Three revenue-sharing variants: their significant performance differences under system-parameter uncertainties

In the widely studied ‘revenue sharing’ (hereafter [RS]) contract format, the manufacturer of a product not only charges the retailer a unit wholesale price w, but also requires the retailer to share part of the product's revenue (ie, the unit retail price p) with him. For a product with price-dependent demand, it is well known that if a dominant manufacturer knows the system parameters deterministically, then [RS] gives him the perfect power of simultaneously coordinating the channel and allocating profit arbitrarily. Unfortunately, [RS]'s power deteriorates as the manufacturer's knowledge of the system parameters becomes increasingly uncertain. This paper shows that this deterioration can be substantially reduced by using slightly modified versions of [RS]; these modifications roughly amount to sharing a retailer's gross profit instead of revenue. In other words, this paper presents simple modifications to the classical [RS], leading to contract formats that perform substantially better under system-parameter uncertainty.     

零售商占优下的两部定价合同与通道费

本文考虑由单个占优的零售商和单个供应商组成的二级供应链模型.在价格相依的随机需求下,研究分散系统下的批发价格合同与两部定价合同.在一定的条件下得到两种合同中供应链成员的最优决策和利润以及供应链系统的利润.分析表明,当零售商占优时两部定价合同比批发价格合同更有效.这在一定程度上说明当前零售业中收取通道费的合理性.     

Equilibrium contract selection strategy in chain-to-chain competition with demand uncertainty

This paper investigates the equilibrium contract selection problem for the dominant suppliers in two competing supply chains with stochastic and price-sensitive demand. The two suppliers, acting as the Stackelberg leaders, produce substitutable products and distribute them through each exclusive retailer, and can provide either a consignment contract or a wholesale-price contract. The equilibrium behaviours of the suppliers and retailers are investigated in three different scenarios: (1) the consignment contract scenario; (2) the wholesale-price contract scenario; and (3) the hybrid contract scenario. We prove that the equilibrium contracting strategy is of the threshold type: when the cost-share rates of the two retailers are above certain thresholds, both suppliers select consignment contracts; when the cost-share rates of the two retailers are lower than certain thresholds, both suppliers select wholesale-price contracts; when one retailer’s cost-share rate is above a certain threshold and the other is lower than a certain threshold, the supplier with large retailer’s cost-share rate selects the consignment contract and the other supplier with small retailer’s cost-share rate selects the wholesale-price contract. Furthermore, these thresholds depend on price sensitivities.     

Defending and improving the ‘slotting fee’: how it can benefit all the stakeholders dealing with a newsvendor product with price and effort-dependent demand

‘Slotting fee’ (hereafter ‘SF’) is an upfront fee a ‘supplier’ is required to pay a retailer in order to have his product sold on the retailer's shelves. It is becoming increasingly common, but also widely reviled. This paper considers a newsvendor product whose expected demand is dependent on retail price and sales effort. The question we pose is: given that the Stackelberg-dominant retailer has to choose a pricing contract with which she transacts with the supplier, how would the supply-chain stakeholders fare when the retailer implements SF instead of another practical pricing contract? We show that, contradicting its negative public image, SF empowers the dominant retailer to specify contract terms that will benefit all the stakeholder-groups. That is, the supplier's and the retailer's profits are higher, the production workers are asked to produce more, and the consumers pay a lower retail price. We also propose a new ‘composite’ contract format that incorporates both the SF and ‘buyback’ features. This composite format empowers the retailer to provide even greater benefits to the supply-chain's stakeholders.

     

On channel coordination under price-dependent revenue-sharing: can eBay's fee structure coordinate the channel?

This article deals with the problem of coordinating a vertically separated channel under consignment contracts with a price-dependent revenue-sharing (R-S) function. We consider the retailer being a channel leader who offers the vendor a leave-it-or-take-it contract, and the vendor being a price-setting firm who sells the one-of-a-kind goods through the exclusive channel. Under such a setting, the retailer decides on the term of R-S contract, and the vendor determines the retail price of the product. For each item sold, the retailer deducts an agreed-upon percentage from the price and remits the balance to the vendor. We model the decision-making of the two firms as a Stackelberg game, and carry out equilibrium analysis for both the centralized and decentralized regimes of the channel with consideration of three kinds of contracts: the fixed, the price-increasing, and the price-decreasing R-S percentage. Our analysis reveals that the contract with a price-decreasing R-S function, for example, the fee structure adopted by eBay.com, performs worse than the others. It persists in a consistent bias: the price-decreasing R-S induces the vendor to choose a higher price, and the retailer tends to receive a lower R-S percentage, which leads to less demand quantity, less profit, and channel inefficiency.     

