Dealership or Marketplace with Fulfillment Services: A Dynamic Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: We consider two business models for a two-sided economy under uncertainty: dealership and marketplace with fulfillment services. Although both business models can bridge the gap between demand and supply, it is not clear which model is better for the firm or for the consumers. Methodology/results: We show that, whereas the two models differ substantially in pricing power, inventory risk, fee structure, and fulfillment time, both models share several important features with the revenues earned by the firm from the two models converging when the markets are thick. We also show that, for thick markets, there is a one-to-one mapping between their corresponding optimal policies. Managerial implications: Our results provide guidelines for firms entering two-sided markets: when the market is thick, the two business models are similar; when the market is thin, they should carefully inspect a number of market conditions before making the choice. Funding: The research of G. Li is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72150002, 72394361] and the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Foundations for Artificial Intelligence [Grant 2023B1212010001]. The research of N. Chen is partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2020-04038]. The research of G. Gallego is partially supported by Collaborative Research Funding Hong Kong [Grant C6032-21G]. The research of P. Gao is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72201234, 72192805], Collaborative Research Funding Hong Kong [Grant C6032-21G], and the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Foundations for Artificial Intelligence [Grant 2023B1212010001]. Supplemental Material: The online supplement is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0253 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".