Implications of Price Matching in Supply Chain Negotiation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weixin Shang ◽  
Gangshu (George) Cai
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Nash Bargaining ◽  
Price Matching ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Multiple Buyers ◽  
Wholesale Pricing

Problem definition: Few papers have explored the impact of price matching negotiation (PM), in which a channel matches its price with the resulting wholesale price bargained by another channel, on firms’ performances, consumer welfare, and social welfare, with and without supply chain coordination. Academic/practical relevance: Negotiation has been widely seen in determining both uniform and discriminatory wholesale prices, which affect outcomes of competitive supply chain practices. Methodology: To characterize the PM mechanism, we use game theory and Nash bargaining theory to compare PM with simultaneous negotiation (SN) through a common-seller two-buyer differentiated Bertrand competition model. Results: Our analysis reveals that PM can benefit the seller but hurt all buyers, which is at odds with some fair wholesale pricing clauses intending to protect buyers. Under coordination with side payments, however, all firms can conditionally benefit more from PM than from SN. Despite firms’ gains, PM leads to less consumer utility and social welfare compared with SN, unless the second buyer in PM is considerably less powerful than the first buyer. Coordination further worsens PM’s negative impact on consumer utility and social welfare. Moreover, the existence of a spot market can increase the wholesale price in PM, hurting buyers, consumers, and society. Furthermore, the qualitative results about PM remain robust under an alternative disagreement point for PM, multiple buyers, and other extensions. Managerial implications: This paper delivers insights on when price matching in supply chain wholesale price negotiation can benefit a seller, buyers, consumers, and society in a variety of scenarios. It advocates how managers can use PM to their own advantages and provides rationale to decision makers for policy regulations regarding wholesale pricing.

scholarly journals The Influence of Buyer Power on Supply Chain Pricing with Downstream Competition

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 2924
Author(s):  
Qiu Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Retail Price ◽  
Retail Market ◽  
Pricing Decisions ◽  
Buyer Power ◽  
Downstream Competition ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Vertical Market

This paper aims to investigate the impact of buyer power on the wholesale price and retail price of, in the case, downstream competition. Based on a summary of the competitive characteristics of China’s retail market, a model of a vertical market was constructed to examine the influence of buyer power on the pricing decisions of manufacturers and retailers, and to analyze the mechanism of price decisions. The results showed that the buyer power of national retailers reduced the wholesale price, but the impact on local retailers remained uncertain. Although increasing buyer power initially increased the local retailer’s wholesale price and caused the ‘waterbed effect’, we found that this effect reverted when the buyer power reached a point at which the ‘anti-waterbed effect’ appeared. The opposite was true of the retail price. However, buyer power reduced the average retail price, and consumer welfare improved.

Sharing Manufacturer’s Demand Information in a Supply Chain with Price and Service Effort Competition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunjie Wang ◽  
Albert Y. Ha ◽  
Shilu Tong
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
Price Distortion ◽  
Demand Information ◽  
Private Demand ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Share Information

Problem definition: This paper investigates the issue of sharing the private demand information of a manufacturer that sells a product to retailers competing on prices and service efforts. Academic/practical relevance: In the existing literature, which ignores service effort competition, it is known that demand signaling induces an informed manufacturer to distort the wholesale price downward, which benefits the retailers, and so, they do not have any incentive to receive the manufacturer’s private information. In practice, many manufacturers share demand information with their retailers that compete on prices and service efforts (e.g., demand-enhancing retail activities), a setting that has not received much attention from the literature. Methodology: We develop a game-theoretic model with one manufacturer selling to two competing retailers and solve for the equilibrium of the game. Results: We show how an informed manufacturer may distort the wholesale price upward or downward to signal demand information to the retailers, depending on the cost of service effort, the intensity of effort competition, and the number of uninformed retailers. We fully characterize the impact of such wholesale price distortion on the firms’ incentive to share information and derive the conditions under which the manufacturer shares information with none, one, or both of the retailers. We derive conditions under which a higher cost of service effort makes the retailers or the manufacturer better off. Managerial implications: Our results provide novel insights about how service effort competition impacts the incentives for firms in a supply chain to share a manufacturer’s private demand information. For instance, when the cost of effort is high or service effort competition is intense, a manufacturer should share information with none or some, but not all, of the retailers.

