Sales mode selection strategic analysis for risk-averse manufacturers under revenue sharing contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a sales mode selection problem under revenue sharing contracts between resale and agency modes for risk-averse manufacturers with traditional retail channel, direct selling channel, and e-commerce platform channel. By considering the factors including price competition intensity, market share, revenue sharing ratio, commission rate, and degree of risk aversion, we construct leader-follower game models with manufacturers as leaders and traditional retailers and e-commerce platforms as followers. To obtain optimal solutions, we discuss conditions to ensure the upper and lower models to be convex and then give the optimal strategies for all members in the network. Through numerical experiments, we analyze the involved parameters’ impact on sales mode selection strategy and the changing trends of each member's optimal pricing and profit under different sales modes. The numerical results reveal the following revelations: The manufacturer should choose the agency mode when the commission rate is low and the direct selling channel has a large market share. If both the commission rate and degree of risk aversion are high, direct selling channels have a low market share, and price competition intensity is weak, the manufacturer should choose the resale mode. The degree of risk aversion has an effect on each member’s optimal decision. Regardless of which sales mode the manufacturer chooses, the optimal price of each member decreases as the degree of risk aversion increases. Under certain conditions, the manufacturer’s choice of agency mode can create win-win situations with supply chain members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".