Gift card payment or cash payment: Which payment is suitable for trade-in rebate?

Cao, Kaiying; Han, Guoxin; Xu, Bing; Wang, Jia

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2020.101857

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cao et al [24] took B2C platforms as their research object, considered self-run stores of platforms and third-party stores simultaneously, and comparatively investigated the advantages and disadvantages of the two different trade-in rebates, i.e., gift cards that can only be used in self-run stores and cash coupons that can be used in both stores. Cao et al [25] considered the cases in which gift cards might expire or be discarded by customers, and gave the boundary conditions under which B2C platforms choose between cash payment and gift card payment as the trade-in rebate.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) The decision-making bodies: We focus on B2C platforms and consider the features of B2C platforms implementing recycling and trade-in programs, which include not only the pricing mechanism and the strategy profile, but also the cross-selling benefits when customers use rebates for consumption again on the platforms that are covered in the extended discussion. Cao et al [24] and Cao et al [25] considered the features of the sales models and the trade-in rebate forms on B2C platforms without referring to the recycling issue. Xiao and Zhou [1] did not use B2C platforms as their research object.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborative Rebate Strategy of Business-to-Customer Platforms Considering Recycling and Trade-Ins Simultaneously

Sun

Tan

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

B2C (business to customer) platforms like JD.com and Suning.com often cooperate with professional recycling companies, and implement recycling programs and trade-in programs simultaneously, especially for electronic products. The former means that platforms recycle old products from customers with cash, whereas the latter means that platforms allow customers to trade in old products for new ones. Under this background, we discuss how to develop the optimal rebate strategy for B2C platforms based on the market recovery price of old products, and give the optimal rebate prices and feasible conditions of single-rebate, dual-rebate, and none-rebate strategies. The results show that the single-recycling rebate strategy is dominant when the residual value of old products is low, and when the residual value of old products is high, platforms should choose in turn the single-trade-in rebate strategy, dual-rebate strategy, single-recycling rebate strategy, and non-rebate strategy with the increase in the cost of new products. In order to obtain higher profits, B2C platforms should provide appropriate rebates to better coordinate the recycling program and the trade-in program on the basis of the market recovery price, the residual value, and the durability of old products as well as the cost, the selling price, and the upgrade range of new products.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Rebate Strategy of Business-to-Customer Platforms Considering Recycling and Trade-Ins Simultaneously

Sun

Tan

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ray et al (2005) integrated three different pricing schemes for a durable, remanufacturable good and found the optimal trade-in rebate and pricing. Following the work of Ray et al (2005), a number of researchers further investigated relevant issues with regard to the optimal pricing and trade-in strategies, such as trade-ins are regarded as a price-discrimination policy when considering certified pre-owned options (Chen & Hsu, 2017), pricing strategy of trade-ins and leasing with technology innovations (Li & Xu, 2015), optimal pricing and purchasing decisions with trade-in options for two successivegeneration products (Yin & Tang, 2014;Yin, Li, & Tang, 2015), optimal pricing and trade-in rebates considering strategic consumers (Van Ackere & Reyniers, 1995;Hu et al, 2019;Liu, Zhai, & Chen, 2019), trade-in strategy considering remanufactured products (Han, Yang, Shang, & Pu, 2017;, remanufacturing with trade-ins considering government policy or carbon regulations (Miao, Mao, Fu, & Wang, 2018), optimal pricing decisions when trade-old-for-new and trade-old-for-remanufactured programs are offered simultaneously (Ma, Zhou, Dai, & Sheu, 2017), and the hybrid trade-in strategy with both trade-in for new and trade-in for cash options (Cao, Han, Xu, & Wang, 2020;Xiao & Zhou, 2020). These studies provide instruction for monopolistic firms on how to implement trade-in strategies optimally under different circumstances.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In practice, if a trade-in program is provided by the manufacturer or the retailer, the replacement consumers who return old products and engage in the tradein program usually have two choices: using the trade-in rebate to purchase the new product or just receiving the trade-in rebate in cash. i This has also been considered in the existing literature (e.g., Yin & Tang, 2014;Cao et al, 2020;Xiao & Zhou, 2020). If μ rt > 0 and μ rt > μ o , then the replacement consumers will return their old products and buy the new product.…”

Section: Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upstream or Downstream: Who Should Provide Trade‐in Services in Dyadic Supply Chains?*

Tang

Ding

et al. 2020

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As observed in real-world practices, trade-ins can be offered by either the manufacturer or the retailer. The party offering the trade-in program faces the trade-off between the fixed trade-in cost incurred and the additional revenue generated. By conducting a game-theoretic study, we analytically explore in this article the optimal choice of tradein provider in a dyadic supply chain with a single manufacturer and a single retailer. We show that the trade-in models can bear a much higher manufacturing cost and induce a higher new product sale than the benchmark case without trade-ins. It is possible that both the manufacturer and retailer prefer to undertake the trade-in program, which would lead to a conflict; or both firms prefer to be a free rider instead of being the trade-in provider, which would fall into a prisoner's dilemma. Moreover, the powerful manufacturer has an incentive to delegate the trade-in service to the retailer when facing a higher fixed trade-in cost, but the delegation option is always worse off for the retailer compared to the scenario in which the retailer provides trade-ins by herself. We also show that the trade-in scenarios always benefit the environment and consumers of the replacement segment, but hurt the primary segment consumers. The social welfare would actually be higher in the scenarios with trade-ins if the fixed trade-in cost is relatively low and the residual value of old products is relatively high. [

show abstract

“…Payment for retailed financial services is performed on a daily basis and is the financial services with the least regulated feature (Nguyen et al, 2020). In recent decades, traditional trading services with a cash payment system have been widely adopted by companies in the car, electronics, and technology industries to retain old customers and promote sales of new products (Cao et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Payment System Analysis of Buying Decision in Indonesia

Yucha¹,

Setiawan²,

Muttaqiin³

et al. 2020

JAFEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to analyze the changes in purchasing decisions in conducting transactions using cash and digital payment systems. Cash payment systems are very different from digital payments because they no longer use banks as intermediaries for transactions. The scope of this study is to determine the differences that take place with purchasing decisions using digital payment systems with OVO Indonesia smart applications. By using the paired T-test sample test method and testing the regression class assumptions, it is expected we will document the comparison between cash and digital payment systems as regards changes in consumers' buying interest behavior towards goods. Data is obtained by purposive sampling using special characteristics for smart application users. The results show that digital payments are developing very quickly, but cash payments still dominate due to the unavailability of complete facilities and infrastructure to support digital payment systems other than in cities. This study illustrates that digital payments have not been able to completely change consumer buying behavior in large numbers, but the main finding in this study is an increase in the percentage of digital payment usage to the online market, due to the many conveniences provided in OVO smart applications.

show abstract

Gift card payment or cash payment: Which payment is suitable for trade-in rebate?

Cited by 24 publications

References 41 publications

Collaborative Rebate Strategy of Business-to-Customer Platforms Considering Recycling and Trade-Ins Simultaneously

Collaborative Rebate Strategy of Business-to-Customer Platforms Considering Recycling and Trade-Ins Simultaneously

Upstream or Downstream: Who Should Provide Trade‐in Services in Dyadic Supply Chains?*

Digital Payment System Analysis of Buying Decision in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About