First- and second-price sealed-bid auctions applied to push and pull supply contracts

We investigate a newsvendor-type retailer sourcing problem under demand uncertainty who has the option to source from multiple suppliers. The suppliers’ manufacturing costs are private information. A widely used mechanism to find the least costly supplier under asymmetric information is to use a sealed-bid reverse auction. We compare the combinations of different simple auction formats (first- and second-price) and risk sharing supply contracts (push and pull) under full contract compliance, both for risk-neutral and risk-averse retailer and suppliers. We show the superiority of a first-price push auction for a risk-neutral retailer. However, only the pull contracts lead to supply chain coordination. If the retailer is sufficiently risk-averse, the pull is preferred over the push contract. If suppliers are risk-averse, the first-price push auction remains the choice for the retailer. Numerical examples illustrate the allocation of benefits between the retailer and the (winning) supplier for different number of bidders, demand uncertainty, cost uncertainty, and degree of risk-aversion.     

Pricing and volume discounting for a dominant retailer with uncertain manufacturing cost information

A product costs the manufacturer c/unit to produce; the retailer sells it at p/unit to the consumers. The retail-market demand volume V varies with p according to a given demand curve D_p. How would or should the “players” (i.e., the manufacturer and the retailer) set their prices? In contrast to many studies that assume a dominant manufacturer implementing the “manufacturer-Stackelberg” (“[mS]”) game, this paper examines how a dominant retailer should operate when his knowledge of c is imperfect. We first derive optimal decisions (some of them counter-intuitive) for the dominant retailer when he is restricted to choosing between [rS] (retailer-Stackelberg) and [mS]. Second, we propose a “reverse quantity discount” scheme that the dominant retailer (i.e., the downstream player) can offer to the manufacturer (note that the standard discount scheme is offered by the upstream player). We show that this discounting scheme is quite effective compared to the considerably more complicated though nevertheless theoretically optimal “menu of contracts.” We also reveal a largely overlooked function of discounting; i.e., discounting enables an “ignorant” but dominant player to usurp the earnings attributable to the knowledge of the dominated player. Finally, we also show that discounting works well when the demand curve is linear, but becomes ineffective when the demand curve is iso-elastic – a result echoing the conclusions of some earlier related works.     

Preferences for contractual forms in supply chains

The supply chain contracting literature has focused on incentive contracts designed to align supply chain members’ individual interests. A key finding of this literature is that members’ preferences for contractual forms are often at odds: the upstream supplier prefers relatively complex contracts that can coordinate the supply chain; however, the downstream retailer prefers a wholesale price-only contract because it leaves more surplus (than does a coordinating contract), which the retailer can capture. This paper addresses the following question: Under what circumstances do suppliers and retailers prefer the same contractual form? We study supply chain members’ preferences for contractual forms under three different competitive settings in which multiple supply chains compete to sell substitutable products in the same market. Our analysis suggests that both upstream and downstream sides of the supply chain may prefer the same “quantity discount” contract, which would eliminate the conflicts of interest that otherwise typify contracting situations. More interesting still is that both sides may also prefer the wholesale price-only contract; this finding provides a theoretical explanation for why that inefficient (but simple) contract is widely adopted in supply chain transactions.     

Consignment contracting: Who should control inventory in the supply chain?

Consignment is a popular form of business arrangement where supplier retains ownership of the inventory and gets paid from the retailer based on actual units sold. The popularity of such an arrangement has come with some continued debates on who should control the supply chain inventory, the supplier or retailer. This paper aims at shedding light on these debated issues. We consider a single period supply chain model where a supplier contracts with a retailer. Market demand for the product is price-sensitive and uncertain. The supplier decides his consignment price charged to the retailer for each unit sold, and the retailer then chooses her retail price for selling the product. We study and compare two different consignment arrangements: The first allows the retailer to choose the supply chain inventory, together with her retail price, and is labeled as a Retailer Managed Consignment Inventory (RMCI) program; and the second calls for the supplier to decide the inventory, together with his consignment price, and is labeled as a Vendor Managed Consignment Inventory (VMCI) program. We show that with an RMCI program, the supply chain loses at least 26.4% of its first-best (expected) profit, while with VMCI, it loses just or no more than 26.4% of the first-best profit. Second, we demonstrate that both programs lead to an equal split of the corresponding channel profit between the supplier and the retailer. These results indicate that it is beneficial both to the supplier and to the retailer when delegating the inventory decision to the supplier rather than to the retailer in the channel.     

