W e propose a behavioral theory to predict actual ordering behavior in multilocation inventory systems. The theory rests on a well-known stylized fact of human behavior: people's preferences are reference dependent. We incorporate reference dependence into the newsvendor framework by assuming that there are psychological costs of leftovers and stockouts. We also hypothesize that the psychological aversion to leftovers is greater than the disutility for stockouts. We then experimentally test the proposed theory in both the centralized and decentralized inventory structures using subjects motivated by substantial financial incentives. Consistent with the proposed theory, actual orders exhibit the so-called "pull-to-center" bias and the degree of bias is greater in the high-profit margin than in the low-profit margin condition. These systematic biases are shown to eliminate the risk-pooling benefit when the demands across store locations are strongly correlated. Because the proposed model nests the standard inventory and ex post inventory error minimization theories as special cases, one can systematically evaluate the predictive power of each alternative using the generalized likelihood principle. We structurally estimate all three theories using the experimental data, and the estimation results strongly suggest that the proposed behavioral theory captures actual orders and profits better. We also conduct two experiments to validate the behavioral model by manipulating the relative salience of the psychological costs of leftovers versus that of stockouts to alleviate the pull-to-center bias.
We incorporate the concept of fairness in a conventional dyadic channel to investigate how fairness may affect channel coordination. We show that when channel members are concerned about fairness, the manufacturer can use a simple wholesale price above her marginal cost to coordinate this channel both in terms of achieving the maximum channel profit and in terms of attaining the maximum channel utility. Thus, channel coordination may not require an elaborate pricing contract. A constant wholesale price will do.distribution channels, fairness, channel coordination, behavioral economics, retailing and wholesaling, pricing
Omnichannel marketing is often viewed as the panacea for one-to-one marketing, but this strategic path is mired with obstacles. This article investigates three challenges in realizing the full potential of omnichannel marketing: 1) data access and integration; 2) marketing attribution; and 3) protecting consumer privacy. While these challenges predate omnichannel marketing, they are exacerbated in a digital omnichannel environment. This article argues that advances in machine learning (ML) and blockchain offer some promising solutions. In turn, these technologies present new challenges and opportunities for firms, which warrant future academic research. We identify both recent developments in practice and promising avenues for future research.
Prior theory claims that buyback and revenue-sharing contracts achieve equivalent channel-coordinating solutions when applied in a dyadic supplier–retailer setting. This suggests that a supplier should be indifferent between the two contracts. However, the sequence and magnitude of costs and revenues (i.e., losses and gains) vary significantly between the contracts, suggesting the supplier’s preference of contract type, and associated contract parameter values, may vary with the level of loss aversion. We investigate this phenomenon through two studies. The first is a preliminary study investigating whether human suppliers are indeed indifferent between these two contracts. Using a controlled laboratory experiment, with human subjects taking on the role of the supplier having to choose between contracts, we find that contract preferences change with the ratio of overage and underage costs for the channel (i.e., the newsvendor critical ratio). In particular, a buyback contract is preferred for products with low critical ratio, whereas revenue sharing is preferred for products with high critical ratio. We show these results are consistent with the behavioral tendency of loss aversion and are more significant for subjects who exhibit higher loss aversion tendencies in an out of context task. In the second (main) study, we examine differences in the performance of buyback and revenue-sharing contracts when suppliers have the authority to set contract parameters. We find that the contract frame influences the way parameters are set and the critical ratio again plays an important role. More specifically, revenue-sharing contracts are more profitable for the supplier than buyback contracts in a high critical ratio environment when accounting for the supplier’s parameter-specification behavior. Also, there is little difference in performance between the two contracts in a low critical ratio environment. These results can help inform supply managers on what types of contracts to use in different critical ratio settings. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2182 . This paper was accepted by Martin Lariviere, operations management.
T his paper studies a manufacturer's optimal decisions on extending its product line when the manufacturer sells through either a centralized channel or a decentralized channel. We show that a manufacturer may provide a longer product line for consumers in a decentralized channel than in a centralized channel if the market is fully covered. In addition, a manufacturer's decisions on the length of its product line may not always be optimal from a social welfare perspective in either a centralized or a decentralized channel. Under certain conditions, a decentralized channel can provide the product line length that is socially optimal, whereas a centralized channel cannot.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.