INFORMATION SHARING ACROSS MULTIPLE BUYERS IN A SUPPLY CHAIN

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (01) ◽  
pp. 1240005 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIANGHUA WU ◽  
ANANTH IYER ◽  
PAUL V. PRECKEL ◽  
XIN ZHAI
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Partial Information ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Equilibrium Strategy ◽  
Order Quantities ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Multiple Buyers ◽  
Second Period

We model the impact of information visibility in a two-level supply chain consisting of independent retailers who share upstream supply. The manufacturer supplies similar products to the two retailers and each retailer serves its independent end market. Retailers face one period of demand and satisfy the demand by ordering in the first period or back-ordering some of the demand and satisfying it in the second period. The wholesale price in the second period is decreasing in the total order size across the two retailers in the first period. This decrease in wholesale price captures the market learning effect of aggregate orders that has been extensively documented in empirical literature. We use a game-theoretic framework to investigate the ex-ante incentives for retailers to share their private demand information. We show that: (1) retailers have no incentives to share information about their private values when equilibrium order quantities are interior, i.e., the order size is between zero and the demand; (2) partial information sharing may be the equilibrium strategy for retailers when equilibrium order quantities are binding on the demand. Finally, numerical examples are provided for illustration. This paper thus identifies conditions under which different levels of information sharing may be the equilibrium outcomes in a supply chain.

scholarly journals Dynamic Adjustment Mechanism and Differential Game Model Construction of Mask Emergency Supply Chain Cooperation Based on COVID-19 Outbreak

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1115
Author(s):  
Shufan Zhu ◽  
Kefan Xie ◽  
Ping Gui
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Differential Game ◽  
Production Technology ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Transfer Payment ◽  
Dynamic Adjustment ◽  
Supply Chain System ◽  
Government Subsidies ◽  
Technology Investment ◽  
The Impact

Incorporating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mask supply chain into our framework and taking mask output as a state variable, our study introduces the differential game to study the long-term dynamic cooperation of a two-echelon supply chain composed of the supplier and the manufacturer under government subsidies. The study elaborates that government subsidies can provide more effective incentives for supply chain members to cooperate in the production of masks compared with the situation of no government subsidies. A relatively low wholesale price can effectively increase the profits of supply chain members and the supply chain system. The joint contract of two-way cost-sharing contract and transfer payment contract can promote production technology investment efforts of the supply chain members, the optimum trajectory of mask production, and total profit to reach the best state as the centralized decision scenario within a certain range. Meanwhile, it is determined that the profits of supply chain members in the joint contract can be Pareto improvement compared with decentralized decision scenario. With the increase of production technology investment cost coefficients and output self-decay rate, mask outputs have shown a downward trend in the joint contract decision model. On the contrary, mask outputs would rise with growing sensitivity of mask output to production technology investment effort and increasing sensitivity of mask demand to mask output.

Supply Chain Coordination for E-Commerce: Risk Penalty vs. Flat Rate

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju Myung Song ◽  
Yao Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Information Asymmetry ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Supply Chain Coordination ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Shipping Industry ◽  
Flat Rate

Problem definition: We study the coordination of an E-commerce supply chain between online sellers and third party shippers to meet random demand surges, induced by, for instance, online shopping holidays. Academic/practical relevance: Motivated by the challenge of meeting the unpredictable demand surges in E-commerce, we study shipping contracts and supply chain coordination between online sellers and third party shippers in a novel model taking into account the unique features of the shipping industry. Methodology: We compare two shipping contracts: the risk penalty (proposed by UPS) and the flat rate (used by FedEx), and analyze their impact on the seller, the shipper, and the supply chain. Results: Under information symmetry, the sophisticated risk penalty contract is no better than the simple flat rate contract for the shipper, against common belief. Although both the risk penalty and the flat rate can coordinate the supply chain, the risk penalty does so only if the shipper makes zero profit, but the flat rate can provide a positive profit for both. These results represent a new form of double marginalization and risk-sharing, in sharp contrast to the well-known literature on the classic supplier-retailer supply chain, where risk-sharing contracts (similar to the risk penalty) can bring benefits to all parties, but the single wholesale price contract (similar to the flat rate) can achieve supply chain coordination only when the supplier makes zero profit. We also find that only the online seller, but not the shipper, has the motivation to vertically integrate the seller-shipper supply chain. Under information asymmetry, however, the risk penalty brings more benefit to the shipper than the flat rate, but hurts the seller and the supply chain. Managerial implications: Our results imply that information plays an important role in the shipper’s choices of shipping contracts. Under information symmetry, the risk penalty is unnecessarily complex because the simple flat rate is as good as the risk penalty for the shipper; moreover, it is better for the seller-shipper coordination. However, under information asymmetry, the shipper faces additional shipping risk that can be offset by the extra flexibility of the risk penalty. Our study also explains and supports the recent practice of online sellers (e.g., Amazon.com and JD.com), but not shippers, to vertically integrate the supply chain by consistently expanding their shipping capabilities.

