Search

While it has been widely recognized that a supplier's direct sales activities can have a significant impact on its interactions with a reseller, little attention has been paid to the fact that many suppliers can sell directly only by accessing consumers through an agency platform that collects commissions and fees. Because these agencies are often controlled by independent third parties or even the resellers themselves, we investigate how the control of the agency impacts the interactions between the supplier and a reseller. We find that when the agency is controlled by either a third-party or by the reseller, the effects of supplier encroachment are dramatically different than when the supplier can sell directly on its own. When the supplier can sell directly only by paying a commission to an independently operated agency platform, there is no longer a possibility that the total supply chain profit can be reduced when the supplier sells a positive quantity directly. For an intermediate range of direct selling cost, the supplier, the reseller, and society as a whole are better off when the supplier must rely upon an independently operated agency platform than when the supplier can sell directly without paying a commission. We also find that if the agency platform is controlled by the reseller to whom the supplier sells her product, this can discourage the supplier from developing direct sales capability unless the reseller either decentralizes his agency and reselling operations or is able to commit to the transaction fee in the agency channel.

Problem definition: Although it is well known that a reseller’s ability to hold strategic inventory under a short-term supply contract can potentially benefit both the reseller and a supplier, existing research on strategic inventory focuses almost exclusively on exclusive reselling environments. However, in practice, multiple suppliers often sell to the same nonexclusive reseller, and it is not uncommon for suppliers to ask for future commitments to order quantities from resellers in return for their own commitment to wholesale prices. We investigate how the possibility of strategic inventory influences competing suppliers’ choices between short-term transactional and long-term commitment contracts to a nonexclusive reseller. Methodology/results: Using a game-theoretic model, we consider the interactions between two partially substitutable suppliers and a single, nonexclusive reseller over a two-period horizon in which demand is deterministic. We demonstrate that in nonexclusive reselling environments, where more than one supplier sells its product through the same reseller, the use of strategic inventory under short-term contracts intensifies the price competition between suppliers. We show how this effect can be mitigated when one or both suppliers offer a long-term contract. Moreover, we show that long-term contracts can arise as an equilibrium outcome, particularly when products are more substitutable or holding costs are large. Managerial implications: By considering the interactions between two partially substitutable suppliers and a nonexclusive reseller in a multiperiod setting, we contribute to the literature on strategic contracting and long versus short-term contracts. Our research provides managers with a new explanation, beyond the need to encourage idiosyncratic investments or eliminate the possibility of hold-up, for why long-term contracts may benefit suppliers in practice, who face competition while selling through a nonexclusive reseller.

We consider on-demand healthcare platforms that allow patients to seek care online from distributed doctors. Healthcare costs have been steadily increasing, while patient experience continues to sour with costly (many times unnecessary) commute and waiting. To alleviate the costs, various on-demand healthcare platforms have emerged but have been little investigated in academic research. We develop a strategic queueing model where the platform decides the commission rate upon which potential doctors make their participation, service quality and pricing decisions and potential patients make their service acquisition decisions independently. We find that in equilibrium a higher commission rate always lowers doctor participation as well as service quality, but it may increase the service price if it significantly softens the competition. Moreover, as patient intensity increases, the service quality improves, accompanied largely with a higher price. We further investigate the effect of platform price control. We find that allowing the platform to control the service price in addition to the commission rate may result in more doctor participation, higher service quality and price, higher platform profit, and surprisingly even higher profit for the doctors. This generally occurs when the patient intensity is either low or high, the waiting cost is low, or the doctor heterogeneity is low. Our results are useful to understand the performance of on-demand healthcare platforms.

We consider a setting in which a non-exclusive reseller procures partially substitutable products from two suppliers, one of whom introduces a direct channel. We find that the presence of the second supplier alters many of the existing results about the interactions between a reseller and an encroaching supplier. For instance, the reseller's and the supply chain's benefit from the direct channel disappears when the product substitutability is sufficiently large. In addition, when the reseller is non-exclusive, the encroaching supplier may either sell exclusively through its direct channel even when that channel is less efficient than the reselling channel, or sell through both channels even when its direct channel is more efficient than the reselling channel. Neither of these would occur in an exclusive reselling environment with only one supplier.

