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。     

考虑范围经济与转换成本的混合捆绑竞争

产业融合促进了多产品竞争.基于扩展的两维Hotelling模型,研究了范围经济和转换成本对网络产业中多产品捆绑销售竞争均衡的影响,并分析了捆绑销售和线性定价下公司利润和社会福利的差异.研究表明转换成本导致企业不对称的细分市场结构并对新产品设定低价策略,但捆绑定价与转换成本无关.范围经济增加则公司捆绑产品价格较大幅度下降,一站式用户获益较多;成本随之下降但公司利润减少.与线性定价相比,捆绑销售导致单件产品价格较低,提高了消费者转换率,削弱了转换成本对忠实用户的不利影响;捆绑销售下公司利润较低,消费者剩余增加;不考虑范围经济则捆绑销售的社会福利较低,但当范围经济效应足够大时,捆绑销售不仅提高消费者剩余而且增加社会福利.     

基于双权分离和捆绑视角的共享平台定价研究——以网约车市场为例

传统汽车制造业通过融合互联网技术进军网约车市场,驱使市场上各平台之间竞争日益激烈,也对平台定价机制提出新的挑战。为了制定合理的共享平台定价策略,选择从共享本质“使用权分离”角度入手,结合捆绑销售策略,构建“C2C”模式和“B2C”模式共享平台静态定价模型,研究平台最优定价策略。数值分析结果表明：产品的边际成本与平台最优价格呈正相关,与需求量和平台利润呈负相关;部分混合捆绑平台可以通过抬高单售产品在捆绑总成本的占比,提高平台获利水平。     

寡头市场信息产品与服务的最优定价策略

在信息产品与服务竞争性市场中,信息产品及附加服务的定价策略日渐成为信息产品提供商关心的首要问题.而以往的研究多集中于单一信息产品的定价策略,没有统一考虑产品的后续服务,且假设消费者的网络外部性强度相同.分析了异质消费者和双寡头垄断市场,针对基础信息产品和附加服务的定价策略选择问题,建立了双寡头垄断市场中两个企业的捆绑销售和分别销售策略的博弈模型,使得双寡头企业通过4种局势下的策略选择实现收益最大化的定价策略.同时,将差异化网络外部性强度系数引入Hotelling模型,计算企业的需求函数和收益函数,并采用两阶段Bertrand博弈分析两个企业的定价策略和竞争行为.通过模型求解,得到4种局势下两家企业的最优定价解析解.通过数值模拟分析了潜在消费者的构成比例及市场规模对企业定价、市场占有率和最优收益产生的影响,以及不同成本和市场规模组合下企业的最优定价策略.     

考虑交叉网络效应的第三方平台双边用户引入与增值服务策略

针对一个为制造商和供应商提供零部件交易场所的第三方平台，考虑交叉网络效应和增值服务投入影响用户接入平台的效用，构建不同用户引入顺序下平台提供增值服务的博弈模型，研究了第三方平台的最优用户引入策略，提出了不同用户引入决策下平台的双边增值服务与定价策略，并分析了平台增值服务投入对定价的影响以及增值服务的价值。研究结果表明：当制造商的交叉网络效应强度较低时，若为供应商提供服务的边际成本较高且为制造商提供服务的边际成本较低，平台应该先引入供应商，否则，平台应该先引入制造商；无论平台采取何种用户引入策略，在一定条件下，平台可以实施对一边用户“高服务低收费”，而对另一边用户“低服务高收费”的策略；与不提供增值服务的情形相比，平台提供增值服务后降低对一边用户收费更有利。     

基于产品相关性及研发创新下的销售方式偏好研究

针对零售商捆绑上游多个制造商产品的现状，考察了由两个制造商和一个零售商组成的供应链系统，制造商进行研发投资降低各自产品成本，零售商进行产品销售并选择分开销售还是捆绑销售。考虑制造商研发行为下，探究供应链成员对不同相关性产品销售方式的偏好。研究发现，（1）对于独立产品，系统成员不存在共同的偏好。（2）对于互补产品，并非"一绑就灵"，分开销售会成为系统成员的共同偏好，而非捆绑销售。（3）对于替代产品，并非不能捆绑，感知价值相差处于中间范围的低成本替代产品和感知价值相差较小的高成本替代产品均在捆绑销售下更有利可图。     