Contracts and Information Structure in a Supply Chain with Operations and Marketing Interaction

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 1650014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fouad El Ouardighi ◽  
Gary Erickson ◽  
Dieter Grass ◽  
Steffen Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Revenue Sharing ◽  
Open Loop ◽  
The State ◽  
Current State ◽  
Marketing Activities ◽  
Purchase Rate ◽  
The Impact

The objective of the paper is to study how wholesale price and revenue sharing contracts affect operations and marketing decisions in a supply chain under different dynamic informational structures. We suggest a differential game model of a supply chain consisting of a manufacturer and a single retailer that agree on the contract parameters at the outset of the game. The model includes key operational and marketing activities related to a single product in the supply chain. The manufacturer sets a production rate and the rate of advertising efforts while the retailer chooses a purchase rate and the consumer price. The state of the game is summarized in the firms’ backlogs and the manufacturer’s advertising goodwill. Depending on whether the supply chain members have and share state information, they may either make decisions contingent on the current state of the game (feedback Nash strategy), or precommit to a plan of action during the whole game (open-loop Nash strategy). Given a contract type, the impact of the availability of information regarding the state of the game on the firms’ decisions and payoffs is investigated. It is shown that double marginalization can be better mitigated if the supply chain members adopt a contingent strategy under a wholesale price contract and a commitment strategy under a revenue sharing contract.

Coordination of Multiechelon Supply Chains Using the Guaranteed Service Framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tor Schoenmeyr ◽  
Stephen C. Graves
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Quantity Discounts ◽  
Minimum Order ◽  
Base Stock Policy ◽  
Decentralized Decision Making ◽  
Guaranteed Service ◽  
Stock Policy ◽  
Different Parts

Problem definition: We use the guaranteed service (GS) framework to investigate how to coordinate a multiechelon supply chain when two self-interested parties control different parts of the supply chain. For purposes of supply chain planning, we assume that each stage in a supply chain operates with a local base-stock policy and can provide guaranteed service to its customers, as long as the customer demand falls within certain bounds. Academic/practical relevance: The GS framework for supply chain inventory optimization has been deployed successfully in multiple industrial contexts with centralized control. In this paper, we show how to apply this framework to achieve coordination in a decentralized setting in which two parties control different parts of the supply chain. Methodology: The primary methodology is the analysis of a multiechelon supply chain under the assumptions of the GS model. Results: We find that the GS framework is naturally well suited for this decentralized decision making, and we propose a specific contract structure that facilitates such relationships. This contract is incentive compatible and has several other desirable properties. Under assumptions of complete and incomplete information, a reasonable negotiation process should lead the parties to contract terms that coordinate the supply chain. The contract is simpler than contracts proposed for coordination in the stochastic service (SS) framework. We also highlight the role of markup on the holding costs and some of the difficulties that this might cause in coordinating a decentralized supply chain. Managerial implications: The value from the paper is to show that a simple contract coordinates the chain when both parties plan with a GS model and framework; hence, we provide more evidence for the utility of this model. Furthermore, the simple coordinating contract matches reasonably well with practice; we observe that the most common contract terms include a per-unit wholesale price (possibly with a minimum order quantity and/or quantity discounts), along with a service time from order placement until delivery or until ready to ship. We also observe that firms need to pay a higher price if they want better service. What may differ from practice is the contract provision of a demand bound; our contract specifies that the supplier will provide GS as long as the buyer’s order are within the agreed on demand bound. This provision is essential so that each party can apply the GS framework for planning their supply chain. Of course, contracts have many other provisions for handling exceptions. Nevertheless, our research provides some validation for the GS model and the contracting practices we observe in practice.