This paper examines an assemble-to-order environment involving a short-life-cycle product that is sold in two different configurations, each requiring a unique component that must be stocked in advance. Both configurations of the product are assembled on the same equipment which has limited capacity. The focus of the analysis is on the determination of the appropriate stocking quantities for each of the configuration specific components. Because the same assembly capacity is often reused for different instances of the component stocking problem, we treat assembly capacity as exogenous. This represents the fact that capacity decisions are often made less frequently than are procurement/production quantity decisions. We first solve for the first-best stocking policy when the components are produced internally. We then consider the case when the components are procured from external suppliers, and investigate how different forms of contract between the assembler and the component suppliers affect coordination of the supply chain as well as each party’s profit. One particularly interesting finding is that it is possible to coordinate the supply chain with a single-price contract between each supplier and the assembler while awarding all parties positive profit.

In this paper, we investigate how opportunities to invest in demand enhancing services for a product line affect the interactions between a manufacturer and her dealer. Many demand enhancing services, e.g. after sales support, warranty repair etc. can be provided either by the manufacturer or they can be delegated to the dealer. We first show that when a manufacturer retains control of such services, the dealer will have an incentive to choose a decentralized organizational structure as a means of committing to non-product line pricing since this will encourage the manufacturer to invest more in demand enhancing services. We then consider a game that is played between the manufacturer and the dealer in which the dealer chooses between centralized (product line pricing) or decentralized (non-product line pricing) operations, and the manufacturer chooses between insourcing the services, i.e. providing them herself, or outsourcing them to the dealer. We find that the equilibrium depends on which, if any, channel partner has the ability to act as a Stackelberg leader. If the dealer can move first, then the equilibrium will always be outsourced services and centralized dealer operations. However, if either the manufacturer moves first or if neither partner can move first, then the equilibrium can be either insourced services and decentralized dealer operations or outsourced service and centralized dealer operations.

For many products, consumers may need to physically experience them in order to assess their own valuations. We consider how such uncertainty can affect the equilibrium pricing and assortment choices among competing retailers. Specifically, we consider a market that consists of two retailers with identical cost structures and two products with symmetric underlying demand. We characterize the pricing equilibria for each possible set of assortments based on how consumers optimally search for products in response to observed prices and assortments, and show how the structure of a retailer's inter-temporal pricing pattern (EDLP or HLP) should depend upon his own as well as his rival's assortment and the search costs. In addition, we provide conditions under which the retailers carry asymmetric assortment breadths in equilibrium.

It is generally in a firm’s interest for its supply chain partners to invest in innovations. To the extent that these innovations either reduce the partners’ variable costs or stimulate demand for the end product, they will tend to lead to higher levels of output for all of the firms in the chain. However, in response to the innovations of its partners, a firm may have an incentive to opportunistically increase its own prices. The possibility of such opportunistic behavior creates a hold-up problem that leads supply chain partners to underinvest in innovation. Clearly, this hold-up problem could be eliminated by a pre-commitment to price. However, by making an advance commitment to price, a firm sacrifices an important means of responding to demand uncertainty. In this paper we examine the trade-off that is faced when a firm’s channel partner has opportunities to invest in either cost reduction or quality improvement, i.e. demand enhancement. Should it commit to a price in order to encourage innovation, or should it remain flexible in order to respond to demand uncertainty. We discuss several simple wholesale pricing mechanisms with respect to this trade-off.

In this paper the trade-off between strategic commitment and operational flexibility is examined as it arises in a supply chain when a supplier offers competing buyers opportunities to make early purchase commitments for a product with a short life cycle. Traditionally, the use of incentives for early purchase commitments for short life-cycle products has been justified on the basis of a supplier's production lead times or capacity constraints. An alternative explanation has been proposed by offering early purchasing opportunities, a supplier can influence the form of competition in the downstream market. Using a single period model, it has been shown that, below a threshold level of demand uncertainty, the supplier can benefit from providing adequate pricing incentives to entice downstream buyers to commit to purchase quantities before demand information is revealed. Moreover, such early purchasing opportunities can benefit the supplier as well as the buyers even in the absence of production lead times or capacity constraints.

In section E.C.1, we show that the optimal separating solution always dominates the optimal pooling solution in our model. In section E.C.2, we present two extensions of our base model. In EC.2.1, we extend our model to a setting with a continuously distributed market size. We allow for the possibility that the development of encroachment capability allows the supplier to receive demand information through her direct channel in EC.2.2.The paper "Supplier Encroachment as an Enhancement or a Hindrance to Nonlinear Pricing" to which these Appendices apply is available at the following URL:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2118161

This paper addresses the problem of jointly determining a single price and production schedule for a product with seasonal demand. Under the assumption that the ratio of the demands in any two periods does not depend upon the price at which the product is offered, we develop a procedure that guarantees an optimal solution. Perhaps more importantly, however, our model provides insight into the manner in which the firm's production cost increases with the intensity of total demand.