基于消费者分享行为的拼团销售模式选择和定价策略研究

基于消费者分享行为的拼团销售模式是电子商务与社交媒体有机融合下的有效营销手段之一。电子商务平台中,企业可策略性选择普通销售模式、单一拼团销售模式、混合销售模式进行产品销售。本文充分考虑消费者拼团行为的利他动机,分别构建企业采用这三种销售模式时的决策优化模型,并对模型进行求解,通过比较分析各决策模型的均衡状态,探讨企业对不同销售模式的最优选择及最优定价策略。在此基础上,本文进一步分析消费者构成特征对企业最优策略的影响。研究发现,消费者构成特征直接影响企业销售模式选择策略：整体而言,混合销售模式要优于另外两个销售模式,而当两类消费者对产品初始感知价值差异很高,且高价值消费者市场分布比例处于某种适中水平时,存在普通销售模式中高价策略优于混合销售策略的情形;无论采用何种销售模式,两类消费者初始感知价值差异越大或高价值消费者市场分布比例越高,均使得企业更加倾向于采用高价格策略。     

感知的创业激情、 信任与员工创新行为关系研究

实践中, 制造商可通过商业保险策略降低因零部件质量问题造成的经济损失.然而, 商业保险购买成本较高且可能导致供应商轻视质量问题, 放弃质量改进.为此, 本文基于完全信息下单周期两级供应链的采购合约决策模型, 研究制造商如何利用商业保险管理供应链质量风险的问题.通过比较研究, 找出商业保险策略的实施条件, 并给出最优采购合约及商业保险策略.研究结果表明: (1) 当供应商的企业规模较小、抗风险能力较低时, 商业保险策略可完全消除风险承受能力对双方交易的制约, 促进双方达成交易; (2) 当供应商的企业规模较大、抗风险能力较高时, 制造商可利用商业保险策略降低零部件采购价格, 提高期望利润; (3) 在商业保险策略下, 制造商的最优商业保险策略是全额投保; (4) 商业保险的实施不一定造成零部件质量水平的下降.当质量成本或供应商的风险承受能力较低时, 商业保险策略与质量改进之间具有互补效应.当风险承受能力和质量成本均比较高时, 商业保险策略与质量改进之间具有替代效应.     

消费者预算约束对推荐奖励策略的影响研究

在社会化商务研究中,大多数研究考虑消费者的购买意愿对企业决策的影响,很少有文献探讨消费者的资金不足时对企业开展在线营销活动效果的影响.本文讨论了当消费者消费预算有约束情况下,在线企业采用推荐奖励策略对营销效果的影响.首先建立了销售企业、已有顾客、已有顾客的朋友(潜在顾客)三者之间的博弈模型,其中假设朋友的预算是私有信息,企业和已有顾客不知道该信息.通过对博弈模型的求解,发现当朋友存在预算约束时,企业采用高价格、高奖励的推荐奖励策略并不总是有效;当潜在顾客(朋友)对产品的购买意愿处于中间状态时,只有其预算偏高时,企业采取推荐奖励策略才能获得更高的利润.此外,在基本推荐奖励策略的基础上,拓展企业提供融资策略以及考虑朋友对推荐奖励反感程度的情况.研究发现,融资成本较高时,融资和奖励之间存在相互替代效果,但融资成本较低时,与融资效果与消费者的购买意愿程度相关;当潜在消费者对推荐策略存在反感时,企业仍存在一定的赢利空间.研究结果对在线企业开展推荐奖励策略的实践具有参考价值.     

解读捆绑销售:数字产品的营销新策略

在网络经济环境下 ,捆绑销售已开始成为企业销售其数字产品的一种常用的营销策略。微软公司就是利用这种方式来销售其软件产品 ,它把包括Ｗｏｒｄ、Ｅｘｃｅｌ、Ｏｕｔｌｏｏｋ、ＰｏｗｅｒＰｏｉｎｔ等应用软件捆绑在ＭｉｃｒｏｓｏｆｔＯｆｆｉｃｅ上进行销售。正是由于微软公司把它的ＩＥ(ｉｎｔｅｒｎｅｔｅｘｐｌｏｒｅｒ)浏览器产品捆绑在Ｗｉｎｄｏｗｓ操作系统中进行销售 ,才引发了网景 (Ｎｅｔｓｃａｐｅ)公司对微软的起诉 ,沸沸扬扬的微软垄断案正是起因于产品的捆绑销售 ,可见这种定价方式和营销策略对竞争对手的打击是多么致命…     