Manufacturer's pricing strategy and return policy for a single-period commodity

This paper presents a model for designing the pricing and return-credit strategy for a monopolistic manufacturer of single-period commodities. That is, given the unit manufacturing cost and the unit retail sale price, the manufacturer determines: (i) the unit price C to be charged against the retailer; and (ii) the unit credit V to be given to the retailer for units returned. While the manufacturer is allowed to set C and V, the order quantity Q is set by the retailer in response to the manufacturer's C and V. Among the unexpected findings derived from our model are: (i) unless an external force supports the retailer, otherwise the manufacturer can usually design a (C,V)-scheme that gives himself the lion's share of the profit; (ii) depending on the risk attitudes of the manufacturer and the retailer, the optimal return policy can range from “no returns allowed” to “unlimited returns with full credit”; (iii) instead of losing his profit share to the retailer, a return-credits agreement can often be manipulated by a shrewd manufacturer to increase his profit.     

Selling to the “Newsvendor” with a forecast update: Analysis of a dual purchase contract

We consider a supply chain in which a manufacturer sells to a procure-to-stock retailer facing a newsvendor problem with a forecast update. Under a wholesale price contract, the retailer waits as long as she can and optimally places her order after observing the forecast update. We show that the retailer’s wait-and-decide strategy, induced by the wholesale price contract, hinders the manufacturer’s ability to (1) set the wholesale price and maximize his profit, (2) hedge against excess inventory risk, and (3) reduce his profit uncertainty. To mitigate the adverse effect of wholesale price contract, we propose the dual purchase contract, through which the manufacturer provides a discount for orders placed before the forecast update. We characterize how and when a dual purchase contract creates strict Pareto improvement over a wholesale price contract. To do so, we establish the retailer’s optimal ordering policy and the manufacturer’s optimal pricing and production policies. We show how the dual purchase contract reduces profit variability and how it can be used as a risk hedging tool for a risk averse manufacturer. Through a numerical study, we provide additional managerial insights and show, for example, that market uncertainty is a key factor that defines when the dual purchase contract provides strict Pareto improvement over the wholesale price contract.     

On contracts for VMI program with continuous review (r, Q) policy

Based on continuous review (r, Q) policy, this paper deals with contracts for vendor managed inventory (VMI) program in a system comprising a single vendor and a single retailer. Two business scenarios that are popular in VMI program are “vendor with ownership” and “retailer with ownership”. Taking the system performance in centralized control as benchmark, we define a contract “perfect” if the contract can enable the system to be coordinated and can guarantee the program to be trusted. A revenue sharing contract is designed for vendor with ownership, and a franchising contract is designed for retailer with ownership. Without consideration of order policy and related costs at the vendor site, it is shown that one contract can perform satisfactorily and the other one is a perfect contract. With consideration of order policy and related costs at the vendor site, it is shown that one contract can perform satisfactorily and the performance of the other one depends on system parameters.     

Pricing and effort investment for a newsvendor-type product

We investigate a dominant retailer’s optimal joint strategy of pricing and timing of effort investment and analyze how it influences the decision of the manufacturer, the total supply chain profit, and the consumers’ payoff. We consider two pricing schemes of the retailer, namely, dollar markup and percentage markup, and two effort-investment sequences, namely, ex-ante and ex-post. A combination of four cases is analyzed. Our results show that: (1) under the same effort-decision sequence, a percentage-markup pricing scheme leads to higher expected profit for the retailer and the whole supply chain, but a lower expected profit for the manufacturer and a higher retail price for the consumers; (2) under the same markup-pricing strategy, the dominant retailer always prefers to postpone her effort decision until the manufacturer makes a commitment to wholesale price, since it can result in a Pareto-improvement for all the supply chain members. That is, the retailer’s and manufacturer’s expected profits are higher and the consumers pay a lower retail price; and (3) among the four joint strategies, the dominant retailer always prefers the joint strategy of percentage-markup plus ex-post effort decision. However, the dominated manufacturer always prefers the joint strategy of dollar-markup plus ex-post effort decision, which is also beneficial to the end consumers.     

Long-term and penalty contracts in a two-stage supply chain with stochastic demand

Recent applications of game-theoretic analysis to supply chain efficiency have focused on constructs between a buyer (the retailer or manufacturer) and a seller (the supplier) in successive stages of a supply chain. If demand for the final product is stochastic then the supplier has an incentive to keep its capacity relatively low to avoid creating unneeded capacity. The manufacturer, on the other hand, prefers the supplier’s capacity to be high to ensure that the final demand is satisfied. The manufacturer therefore constructs a contract to induce the supplier to increase its production capacity. Most research examines contracting when final demand is realized after the manufacturer places its order to the supplier. However, if final demand is realized before the manufacturer places its order to the supplier, these types of contracts can be ineffective. This paper examines two contracts under the latter timing scenario: long-term contracts in which the business relationship is repeated, and penalty contracts in which the supplier is penalized for too little capacity. Results indicate long-term contracts increase the profit potential of the supply chain. Furthermore, the penalty contracts can ensure that the supplier chooses a capacity level such that the full profit potential is achieved.     

