring capacity and an MNF that uses compensation contracts linked to after‐tax firm‐wide profits. Our insights help MNFs' managers identify when to use single and dual transfer‐pricing systems.     

Pricing and the Internet:: Frictionless Commerce or Pricer’s Paradise?

Are firms competing in a new world of frictionless e-commerce or is the Internet a pricer’s paradise? It is not safe, at the moment, to say that the Internet is lowering online prices, decreasing price dispersion and increasing online customer price sensitivity.The strategic issue for firms pricing on the Net is avoiding the ‘commodity trap’ and taking advantage of the ‘other side’ of information transparency. Firms should increasingly rely on finer segmentation of their customers and resort to dynamic and smart pricing, product and price versioning and bundling. Multichannel and customer lifetime value pricing will become strategic issues.     

Cost Allocation in Manufacturing–Remanufacturing Operations

For firms remanufacturing their products, the total life‐cycle costs and revenues from new and remanufactured products determine their profitability. In many firms, manufacturing/sales and remanufacturing/remarketing operations are carried out in different divisions. Each division is responsible for only part of the product's life cycle. Practices regarding transfer pricing across divisions vary significantly among companies, affecting the life‐cycle profit performance of the product. In this research, we identify characteristics of transfer prices that achieve the firm‐wide optimal solution. To this end, we consider a manufacturer who also undertakes remanufacturing operations and we focus on price (quantity) decisions. We determine that a cost allocation mechanism that allocates a portion of the initial production cost to each of the two stages of the product life cycle should be used. We also conclude that cost allocation should be implemented as a fixed cost allocation, where charges to the remanufacturing division should be determined independently of the actual quantity of units remanufactured.     

Manufacturer's pricing strategy for supply chain with warranty period-dependent demand

This article presents a review of the issues associated with a manufacturer's pricing strategies in a two-echelon supply chain that comprises one manufacturer and two competing retailers, with warranty period-dependent demands. The manufacturer, as a Stackelberg leader, specifies wholesale prices to two competing retailers who face warranty period-dependent demand and have different sales costs. The manufacturer considers three pricing options: (1) setting the same price for both retailers, while disregarding their difference with regard to sales cost; (2) setting a different price to each retailer on the basis of their sales cost; and (3) setting the same price to both retailers according to the average sales cost of the industry. In this article, the retailers' optimal warranty periods and their optimal profit, manufacturer's optimal wholesale price, and his/her optimal profit associated with different pricing strategies have been derived using the game theory. Our analysis shows that the results for retailers are the same with Strategy 1 or Strategy 3. In addition, we compared the effects of different pricing strategies of the manufacturer on supply chain decisions and profit. We conclude from the results that the manufacturer should either adopt Strategy 2 with symmetrical sales cost information or Strategy 3 if retailers' sales costs are asymmetrical.     

消费者寻求多样化与厂商折扣定价竞争

在很多市场环境中，消费者喜欢尝试不同产品的特性，重复消费同一商品会产生滞留成本。本文通过构建两期动态博弈模型，研究了滞留成本对企业折扣券定价行为的影响，并与其他定价策略的市场绩效进行了比较。本文研究结果表明：（1）企业会通过折扣券奖励忠诚的消费者，即企业会对重复购买自己产品的消费者给予价格优惠，而对新消费者制定高价格；（2）在均衡中，随着滞留成本的提升，消费者剩余和社会总福利降低，企业利润上升；（3）与其他定价机制相比较，折扣券定价策略下的社会总福利较低，政策制定者应当限制此类策略的应用。     

带有转移成本寡头垄断的二次定价及仿真

寡头垄断企业往往通过二次定价或价格歧视来获取更多的利润,尤其是后入者经常采用先低价抢占市场,再高价获取利润的策略.研究了两个寡头垄断企业二次定价的竞争.证明了定价及总利润与转移成本负相关,第一阶段实行低价策略的寡头企业会在第二阶段定价中失去部分第一阶段获取的超额市场.将第一次定价产生的转移成本看作新产品投放市场广告或市场推广等成本效果,进一步讨论了产品在毗邻位置竞争的情况,指出寡头垄断的利润主要来自转移成本.     

Reducing Packaging Waste and Cost via Consumer Price Discounts

Low‐waste packaging may imply an inconvenience to consumers and cause firms to offer a compensating price discount. For example, Starbucks’ “Take the Mug Pledge” campaign provides a 10‐cent discount for customers who purchase coffee without a standard cup (i.e., customers provide their own cup). Understanding how such a discount drives demand and profit is the focus of this article. We consider a monopolist that can offer a reduced‐packaging option for its product at a variable cost savings. That option implies a transactional “inconvenience” cost for consumers. While that transactional cost is generally positive, our model also permits some consumers to associate convenience with reduced packaging. We derive the optimal price and discount that maximize profits. We show the optimal discount is bounded by the magnitude of the variable cost savings associated with the packaging reduction. We explore when the optimal discount is negative (a price premium), which requires a specific proportion of consumers to associate convenience with reduced packaging. We also derive conditions under which the firm should price to eliminate demand for the standard product, rather than segment the market, to leverage the variable cost savings of reduced packaging. When the variable cost savings are low (e.g., as is true for Starbucks), we show the profit curve for the segmenting policy is relatively flat for a discount up to several multiples of the cost differential. Finally, we demonstrate the potential for the reduced packaging option, with optimal discounting, to simultaneously increase profit and consumer surplus while reducing waste.     

