MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2115387876 · doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0404

<b>Research Note</b>—Price-Matching Guarantees, Retail Competition, and Product-Line Assortment

2008· article· en· W2115387876 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueMarketing Science · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Établissements canadiensKellogg's (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStock (firearms)MarketingProduct (mathematics)BusinessVariety (cybernetics)Competition (biology)Product lineMicroeconomicsIndustrial organizationEconomicsComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Price-matching guarantees (PMGs) are offers to match a competitor's price on a specific item. Such guarantees are extremely common in U.S. retail practice, and their impact has been studied in several published papers. The existing analytic literature models each retailer as a single-product seller; most work assumes that each retailer's product is identical with (or completely substitutable for) the competitor's product. In reality, competing retailers often sell multiple products, and these products do not always overlap, or may overlap partially but not totally. Furthermore, retailers that offer PMGs routinely exclude certain offerings from PMG coverage. This raises the interesting question of how product variety and product-stocking factors affect retailer decisions about offering PMGs. In this paper, we simultaneously consider three factors of retailing importance that imply results consistent with PMG use and nonuse: the ability to choose to stock the same product as, or a product differentiated from, a competitor's offering; the possibility of shelf-space limitations on the ability to stock complete variety; and the category-demand-enhancing effect of variety. These are sensible and realistic descriptive factors shaping retailers' product and pricing decisions, and because they have not been considered jointly in the prior literature on PMGs, their joint consideration helps to expand our understanding of the drivers of PMG implementation and impact. In the presence of these three factors, we examine retailers' decisions about whether to offer a PMG, what product(s) to stock, and how to price the product(s) stocked. Our results show that shelf-space limitations have an important influence on PMG provision: in particular, when retailers are shelf-space constrained, and product substitutability in the category is sufficiently large, choosing to use PMGs (which by definition also requires stocking identical products) is strictly less profitable than enduring Bertrand (price) competition but enjoying retail product differentiation. The result that PMGs can be profit-reducing relative to head-to-head retail competition is a novel one, driven in our model by the opportunity costs of stocking identical products, i.e., the inability to benefit from the demand-enhancing effects of variety and the differential (small or large) between Bertrand pricing and PMG pricing levels. We further show that under asymmetric shelf-space availability, either product variety will be severely limited or retailers will offer a different array of products. Weak substitution between products leads to the latter, with pricing between the differentiated products Bertrand and monopoly levels; strong substitution leads to the former, with pricing at the monopoly level. Our results also show that with unlimited shelf space, both competing retailers offer PMGs, stock the entire available product line, and enjoy monopoly pricing. Given our focus on product variety issues, we also relate our results to the literature on branded variants. Our results demonstrate that the nature of product variety, the availability of retail shelf space, and the category-demand-enhancing effect of variety are key market characteristics that jointly and strongly affect the optimality of PMGs and the resulting pricing and profitability characteristics of the market.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,259
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle