Price and lead time differentiation, capacity strategy and market competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a duopoly market in which customers are heterogeneous, and can be segmented as price or time sensitive. Each firm tailors (differentiates) its products/services for the two customer classes solely based on guaranteed lead time and the corresponding price. Our objective is to understand how competition affects price and lead time differentiation of the firms in the presence of different operations strategy (shared versus dedicated capacity), product substitution and asymmetry between the competing firms. Our results suggest that when firms use dedicated resources to serve the two market segments, pure price competition always tends to decrease individual prices as well as price differentiation, irrespective of the market behaviour. Further, the effect of competition is more pronounced when customers are allowed to self-select, thereby introducing substitutability between the two product options. On the other hand, when firms compete in time, in addition to price, the effect of competition on product differentiation depends crucially on the behaviour of the market. Our results further suggest that the firm with a larger market base should always maintain a larger price and lead time differentiation between the two market segments. Similarly, the firm with a capacity cost advantage should also maintain a larger lead time differentiation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".