In many industries, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must obtain critical components from a few powerful suppliers. To the extent that the OEMs are also concentrated, the interactions between the suppliers of critical components and the OEMs are strategic, and have implications for how an incumbent OEM chooses its product line and interacts with potential rivals. We demonstrate that, by adding a low-end product line extension, an OEM can induce a strategic supplier to offer more favorable pricing. Moreover, depending upon the cost structure and relative performance of the product line extension, the OEM may benefit even more from the low-end line extension if it is produced by a rival instead of by itself, even if it cannot obtain any licensing income from it. Among other things, we show that this can result in a decentralized OEM accommodating competition from rivals producing product line extensions that would not be developed in a vertically integrated supply chain. In an extension, we re-examine the common assumption that the supplier unilaterally dictates a single wholesale price that is available to all downstream buyers. We demonstrate that, by committing to offer a “lowest available” wholesale price to all downstream buyers, a supplier can encourage an incumbent OEM to share its technology (or otherwise accommodate the entry of a rival) so that the supplier, the incumbent OEM, and the rival are all better off.

We explore the interactions between channel structure and mode of operations (leasing versus selling) and their implications for a manufacturer's willingness to invest in making her product more durable. Using a centralized manufacturer who leases her product as a point of reference, we find that an isolated change in either the channel structure (centralized to decentralized), or the operational mode (leasing to selling) can decrease the manufacturer's willingness to provide durability. However, if combined, these two changes together may strengthen the manufacturer's willingness to invest in durability. Consequently, a manufacturer who sells through an intermediary may invest more in durability than one who leases directly to end consumers. This result challenges the conventional wisdom in two different paradigms. First, from the perspective that durability is a dimension of quality, it challenges the conventional view that decentralization will decrease a manufacturer's incentive to provide a high quality product. Second, from the perspective of the externality that is created when a firm sells a durable product to strategic consumers who anticipate declining prices, it challenges the conventional view that a manufacturer who leases will provide more durability than one who sells.

This is the Online Appendix to the paper "Supplier Encroachment Under Asymmetric Information."The paper "Supplier Encroachment Under Asymmetric Information" to which these Appendices apply is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2018432

We consider a setting in which consumers experience distinct instances of need for a durable product at random intervals. Each instance of need is associated with a random utility and the consumers are differentiated according to the frequency with which they experience such instances of need. We use our model of consumer utility to characterize the firm's optimal strategy of whether to sell, rent, or do a combination of both in terms of the transaction costs and consumers' usage characteristics. We find that the two modes of operation serve different roles in allowing the firm to price discriminate. While sales allow the firm to discriminate among consumers of different usage frequencies, rentals allow it to discriminate according to consumers' realized valuations. Consequently, even when transaction costs are negligible, it is often optimal for the firm to simultaneously rent and sell its product. In addition, we find that although sales and rentals are substitutes and that the offering of sales weakly increases rental prices, it is possible that the introduction of rentals to a pure selling operation can either increase or decrease the optimal sales prices.

The objective of this paper is to extend existing understanding of supplier encroachment to contexts in which there is information asymmetry and the supplier can use nonlinear pricing. Prior research has shown that supplier encroachment can mitigate double marginalization and thus benefit both the supplier and the reseller. However, under symmetric information, this benefit disappears if the supplier can use nonlinear pricing. In our model, the reseller observes the true market size while the supplier knows only the prior distribution, i.e., a seemingly ideal setting for implementing mechanism design through nonlinear pricing. We first show that, because encroachment capability enables the supplier to make an ex-post output decision, it fundamentally alters the structure of the optimal nonlinear pricing policy. In addition to the usual downward distortion effect, where the reseller may purchase less than the efficient quantity, we also have the possibility for upward distortion. Thus, under asymmetric information and nonlinear pricing, supplier encroachment has two opposing effects. On one hand, the ability to shift sales to the direct channel allows the supplier to reduce information rents with less sacrifice of efficiency; but on the other hand, by introducing the possibility of her own opportunistic behavior, it can result in upward distortion of the quantities sold through the reselling channel, which is a new source of inefficiency. Depending upon the relative efficiency of the reselling channel and the demand distribution, either of these two effects may dominate and the supplier's ability to encroach may either benefit or hurt both the supplier and the reseller.The appendices for this paper are available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 2403615