scholarly journals Research on the Dynamics Game Model in a Green Supply Chain: Government Subsidy Strategies under the Retailer’s Selling Effort Level

Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xigang Yuan ◽  
Xiaoqing Zhang ◽  
Dalin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Dynamic Game ◽  
Retail Price ◽  
Green Supply Chain ◽  
Government Subsidy ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Effort Level ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selling Effort

Based on dynamic game theory and the principal-agent theory, this paper examined different government subsidy strategies in green supply chain management. Assuming that the retailer’s level of selling effort involved asymmetric information, this study analyzed the impact of different government subsidy strategies on the wholesale price, the product greenness level, retail price, the level of selling effort, the manufacturer’s profit, and the retailer’s profit. The results showed that (1) the government’s subsidy strategy can effectively not only improve the product greenness level but also increase the profits of an enterprise in a green supply chain, which helps the retailer to enhance their selling effort; (2) regardless of whether the retailer’s level of selling effort was high or low, as the government’s subsidy coefficient increased, the wholesale price continued to decrease, and the product greenness level and retailer’s selling effort level also increased.

scholarly journals Closed-loop Supply Chain with Advertising Investment and Reward-Penalty Mechanism Based on Different CSR Sharing Models

2021 ◽  
Vol 257 ◽  
pp. 02086
Author(s):  
Yi Liu ◽  
Yanting Huang
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Closed Loop Supply Chain ◽  
Waste Products ◽  
Investment Level ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
The Impact

This paper considers a closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) consisting of a manufacturer and a retailer based on different corporate social responsibility (CSR) behaviors. In addition, the advertising investment and government’s reward-penalty mechanism (RPM) are also taken in account. To explore the impact of CSR behaviors on supply chain, we developed three models: (1) Only the manufacturer undertakes CSR (model M); (2) only the retailer undertakes CSR (model R); (3) the manufacturer and the retailer share CSR (model MR). By analyzing the results, we found that: (1) The advertising investment level and waste products return rate both increase with the increase of the extent to members undertake CSR when there is only retailer undertakes CSR and when the manufacturer and retailer share CSR, and remain unchanged when there is only the manufacturer undertakes CSR; (2) the overall social welfare increases with the increase of the extent to members undertake CSR no matter which member undertakes CSR, and reaches the highest when there is only the retailer undertakes CSR; (3) it is the most conductive for the performance of the closedloop supply chain when there is only the retailer undertakes CSR.

scholarly journals Green Supply Chain Management with Nash Bargaining Loss-Averse Reference Dependence

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 3154
Author(s):  
Wentao Yi ◽  
Zhongwei Feng ◽  
Chunqiao Tan ◽  
Yuzhong Yang
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Optimal Strategies ◽  
Retail Price ◽  
Nash Bargaining ◽  
Green Supply Chain ◽  
Bargaining Solution ◽  
Efficiency Coefficient

This paper investigates a two-echelon green supply chain (GSC) with a single loss-averse manufacturer and a single loss-averse retailer. Since the Nash bargaining solution exactly characterizes endogenous power and the contribution of the GSC members, it is introduced as the loss-averse reference point for the GSC members. Based on this, a decision model of the two-echelon GSC with loss aversion is formulated. The optimal strategies of price and product green degree are derived in four scenarios: (a) the centralized decision scenario with rational GSC members, namely the CD scenario; (b) the decentralized decision scenario with rational GSC members, namely the DD scenario; (c) the decentralized decision scenario with the GSC members loss-averse, where the manufacturer’s share is below its own loss-averse reference point, namely the DD(∆m ≥ πm) scenario; (d) the decentralized decision scenario with the GSC members loss-averse, where the retailer’s share is below its own loss-averse reference point, namely the DD(∆r ≥ πr) scenario. Then, a comparative analysis of the optimal strategies and profits in these four scenarios is conducted, and the impacts of loss aversion and green efficiency coefficient of products (GECP) on the GSC are also performed. The results show that (i) GECP has a critical influence on the retail price and the wholesale price; (ii) the GSC with loss aversion provide green products with the lowest green degree; (iii) the retail price, the wholesale price and product green degree are decreasing monotonically with the loss aversion level of the GSC member without incurring loss; (iv) furthermore, the effect of the loss aversion level of the GSC member with incurring loss on the optimal strategies is related to GECP and the gap between the GSC members’ loss aversion levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document