双渠道供应链中合作广告与定价的动态模型

基于单个制造商与单个零售商所组成的双渠道供应链结构,利用微分对策方法,分别考察了动态架构中Stackelberg博弈与合作博弈情形下渠道成员的最优定价和广告策略,并对此两种博弈结构下的反馈均衡结果进行了分析比较.研究发现,两种博弈相比,制造商的直销价格相同,零售商在合作博弈下选择更小的零售价格;制造商在合作博弈下对广告的投入更多,而零售商在两种博弈下的广告投入水平取决于零售商的广告竞争强度与两个渠道销售价格竞争强度的关系;两种博弈下供应链系统利润的大小关系依赖于系统参数.     

制造商与渠道势力不对称零售商的合作广告模型研究

研究制造商与渠道势力不对称零售商的合作广告问题.在需求不确定的情况下,建立了制造商和零售商的分散式与集中式系统下的合作广告模型,得到了不同系统下制造商和强势零售商的最优合作广告策略、强势零售商和边缘零售商的最优订货策略,及他们的最优期望利润.通过对不同系统下均衡结果的比较分析,证明了分散式系统存在不协调.设计了实现渠道协调的联合契约,指出分散式协调系统下的联合契约不唯一,契约参数两两正相关,广告补贴率、产品批发价格和回购价格是制造商和强势零售商力量平衡的焦点.     

竞合模式下考虑低碳产品推广补贴的供应链博弈研究

在制造商向零售商提供低碳产品推广补贴的背景下,考虑一个主导制造商和两个跟随零售商构成的供应链,研究两个零售商竞争与合作情况下的供应链减排及低碳产品推广决策,运用Stackelberg博弈理论分别构建了竞争模式、合作模式的模型,得到最优减排水平、低碳产品推广投入及低碳产品推广成本分摊比例.通过比较分析发现:两种模式的最优减排水平不变;与竞争模式相比,合作模式下零售商低碳产品推广投入更低,利润更大,而制造商分摊比例更大,利润更小;当竞争系数大于两个零售商低碳产品推广敏感系数之和时,整个供应链的利润更高,通过谈判协调,可以提高双方的利润.最后运用算例验证了模型的有效性.     

碳税政策下三级供应链碳减排与定价决策及社会福利研究

考虑制造商的生产过程和运输商的运输过程都产生碳排放,建立一条由制造商、运输商与零售商组成的三级供应链,运用Stackelberg博弈和Nash博弈分析三级供应链在碳税政策下的最优碳减排、产品定价、系统利润与社会福利等关键指标的状态.讨论了四种情形:1)碳减排领域和产品定价领域都不合作的无合作决策;2)碳减排领域合作但产品定价领域不合作的局部合作决策Ⅰ;3)产品定价领域合作但碳减排领域不合作的局部合作决策Ⅱ;4)碳减排领域和产品定价领域都合作的全面合作决策.研究表明,随着供应链成员之间合作程度的逐步加深,供应链系统的经济效益(系统利润)、社会效益(产品定价和社会福利)、环境效益(最优碳减排量)越来越优.同时,研究了碳税税率变动对最优碳减排和产品定价决策的影响,推导了供应链协调契约中成员企业利润分配比例的有效区间.最后,通过一个数值算例对所给的部分定理与结论进行验证.     

乘法需求模式下具有风险厌恶零售商的供应链合作博弈分析

考虑了一个风险中性的制造商和一个风险厌恶型零售商的供应链合作博弈问题.零售商面临依赖于价格的随机市场需求.以条件在险价值(CVaR)作为零售商的风险衡量准则,并采用乘法需求模式表示依赖于价格的随机需求.通过研究在乘法需求模式下具有不同协商权利的Nash博弈问题的最优均衡行为,从而发现平均需求函数为单调递减的凹函数是存在稳定均衡解的充分条件,且稳定均衡解存在与否与随机需求噪声的分布情况,零售商的协商权利都无关.在此前提下,发现在乘法需求模式下当需求噪声服从均匀分布时制造商占整个供应链的利润比例和一般随机需求情况下的一样,且随零售商的风险态度递增,与平均需求的函数形式无关.     