Pareto‐Improving Contracts for Express Package Delivery Services

We address the problem of an express package delivery company in structuring a long‐term customer contract whose terms may include prices that differ by day‐of‐week and by speed‐of‐service. The company traditionally offered speed‐of‐service pricing to its customers, but without day‐of‐week differentiation, resulting in customer demands with considerable day‐of‐week seasonality. The package delivery company hoped that using day‐of‐week and speed‐of‐service price differentiation for contract customers would induce these customers to adjust their demands to become counter‐cyclical to the non‐contract demand. Although this usually cannot be achieved by pricing alone, we devise an approach that utilizes day‐of‐week and speed‐of‐service pricing as an element of a Pareto‐improving contract. The contract provides the lowest‐cost arrangement for the package delivery company while ensuring that the customer is at least as well off as he would have been under the existing pricing structure. The contract pricing smoothes the package delivery company's demand and reduces peak requirements for transport capacity. The latter helps to decrease capital costs, which may allow a further price reduction for the customer. We formulate the pricing problem as a biconvex optimization model, and present a methodology for designing the contract and numerical examples that illustrate the achievable savings.     

Dynamic Pricing and Lead‐Time Policies for Make‐to‐Order Systems*

Make‐to‐order firms use different approaches for managing their lead‐times and pricing in the face of changing market conditions. A particular firm's approach may be largely dictated by environmental constraints. For example, it makes little sense to carefully manage lead‐time if its effect on demand is muted, as it can be in situations where leadtime is difficult for the market to gauge or requires investment to estimate. Similarly, it can be impractical to change capacity and price. However, environmental constraints are likely to become less of an issue in the future with the expanding e‐business infrastructure, and this trend raises questions into how to manage effectively the marketing mix of price and lead‐time in a more “friction‐free” setting. We study a simple model of a make‐to‐order firm, and we examine policies for adjusting price and capacity in response to periodic and unpredictable shifts in how the market values price and lead‐time. Our analysis suggests that maintaining a fixed capacity while using lead‐time and/or price to absorb changes in the market will be most attractive when stability in throughput and profit are highly valued, but in volatile markets, this stability comes at a cost of low profits. From a pure profit maximization perspective, it is best to strive for a short and consistent lead‐times by adjusting both capacity and price in response to market changes.     

Measuring Market Power in the Ready‐to‐Eat Cereal Industry

The ready‐to‐eat cereal industry is characterized by high concentration, high price‐cost margins, large advertising‐to‐sales ratios, and numerous introductions of new products. Previous researchers have concluded that the ready‐to‐eat cereal industry is a classic example of an industry with nearly collusive pricing behavior and intense nonprice competition. This paper empirically examines this conclusion. In particular, I estimate price‐cost margins, but more importantly I am able empirically to separate these margins into three sources: (i) that which is due to product differentiation; (ii) that which is due to multi‐product firm pricing; and (iii) that due to potential price collusion. The results suggest that given the demand for different brands of cereal, the first two effects explain most of the observed price‐cost margins. I conclude that prices in the industry are consistent with noncollusive pricing behavior, despite the high price‐cost margins. Leading firms are able to maintain a portfolio of differentiated products and influence the perceived product quality. It is these two factors that lead to high price‐cost margins.     

Pricing Policy in a Supply Chain: Negotiation or Posted Pricing

This article examines the choice of pricing policy (posted pricing or negotiation) toward end customers in a supply chain. Many retailers actively decide whether or not to encourage negotiation on the shop floor. Of course, the retailer's pricing policy influences not only the retailer's profit, but also the profits of the manufacturers who sell through the retailer. However, little is known about the forces that shape the pricing policy when two self‐interested parties interact in a supply chain. We consider two alternative models depending on who has the power to decide the pricing policy: the manufacturer or the retailer. We find that an increase in the wholesale price weakens the retailer's ability to price discriminate through negotiation. Therefore, the retailer prefers negotiation at lower wholesale prices and posted pricing at higher wholesale prices. We also find that whenever the retailer prefers negotiation, the manufacturer does too. Therefore, the retailer's discretion over the pricing policy causes friction only when the retailer wants to use posted pricing, while the manufacturer wishes the retailer to use negotiation. We show that such friction arises only when product availability or the cost of negotiation is moderate. In this case, we show that the manufacturer may offer a substantial discount to persuade the retailer to negotiate. Surprisingly, in this region of friction, a decrease in the supply chain's capacity or an increase in negotiation costs (both of which are typically considered as worsening the retailer's business environment) translates into higher profit for the retailer.     

