Cooperative advertising programs: are accrual constraints necessary?
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
Abstract This paper investigates how the use of an accrual constraint in a cooperative advertising program affects channel members' profits in a bilateral monopoly, as well as their pricing and advertising decisions. The main findings indicate that, compared to unconstrained cooperative advertising programs, when an accrual constraint is used and the manufacturer's contribution to the retailer's advertising costs exceeds the accrued cooperative advertising budget, the retailer reduces both her retail price and advertising efforts to the level where cooperative advertising is not offered; while the manufacturer also reduces his wholesale price and advertising efforts, but this time, the wholesale price remains higher than when there is no cooperative advertising. These strategic moves translate to less (more) profits for the manufacturer (retailer). The use of an accrual constraint is counterproductive for the manufacturer as the retailer uses the accrued advertising fund as a side payment rather than a direct incentive to invest more in advertising. The manufacturer and retailer are better off when unconstrained cooperative advertising programs are supplemented with other incentives, including side payments and advertising support services.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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