二级供应链上不完美互补产品的定价决策

建立一个由两个制造商和一个零售商组成供应链模型,以求解制造商和零售商的最优定价决策,其中两个制造商向零售商批发的产品是不完美互补的,且零售商采取混合捆绑策略销售这两种产品。考虑三种情形下的决策:(1)完全非合作博弈;(2)局部合作博弈;(3)合作博弈。通过比较前两种情形下的决策,利用Nash协商模型求解得到消除水平和垂直供应链冲突的最优定价决策。与完全非合作博弈决策相比,局部合作博弈决策对制造商是有利的,在一定的条件下也可以实现对零售商收益的帕累托改进;而合作博弈决策在任何情况下都要明显地优于完全非合作博弈决策以及局部合作博弈决策,同时合作博弈决策下的最优产品需求量相比局部合作博弈决策下的最优产品需求量提高了一倍。最后,通过数值试验验证了文章所得结论。     

制造商质量投入竞争与合作的双渠道供应链动态博弈研究

针对具有不同质量投入和服务投入的双渠道供应链,主要研究其成员最优均衡决策问题.构建了包含两个制造商和一个零售商的两级双渠道供应链决策模型;采用微分博弈确定在制造商竞争和合作两种模型下各成员的最优均衡决策及其利润,并着重探讨质量投入系数、服务竞争系数和传统渠道市场占有率这三个关键参数对它们的影响;用算例对该模型进行仿真分析研究结果表明:在竞争模型下零售商的利润随着传统渠道市场占有率、质量投入竞争和服务竞争的增大而增大,但合作模型下的利润与服务竞争无关;制造商合作时制造商的利润之和提高,且两个制造商在两个渠道边际利润和之比在一定范围内,两个制造商会有合作意愿,但零售商的利润下降.研究能够为各成员企业的最优均衡决策提供支持和参考.     

考虑延迟现象的质量改进投入和营销努力动态协同策略

利用时滞微分方程刻画质量改进投入对品牌商誉提升的延迟现象,分别构建了制造商和零售商采取非合作博弈、合作博弈以及成本分担的部分合作博弈(制造商参与营销的单向部分合作博弈、零售商参与生产的单向部分合作博弈、制造商参与营销及零售商参与生产的双向部分合作博弈)五种决策模式下的微分博弈模型。借助哈密尔顿极大值原理,求解得到五种情形下的制造商最优质量改进投入策略和零售商的最优营销努力策略以及供应链利润。对比五种博弈模式下的结果发现:1)延时现象会降低制造商进行质量改进投入的积极性,但对零售商营销努力无影响;品牌商誉在延迟现象影响下出现先衰减后提升的演进规律;2)合作博弈对于供应链绩效总是最优的,三种成本分担的部分合作博弈契约虽不能实现供应链的完全协调,但可以对非合作博弈情形进行帕累托改进;3)对比两种单向部分合作博弈,在提高供应链利润方面,制造商参与营销的成本分担契约优于零售商参与生产的成本分担契约;4)三种成本分担契约中,双向合作的部分合作博弈是供应链的最优选择,但随着延迟时间增大,其帕累托改进效果将不再明显。     

考虑碳排放权交易的低碳供应链批发价格协调研究

在低碳环境下分析了低碳供应链批发价格协调问题,构建了碳市场-企业-消费者三维交易模式.通过引入政府补贴和碳排放权交易两个变量,分别讨论了制造商和零售商非合作和合作博弈模型.经过数值分析,研究了2种不同情景下模型中最优批发价格、销售价格、利润及销售量变化及影响.研究结果表明:制造商和零售商经Shapley值法分配的利润要大于非合作时各自最大利润,并且批发价格等于一定值时,分配所得利润等于各自期望的最大利润,最优销售价格会下降,最优销售量会上升;Shapley值法分配低碳供应链利润可协调批发价格并具有鲁棒性,且有利于企业间的合作.     

碳限额政策下一个制造商和两个零售商的供应链定价决策

研究了碳限额政策下一个制造商和两个零售商构成的二级供应链.根据制造商差别定价或统一定价及两个零售商竞争或合作构建了4个博弈模型,利用逆向归纳法得到了各个模型的均衡决策并进行了比较分析.结果表明:1)制造商的利润在制造商差别定价两个零售商竞争时最大,而在制造商统一定价两个零售商合作时最小.2)供应链的利润在制造商统一定价两个零售商合作时最大,而在制造商差别定价两个零售商竞争时最小.最后,通过数值实验分析了碳限额对供应链成员利润的影响.     

