You are entitled to access the full text of this documentInteracting with the e-tailer’s service investment in the presence of a store brand: Selling model choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To alleviate the inventory pressure and improve operational performance, the e-tailer that develops a store brand (SB) may make a service investment in her self-operated stores. However, the existing literature rarely considers such a service investment strategy and its impact on national brand (NB) suppliers, especially on their selling model selection. We employ a theoretical model to explore the interactions of the NB supplier’s selling model selection and the service investment strategy of the e-tailer developing an SB. Our findings show that under the reselling model, the e-tailer always benefits from her service investment. Interestingly, however, the e-tailer may suffer from her service investment under the agency model. Meanwhile, the likelihood of the e-tailer adopting service investment decreases as the consumer service sensitivity increases. Furthermore, we find that the service investment increases the scope wherein both firms prefer the reselling model. In addition, we show that the supplier may adopt the agency model rather than the reselling model to counteract the service investment strategy of the e-tailer. These findings provide actionable insights to help suppliers and e-tailers make strategic operational decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".