Many durable products cannot be used without a contingent consumable product, e.g., printers require ink, iPods require songs, razors require blades, etc. For such products, manufacturers may be able to lock in consumers by making their products incompatible with consumables that are produced by other firms. We examine the effectiveness of such a strategy in the presence of strategic consumers who anticipate the future prices of both the durable product and the contingent consumable. Under a lock-in strategy, the manufacturer has pricing power over the contingent consumable, which she can use to extract additional rents from higher valuation consumers, but such pricing power may also reduce consumers' willingness to pay for the durable because it subjects them to being held up with higher consumables prices in the future. Restricting our attention to linear pricing policies, we find that if the manufacturer can commit to shutting down production of her durable after an initial one-time sale, then competition from another consumable of an appropriately degraded level of quality can benefit the manufacturer by mitigating consumers' fears of being held up. On the other hand, when the manufacturer cannot commit to shutting down production of her durable, then her own output of additional durables gives her an incentive to keep consumables prices low, and competition in the consumables market is less beneficial. This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta and Preyas Desai, special issue editors. This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta and Preyas Desai, special issue editors.

Many durable products cannot be used without a contingent consumable product, e.g. printers require ink, iPods require songs, razors require blades, etc. For such products, manufacturers may be able to lock-in consumers by making their products incompatible with consumables that are produced by other firms. We examine the effectiveness of such a strategy in the presence of strategic consumers who anticipate the future prices of both the durable product and the contingent consumable. Under a lock-in strategy, the manufacturer has pricing power over the contingent consumable which she can use to extract additional rents from higher valuation consumers, but such pricing power may also reduce consumers' willingness to pay for the durable because it subjects them to being held-up with higher consumables prices in the future. Restricting our attention to linear pricing policies, we find that if the manufacturer can commit to shut down production of her durable after an initial one-time sale, then competition from another consumable of an appropriately degraded level of quality can benefit the manufacturer by mitigating consumers' fears of being held-up. On the other hand, when the manufacturer cannot commit to shutting down production of her durable, then her own output of additional durables gives her an incentive to keep consumables prices low, and competition in the consumables market is less beneficial.

In spite of the fact that many durable products are sold through dealers, the literature has largely ignored the issue of how product durability affects the interactions between a manufacturer and her dealers. We seek to fill this gap by considering a durable goods manufacturer that uses independent dealers to get her product to consumers. In contrast to much of the literature, we specifically consider the possibility that if the manufacturer sells her product, then the dealers can either sell or lease it to the final consumer. One of our more interesting findings is that, when the level of competition among dealers is high, the manufacturer prefers to lease the product to her dealers, which forces them to lease to consumers. This complements existing results that show that when suppliers of durable goods interact directly with consumers, selling is the dominant strategy for high levels of competitive intensity. In addition, our results help to explain differences in the selling / leasing policies that are observed in the office equipment and automobile industries.

In spite of the fact that many durable products are sold through dealers, the literature has largely ignored the issue of how product durability affects the interactions between a manufacturer and her dealer(s). We seek to fill this gap by considering a durable goods manufacturer that uses an independent dealer(s) to get her product to consumers. If the manufacturer sells her product to the dealer, then the dealer can either sell or lease it to the final consumer. On the other hand, if the manufacturer leases her product to the dealer, then the dealer is forced to lease it to the consumer. We first characterize the equilibrium for a manufacturer who distributes through a single dealer as a function of the costs of production and distribution. Among other things, we show that the selling and leasing decisions of the two channel partners should balance operational efficiency against the mitigation of time inconsistency. Subsequently, we characterize the equilibrium for a manufacturer who distributes through multiple dealers as a function of the intensity of inter-dealer competition. One of our more interesting findings is that, when the level of competition among dealers is high, the manufacturer prefers to lease the product to her dealers, which forces them to lease to consumers. This complements existing results that show that when suppliers of durable goods interact directly with consumers, then selling becomes the dominant strategy when competitive intensity is high.

We investigate how supplier can use a quantity discount schedule to influence the stocking decisions of a downstream buyer that faces a single period of stochastic demand. In contrast to much of the work that has been done on single-period supply contracts, we assume that there are no interactions between the supplier and the buyer after demand information is revealed and that the buyer has better information about the distribution of demand than does the supplier. We characterize the structure of the optimal discount schedule for both all-unit and incremental discounts and show that the supplier can earn larger profits with an all-unit discount.