Coordination of cooperative advertising in a two-level supply chain when manufacturer offers discount

We studied the coordination of cooperative advertisement in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain when the manufacturer offers price deductions to customers. With a price sensitive market, the expected demand with cooperative advertising and price deduction is demonstrated. When the manufacturer is a leader, we obtained the optimal national brand name investment, local advertisement and associated manufacturer’s allowance with any given price deduction. When the manufacturer offers more price deduction to customers, the retailer will increase local advertisement if the manufacturer provides the same portion of the local advertising allowance. We obtained the necessary and sufficient condition for the price deduction to ensure an increase of manufacturer’s profit, and a search procedure for determining such an optimal price deduction is provided as well. When the manufacturer and retailer are partners, we obtained the optimal national brand name investment and local advertisement. For any given price deduction, the total profit for the supply chain with cooperative scheme is always higher than that with the non-cooperative scheme. When price elasticity of demand is larger than one, the resulting closed form optimal price deduction with partnership is also obtained. To increase profits for both parties in a supply chain, we recommend that coordination in local and national cooperative advertising with a partnership relationship between manufacturer and retailer is the best solution. The bargaining results show how to share the profit gain between the manufacturer and the retailer, and determine the associated pricing and advertising policies for both parties.     

A game theoretic approach to coordinate pricing and vertical co-op advertising in manufacturer-retailer supply chains

Vertical cooperative (co-op) advertising is a marketing strategy in which the retailer runs local advertising and the manufacturer pays for a portion of its entire costs. This paper considers vertical co-op advertising along with pricing decisions in a supply chain; this consists of one manufacturer and one retailer where demand is influenced by both price and advertisement. Four game-theoretic models are established in order to study the effect of supply chain power balance on the optimal decisions of supply chain members. Comparisons and insights are developed. These embrace three non-cooperative games including Nash, Stackelberg-manufacturer and Stackelberg-retailer, and one cooperative game. In the latter case, both the manufacturer and the retailer reach the highest profit level; subsequently, the feasibility of bargaining game is discussed in a bid to determine a scheme to share the extra joint profit.     

Supply chain coordination through integration of innovation effort and advertising support

This study integrates firms’ innovation and advertising decisions in a two-echelon supply chain, where a monopoly manufacturer sells products to ultimate consumers through an autonomous retailer. Considering that both innovation and advertising contribute to the product demand, we first investigate the optimal equilibriums of channel members under two different game structures: the non-cooperative and cooperative. In the non-cooperative structure, the manufacturer controls the innovation effort and wholesale price while the retailer controls the advertising rate and retail pricing. In the cooperative structure, the manufacturer agrees to share part of retailer’s advertising expenditure. We find that both the optimal operation and marketing decisions are sensitive to effects of innovation and advertising on demand as well as the manufacturer’s cost reduction coefficient due to innovation. Further, we find that the manufacturer always prefers cooperation. Meanwhile, only when the firms’ investments significantly contribute to the market mechanism, does the retailer have incentive to implement a cooperative program. In addition, we further propose a new two-way subsidy policy to coordinate channel members’ business functions.     

Channel Coordination with Cooperative Advertising Considering Effect of Advertising on Willingness to Pay

In this paper, cooperative advertising in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain is studied. Advertising can enhance willingness to pay (WTP) of customers. This trade-off between the benefits of increasing WTP of customers and the advertising expenditure is a key to understanding the retailers optimal advertising decision. On the other hand, it is interesting to understand in which condition supporting the retailer for his advertising expenditure is beneficial for the manufacturer. In this study, in order to capture pricing and advertising strategies of the channel member, three non-cooperative games including Nash, Stackelberg retailer and Stackelberg manufacturer game-theoretic models are established. In spite of the related studies which restrict price in order to prevent negative demand, the proposed model allows channel members to increase their prices by enhancing WTP of customers. In this study, contrary to similar additive form demand functions applied in the co-op ad literature which limits their studies for cases that profit function is concave with respect to variables, optimal prices and advertising strategies are obtained for all the solution space. Surprisingly for the very high values of the advertising effect coefficient, a finite optimal advertising expenditure is achieved.     