The Impact of Manufacturers' Wholesale Prices on a Retailer's Shelf‐Space and Pricing Decisions*

This article examines shelf‐space allocation and pricing decisions in the marketing channel as the results of a static game played à la Stackelberg between two manufacturers of competing brands and one retailer. The competing manufacturers act as leaders that play a simultaneous and noncooperative game. They fix their transfer prices by taking into account the shelf‐space allocation and price‐markup decisions of their common exclusive dealer. The results indicate that the wholesale prices of brands are strongly linked to their share of the shelf. The main results of our numerical simulations may be summarized as follows: first, the lower the unit cost and/or the greater the price elasticity, the greater the shelf space allocated to that brand. Second, the higher the shelf‐space elasticity, the lower are the wholesale prices and the profits of all channel members.     

Centralized versus Decentralized Competition for Price and Lead‐Time Sensitive Demand

We study two firms that compete on price and lead‐time decisions in a common market. We explore the impact of decentralizing these decisions, as made by the marketing and production departments, respectively, with either marketing or production as the leader. We compare scenarios in which none, one, or both of the firms are decentralized to see whether decentralization can be the equilibrium strategy. We find that under intense price competition, with intensity characterized by the underlying parameters of market demand, firms may suffer from a decentralized structure, particularly under high flexibility induced by high capacity, where revenue‐based sales incentives motivate sales/marketing to make aggressive price cuts that often erode profit margins. In contrast, under intense lead‐time competition, a decentralized strategy with marketing as the leader can not only result in significantly higher profits, but also be the equilibrium strategy. Moreover, decentralization may no longer lead to lower prices or longer lead‐times if the production department chooses capacity along with lead‐time.      

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.     

Pricing and Logistics Decisions for a Private‐Sector Provider in the Cash Supply Chain

We study a problem faced by a secure‐logistics provider (SLP) of maximizing profit by jointly pricing the services of fit‐sorting and transporting cash along with the design of the supporting logistics network, in a market consisting of a population of Depository Institutions (DIs). The need to jointly price the services assumes significance because they are partial substitutes of one another. Our study finds that the influence of the logistics network on prices is especially strong when there are non‐linearities in the cost of provisioning the logistics services. Furthermore, the impact of logistics decisions on different types of pricing schemes (e.g., volume discount, bundled pricing) is different, both in its structure and extent. In present times, when the market for the fit‐sorting service is relatively immature, our findings have major implications to the way an SLP's business is managed.     

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.     

Inventory‐Based Dynamic Pricing with Costly Price Adjustment

We study an average‐cost stochastic inventory control problem in which the firm can replenish inventory and adjust the price at anytime. We establish the optimality to change the price from low to high in each replenishment cycle as inventory is depleted. With costly price adjustment, scale economies of inventory replenishment are reflected in the cycle time instead of lot size—An increased fixed ordering cost leads to an extended replenishment cycle but does not necessarily increase the order quantity. A reduced marginal cost of ordering calls for an increased order quantity, as well as speeding up product selling within a cycle. We derive useful properties of the profit function that allows for reducing computational complexity of the problem. For systems requiring short replenishment cycles, the optimal solution can be easily computed by applying these properties. For systems requiring long replenishment cycles, we further consider a relaxed problem that is computational tractable. Under this relaxation, the sum of fixed ordering cost and price adjustment cost is equal to (greater than, less than) the total inventory holding cost within a replenishment cycle when the inventory holding cost is linear (convex, concave) in the stock level. Moreover, under the optimal solution, the time‐average profit is the same across all price segments when the inventory holding cost is accounted properly. Through a numerical study, we demonstrate that inventory‐based dynamic pricing can lead to significant profit improvement compared with static pricing and limited price adjustment can yield a benefit that is close to unlimited price adjustment. To be able to enjoy the benefit of dynamic pricing, however, it is important to appropriately choose inventory levels at which the price is revised.     

Getting What You Pay For—Strategic Process Improvement Compensation and Profitability Impact

Profit‐maximizing firm owners who incentivize their managers with a bonus for process improvement create an intentional misalignment of their own objective and management attention. From the viewpoint of a single firm, such a local misalignment can never be profitable, but in this study we take a wider strategic perspective by investigating cost‐reducing process improvements of two firms competing in a Cournot market. We find that the use of a process improvement bonus (by firm A) can be profitable, by affecting the competitor's decision making. Informed about the reward structure at firm A, which provides an incentive for process improvement and thereby for increased production at that firm, the manager of the competing firm (B) is inclined to produce less if the owner of firm B only rewards profit. This leads to a higher profit for firm A. However, we also show that firm B's best strategy is to also offer a process improvement bonus, even if that firm is a cost laggard (with higher costs for process improvement), and that this leads to reduced profit for both firms in many situations unless one of them is sufficiently superior in its ability to improve processes. These results are robust for uncertain process improvement outcomes, multidimensional process improvement decisions, and information asymmetry in the owner–manager relationship.