外包策略下的三级供应链系统协调问题研究

由于存在着激烈的商业竞争,供需匹配成为供应链追求高绩效的关键.本文在制造商采取产能外包的策略下,引入二次采购契约研究制造商和销售商之间的契约订货问题.研究表明:1)供应链上存在一个核心企业来主导供应链契约的制定;2)本文设计的二次采购契约机制对分散式供应链的协调是有效的;3)制造商通过产能外包解决由于销售商的二次采购造成的缺货,可以使其更好地满足销售商的产品需求,进而提高供应链整体收益.最后,通过算例对研究结果作进一步说明.     

Quantity discounts based on the previous order in a two-period inventory model with demand uncertainty

We examine quantity discount contracts between a manufacturer and a retailer in a stochastic, two-period inventory model. The retailer places an order in each of the two periods to meet stochastic demands. The manufacturer gives the retailer a price discount on purchases in the second period in excess of the first-period order quantity (incremental QDP) or a price discount for all units ordered in the second period if the retailer orders more in the second period than in the first period (all-units QDP). We show that the retailer's optimal ordering decision in the second period depends on the sum of initial inventory and previous order quantity. Our computational study suggests that the QDP contract induces the retailer to buy more in the second period but less in the first period, while the increase of the total order quantity may not be significant; and that it increases the manufacturer's profit only when the wholesale margin is large relative to the retail margin.     

Consignment contracts with retail competition

Consignment contracts have been widely employed in many industries. Under such contracts, items are sold at a retailer’s but the supplier retains the full ownership of the inventory until purchased by consumers; the supplier collects payment from the retailer based on actual units sold. We investigate how competition among retailers influences the supply chain decisions and profits under different consignment arrangements, namely a consignment price contract and a consignment contract with revenue share. First, we investigate how these two consignment contracts and a price only contract compare from the perspective of each supply chain partner. We find that the retailers benefit more from a consignment price contract than from a consignment contract with revenue share or a price only contract, regardless of the level of retailer differentiation. The supplier’s most beneficial contact, however, critically depends upon the level of retailer differentiation: a consignment contract with revenue share is preferable for the supplier if retailer differentiation is strong; otherwise a consignment price contract is preferable. Second, we study how retailer differentiation affects the profits of all supply chain partners. We find that less retailer differentiation improves the supplier’s profit for both types of consignment contract. Moreover, less retailer differentiation improves profits of the retailers in a consignment price contract, but not necessarily in a consignment contract with revenue share.     

基于期望损失厌恶的供应链期权契约协调研究

以一个损失厌恶销售商与一个损失中性供应商组成的两级供应链为背景,利用期望损失厌恶理论对销售商在期权契约下的最优采购策略进行了研究,并证明了期望损失厌恶理论能有效克服传统基于前景理论的研究中因参考点外生且固定假设带来的弊端。在此基础上,进一步给出了供销双方在期权契约下实现协调共赢的条件,分析了销售商损失厌恶程度,期权契约价格等参数对供应链协调共赢机制的影响。结果显示：销售商的损失厌恶偏好并不会改变权利金分配整体供应链利润的作用,但会增强销售商分享收益的能力,改变供销双方利润或效用水平对权利金,产品销售价格和生产成本的敏感程度,且较高的损失厌恶偏好还会阻碍供销双方协调共赢目标的达成。     

Markdown money contracts for perishable goods with clearance pricing

It is common in practice that retailers liquidate unsold perishable goods via clearance pricing. Markdown money is frequently used between manufacturers and retailers in such a supply chain setting. It is a form of rebate from a manufacturer to subsidize a retailer’s clearance pricing after the regular season. Two forms of markdown money are percent markdown money, in which the markdown money is limited to only a certain percentage of the retail price markdown, and quantity markdown money, which is essentially a buyback contract or returns policy with a rebate credit paid to the retailer for each unsold unit after the regular season. We show both forms of markdown money contracts can coordinate the supply chain and we discuss their strengths and limitations.     

The impact of consumer returns policies on consignment contracts with inventory control

We consider a consignment contract with consumer non-defective returns behavior. In our model, an upstream vendor contracts with a downstream retailer. The vendor decides his consignment price charged to the retailer for each unit sold and his refund price for each returned item, and then the retailer sets her retail price for selling the product. The vendor gets paid based on net sold units and salvages unsold units as well as returned items in a secondary market. Under the framework, we study and compare two different consignment arrangements: the retailer/vendor manages consignment inventory (RMCI/VMCI) programs. To study the impact of return policy, we discuss a consignment contract without return policy as a benchmark. We show that whether or not the vendor offers a return policy, it is always beneficial for the channel to delegate the inventory decision to the vendor. We find that the vendor’s return policy depends crucially on the salvage value of returns. If the product has no salvage value, the vendor’s optimal decision is not to offer a return policy; otherwise, the vendor can gain more profit by offering a return policy when the salvage value turns out to be positive.