Coordinating advertising and pricing in a manufacturer–retailer channel

Cooperative advertising is a practice that a manufacturer pays retailers a portion of the local advertising cost in order to induce sales. Cooperative advertising plays a significant role in marketing programs of channel members. Nevertheless, most studies to date on cooperative advertising have assumed that the market demand is only influenced by advertising expenditures but not by retail price. This paper addresses channel coordination by seeking optimal cooperative advertising strategies and equilibrium pricing in a two-member distribution channel. We establish and compare two models: a non-cooperative, leader–follower game and a cooperative game. We develop propositions and insights from the comparison of these models. The cooperative model achieves better coordination by generating higher channel-wide profits than the non-cooperative model with these features: (a) the retailer price is lower to consumers; and (b) the advertising efforts are higher for all channel members. We identify the feasible solutions to a bargaining problem where the channel members can determine how to divide the extra profits.     

广告分担、价格折扣与供应链的纵向合作广告

研究了生产商和零售商的纵向合作广告问题。分别在广告分担和价格折扣策略下，探讨了双方的均衡结果和利润。当生产商的边际利润较小时，生产商的最优决策是不采取任何一种策略。当生产商的边际利润达到一定范围时，广告分担策略是双方共同的最优选择。而无论在什么样的条件内，价格折扣策略都不会使双方同时满意。为了增加双方的收益，供应链成员应该在广告上集成决策。最后给出了系统集成的可行最优解的范围和Nash讨价还价解。     

Vertical cooperative advertising and pricing decisions in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain: A game-theoretic approach

Manufacturers can increase the advertising expenditures of their retailers by bearing a fraction of the occurring costs within the framework of a vertical cooperative advertising program. We expand the existing research which deals with advertising and pricing decisions in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain contemporaneously. By means of game theory, four different relationships between the channel members are considered: Firstly, three non-cooperative games with either symmetrical distribution of power or asymmetrical distribution with one player being the leader in each case, and one cooperative game where both players tend to maximize the total profit. The latter is complemented by a bargaining model, which proposes a fair split of profit on the basis of the players’ risk attitude and bargaining power. Our main findings are as follows: (a) In contrast to previous analyses, we do not limit the ratio between manufacturer’s and retailer’s margin, which provides more general insights into the effects of the underlying distribution of power within the channel. (b) The highest total profit is gained when both players cooperate. This behavior puts also the customers in a better position, as it produces the lowest retail price as well as the highest advertising expenditures compared to the other configurations.     

考虑互惠偏好的闭环供应链系统合作机制研究

将互惠偏好引入到闭环供应链系统合作机制中,研究了由一个制造商,一个零售商和一个再制造商组成的三层闭环供应链,运用Stackelberg博弈理论分析了闭环供应链整体及各成员的最优决策问题,并对5种情形(决策模式)下的均衡结果进行比较分析.研究发现在考虑互惠偏好行为下,分散决策模式和局部联盟决策模式下的系统利润低于集中决策模式下的收益;新产品和再制造产品的销售量(零售价格)与制造商对零售商的互惠偏好系数呈正(负)相关,与零售商对制造商的互惠偏好系数呈负(正)相关;5种决策模式的供应链系统利润与制造商对零售商的互惠偏好系数呈正相关,与零售商对制造商的互惠偏好系数呈负相关.     

Competition and Cooperation between Manufacturer and Retailer

We assume that each manufacturer decides his price to the tradeand that retailers set their prices in the light of the manufacturer'sprices. We consider two hypotheses about the way in which eachmakes his decision. In the absence of cooperation, the retailerchooses a price (as a function of the trade price) which willmaximize the retail profit. The manufacturer takes this intoaccount in determining his price to maximize his profit. Ifthey cooperate (which may be illegal), they agree to a retailprice which maximizes their joint profit. The trade price isset via a discussion on how the profit is to be split betweenthem. It is clear that the cooperative profit cannot be lessthan the non-cooperative profit. In at least one set of circumstancesthe non-cooperative solution yields a smaller profit for theretailer than the manufacturer, which means that the latteris in a weak position with respect to bargaining over the additionalprofits from cooperation. More surprising is our main resultthat, for some response functions, cooperative prices are lowerand sales volumes are higher under cooperation. Examples tobe examined in detail are: (a) single manufacturer and singleretailer; (b) several manufacturers and a single retailer (ora group of identical retailers) with a linear symmetric price-volumerelationship.