MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066279606 · doi:10.1108/03090561011047481

Selecting distribution channel strategies for non‐profit organizations

2010· article· en· W2066279606 on OpenAlexaff
Xuan Zhao, Run H. Niu, Ignacio Castillo

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Marketing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfit (economics)Channel (broadcasting)Industrial organizationBusinessMicroeconomicsDecentralised systemChannel coordinationMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsSupply chainSupply chain management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to better understand the selection of a distribution channel strategy for a non‐profit organization selling products or services to its end customers. Design/methodology/approach Two channel strategies are generally considered: an integrated channel where the non‐profit organization sells its products or services using its own selling departments or branches; and a decentralized channel where the non‐profit organization sells through a for‐profit retailer. The fundamental question is: how should a non‐profit organization select its distribution channel strategy under certain market conditions? Findings It was found that selecting a decentralized channel strategy results in an optimal retail price that is higher than that under an integrated channel strategy, which results in lower customer welfare under the decentralized channel. It was also found that a decentralized channel behaves as an integrated fully for‐profit channel. Thus, whether a non‐profit organization should choose an integrated or a decentralized channel when facing competition from an integrated or a decentralized fully for‐profit channel depends on its cost structure and the level of substitutability of the products or services offered by the two channels. Practical implications When competing with an integrated fully for‐profit channel, the non‐profit organization is better off using an integrated channel under strong competition or a decentralized channel under weak competition. When competing with a decentralized fully for‐profit channel, the selection is more complicated. It was found that a decentralized channel is the best choice if the price competition factor, where threshold value depends on the cost structure, is large. Originality/value Non‐profit organizations have a clear (perhaps increasing) need for distribution centers or retailers in order to reach people who need their products or services. Moreover, it has been reported that the interactions between for‐profit and non‐profit sectors continue to grow, thus increasing the forms of community involvement available to reach people. It is thus clear that additional research is needed to better understand the selection of a distribution channel strategy for a non‐profit organization selling products or services to its end customers, and also the related managerial implications.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of MarketingSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207