EFFECTIVENESS OF COOP ADVERTISING PROGRAMS IN COMPETITIVE DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a model of retail promotions for competitive distribution channels and investigate whether cooperative advertising programs are profitable for such channels. While previous studies showed that coop programs increase total channel profits in bilateral monopolies, no evidence of such a result has been provided for channels where competition is present at the manufacturing and the retailing levels. In this paper, we consider a distribution channel formed by two manufacturers and two retailers and propose a model that accounts for brand and store substitution effects generated by the retailer's promotional efforts. The efficiency of the coop plan is investigated by comparing equilibria of four non-cooperative games; one where manufacturers do not offer any promotional support to the retailers, one where manufacturers do offer such a support and two scenarios where in turn only one manufacturer is offering such program. We show that when competition is introduced, coop ad programs may be due to a prisonner's dilemma situation for the manufacturers. The benefit for retailers and consumers is also assessed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it