The Effect of Competition on Recovery Strategies

Manufacturers often face a choice of whether to recover the value in their end‐of‐life products through remanufacturing. In many cases, firms choose not to remanufacture, as they are (rightly) concerned that the remanufactured product will cannibalize sales of the higher‐margin new product. However, such a strategy may backfire for manufacturers operating in industries where their end‐of‐life products (cell phones, tires, computers, automotive parts, etc.) are attractive to third‐party remanufacturers, who may seriously cannibalize sales of the original manufacturer. In this paper, we develop models to support a manufacturer's recovery strategy in the face of a competitive threat on the remanufactured product market. We first analyze the competition between new and remanufactured products produced by a monopolist manufacturer and identify conditions under which the firm would choose not to remanufacture its products. We then characterize the potential profit loss due to external remanufacturing competition and analyze two entry‐deterrent strategies: remanufacturing and preemptive collection. We find that a firm may choose to remanufacture or preemptively collect its used products to deter entry, even when the firm would not have chosen to do so under a pure monopoly environment. Finally, we discuss conditions under which each strategy is more beneficial.     

Capacity Investment and Product Line Decisions of a Multiproduct Leader and a Focus Strategy Entrant

In this article, I investigate the capacity investment cost conditions where a multiproduct market leader may respond to a focus strategy entrant by using different strategies such as changing the product mix, production volumes, quality levels, and/or by investing in more capacity. The products offered in the market are quality differentiated and customers are heterogeneous in their willingness to pay for quality. The capacity investment costs of the two firms (i.e., the leader and the entrant) may also be different. The classical Stackelberg model predicts that an incumbent does not change its position in response to entry. However, when heterogeneous customer base, product differentiation, and capacity costs are taken into consideration, I find that the leader with a low capacity cost may choose to expand its product line and increase its production. The leader with low capacity cost may introduce a product that it was holding back when the entrant has to bear the high‐capacity cost and cannibalization threat is relatively small. Nevertheless, the extent of production volume strategies reduces as the capacity cost increases for the leader. I also find that when the leader has the power to set the industry standards by deciding the quality levels, as a response to a high‐quality focused entrant, the leader increases both levels of quality and production of the low‐quality product. Moreover, when the capacity investment cost is high for both the entrant and the leader, I find that market prices may increase with entry.     

The Impact of Limited Supply on a Firm's Bundling Strategy

A firm's two‐product bundling decision is examined when the supply of one product is limited and consumer valuations are normally distSteckeributed. The firm can choose to sell products separately and/or through a bundle. We find that the impact of limited supply on a firm's bundling decision depends on the correlation between the consumer valuations of the two products as well as the symmetry level of the two products in terms of their attractiveness (how much they are valued by consumers). When the valuation correlation is high and the symmetry level of the two products is low, limited supply can drive bundling. When the valuation correlation is low or the symmetry level is high, limited supply can drive no bundling. When the attractiveness of both products are low or the valuation correlation is very high, limited supply has no impact on a firm's bundling decision: The firm should not bundle for all supply levels. This study offers a new driver for product bundling: the limited supply of a product. The existing bundling literature suggests that a firm should bundle symmetric products that have a low consumer valuation correlation, when bundling is driven by consumer valuation heterogeneity reduction. In contrast, when bundling is driven by limited supply, a firm should bundle asymmetric products with a high consumer valuation correlation. The benefit of supply‐driven bundling depends on the severity of supply limitation. When supply limitation is moderate, bundling creates value by expanding the market of the less attractive product. When supply limitation is severe, bundling enables a firm to extract a higher margin from the less attractive product.     

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。     

水平差异产品的内生定价策略选择

本文分析了一个存在定价策略选择下的三阶段Hotelling双头垄断模型,其中厂商可以选择采用单一定价策略或者歧视定价策略。模型的子博弈精炼纳什均衡表明厂商或者同时采用单一定价策略,或者同时采用歧视一价策略。当歧视定价的边际成本相对单一定价的边际成本不太高,或者消费乾注重产品特性差异时,厂商会同时选择歧视定价策略,尽管单一定价下厂商的利润要明显高于歧视定价下的利润;当歧视定价的边际成本相对较高或者消费者不太注重产品特性差异时,单一定价将成为厂商的最优选择。最后本文从社会最优的角度分析比较了两种这价策略下的社会净福利水平。     

