Price and quality competition while envisioning a quality-related product recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many product recalls are caused by quality-related product failures. When such recalls occur, the effects may not only be limited to the firm selling the product but also extend to competing firms in the category. This paper analyzes quality and pricing strategies for competing firms facing the risk of a severe quality-related recall making the product hazardous and leading to its removal from the market. We develop a two-stage Nash game where the probability of recall depends on the firms’ chosen quality investments, and either firm can experience a recall. We consider a utility-based model where consumers’ sensitivity to price and quality can change following the recall. Our results indicate that the competitor should lower its price after a recall if consumers’ price sensitivity changes enough and may increase or keep its price the same otherwise. Surprisingly, considering the risk of a recall does not always lead firms to enhance their product quality. If the change in consumer quality sensitivity is low enough, firms adopt an inferior product quality level than when they overlook the product recall risk, even if consumer quality sensitivity increases and/or consumer price sensitivity decreases after the recall. These results can help companies plan their pricing and quality decisions in competitive industries with potential product quality failures leading to recalls.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".