The Effect of Competition on the Efficient–Responsive Choice

In determining their operations strategy, a firm chooses whether to be responsive or efficient. For firms competing in a market with uncertain demand and varying intensity of substitutability for the competitor's product, we characterize the responsive or efficient choice in equilibrium. To focus first on the competitive implications, we study a model where a firm can choose to be responsive at no additional fixed or marginal cost. We find that competing firms will choose the same configuration (responsive or efficient), and responsiveness tends to be favorable when demand uncertainty is high or when product competition is not too strong. Intense competition can drive firms to choose to be efficient rather than responsive even when there is no additional cost of being responsive. In such a case, both firms would be better off by choosing to be responsive but cannot credibly commit. We extend the basic model to study the impact of endogenized production timing, multiple productions and product holdback (or, equivalently, postponed production). For all these settings, we find structurally similar results; firms choose the same configuration, and the firms may miss Pareto‐improvements. Furthermore, through extensions to the basic model, we find that greater operational flexibility can make responsiveness look less attractive in the presence of product competition. In contrast to our basic model and other extensions, we find it is possible for one firm to be responsive while the other is efficient when there is either a fixed cost or variable cost premium associated with responsive delivery.     

消费者短视和以旧换新情形下设计架构与定价策略研究

耐用品的耐用性会抑制了新一代耐用品的销售,企业通常会采用以旧换新政策来激励新一代耐用品的销售。企业有两种产品设计架构策略:一体化架构策略与模块化架构策略,同时企业也有两种定价策略:静态定价策略和动态定价策略。在这种情况下,企业该如何确定产品设计架构和定价策略?在假定两期内消费者是短视情形下,论文建立了消费者与企业博弈模型分析和比较了三种情况。研究发现,无论是静态定价还是动态定价,无论是模块化架构还是一体化架构,购买了第一代产品的消费者都会整体更换成第二代产品;随着第二代核心系统的质量提升,以旧换新促使企业产品架构选择从一体化架构转变为选择模块化架构;当采用动态定价、第二代核心系统质量提升适中和折扣因子高时,企业会选择模块化架构;当企业采用模块化架构时,以旧换新政策会降低模块化产品第二代核心子系统和基础子系统之间的兼容性;如果两代产品之间的质量差距比较大,企业将会选择动态定价策略,反之会选择静态定价策略。     

Competitive Bundling

This paper proposes a framework for studying competitive (pure) bundling in an oligopoly market. We find that under fairly general conditions, relative to separate sales, bundling raises market prices, benefits firms, and harms consumers when the number of firms is above a threshold (which can be small). This is in contrast to the findings in the duopoly case on which the existing literature often focuses. Our analysis also sheds new light on how consumer valuation dispersion affects price competition more generally.     

Improving Profits by Bundling Vertically Differentiated Products

We consider a firm managing a category of vertically differentiated goods, that is, products which differ with respect to an attribute for which all consumers prefer more to less. The goods can be sold individually, in which case they are referred to as components, or in bundles. The firm chooses the assortment of components and bundles and their selling prices to maximize profit. We show that each bundling strategy (pure components, pure bundling or mixed bundling) can be optimal and obtain closed‐form expressions for the optimal selling prices. We provide insights on the structure of the optimal assortment and prices. In particular, we show that, when consumers benefit from consuming the components jointly, the products in the optimal assortment form nested sets. When consumers do not benefit from the joint consumption of components, the bundles should be offered at a positive discount. We find that bundling vertically differentiated products can significantly improve profits, even if consumers do not benefit from consuming the components jointly. The value of bundling comes from increased sales: a firm, which understands that its customers may buy multiple types of components, offers bundles of components, incentivizing customers to buy more.     

The Applicability of Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions

Because current management theories evolved in the context of brick-and-mortar firms, this paper examines three key questions raised by the advent of e-business: (1) Will the strategy types found among e-business firms resemble Porter’s (1980) generic strategies? (2) Will we find performance differences among e-business firms pursuing different types of strategies? (3) Will we find differences in the strategy-performance relationships of pure online firms (pure plays) and firms with both online and offline operations (clicks-and-bricks)? We conclude that integrated strategies that combine elements of cost leadership and differentiation will outperform cost leadership or differentiation strategies. We also argue that, regardless of business strategy type, clicks-and-bricks firms that closely integrate their on- and offline operations will enjoy performance advantages over their pure play counterparts.