Agency Selling or Reselling? Channel Structures in Electronic Retailing

Management Science - Tập 62 Số 8 - Trang 2259-2280 - 2016
Vibhanshu Abhishek1, Kinshuk Jerath2, Z. John Zhang3
1Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
2Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027
3The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104

Tóm tắt

In recent years, online retailers (also called e-tailers) have started allowing manufacturers direct access to their customers while charging a fee for providing this access, a format commonly referred to as agency selling. In this paper, we use a stylized theoretical model to answer a key question that e-tailers are facing: When should they use an agency selling format instead of using the more conventional reselling format? We find that agency selling is more efficient than reselling and leads to lower retail prices; however, the e-tailers end up giving control over retail prices to the manufacturer. Therefore, the reaction by the manufacturer, who makes electronic channel pricing decisions based on their impact on demand in the traditional channel (brick-and-mortar retailing), is an important factor for e-tailers to consider. We find that when sales in the electronic channel lead to a negative effect on demand in the traditional channel, e-tailers prefer agency selling, whereas when sales in the electronic channel lead to substantial stimulation of demand in the traditional channel, e-tailers prefer reselling. This preference is mediated by competition between e-tailers—as competition between them increases, e-tailers prefer to use agency selling. We also find that when e-tailers benefit from positive externalities from the sales of the focal product (such as additional profits from sales of associated products), retail prices may be lower under reselling than under agency selling, and the e-tailers prefer reselling under some conditions for which they would prefer agency selling without the positive externalities.

This paper was accepted by Chris Forman, information systems.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.7551/mitpress/2450.001.0001

Amazon, 2014, Amazon PR

Amazon Books Team, 2014, Kindle Forum

10.1287/mksc.17.3.181

10.2307/2555414

10.2307/2098466

Bonfils M, 2012, Search Engine Watch

10.1287/mnsc.1090.1062

10.1287/mnsc.1090.1122

Carr D, 2012, New York Times

10.1287/mnsc.49.1.1.12749

10.1287/mksc.10.4.271

10.1287/mnsc.35.2.226

10.1023/B:QMEC.0000017033.09155.12

Dixit AK, 1979, Amer. Econom. Rev., 69, 961

10.1287/mksc.1060.0239

10.1111/1467-6451.00159

10.1287/mnsc.2014.2042

10.3998/3336451.0013.101

10.1287/mksc.17.4.338

10.1509/jmkr.40.1.80.19134

10.1509/jmkr.47.4.748

10.1287/mksc.2.3.239

10.1287/mksc.1110.0656

Kwark Y, 2012, Thirty Third Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems, Orlando

Ludwig S, 2011, Venturebeat

10.2307/3003667

10.1023/A:1007774803225

10.1287/mksc.2.2.161

Meadows C, 2009, TeleRead

10.1287/mksc.7.4.335

10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.01.007

Palazzolo J, 2013, Wall Street Journal

10.1287/mksc.1040.0081

10.1287/mnsc.41.6.957

Rich M, 2009, New York Times

Sehgal V, 2014, Forrester Res.

10.4159/harvard.9780674433403

10.2307/2555525

10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.02.001

Tiwari A, 2014, DNAIndia

Trachtenberg J, 2009, Wall Street Journal

Yarow J, 2011, Business Insider

10.1287/mksc.1100.0586

10.1509/jmkr.37.3.292.18777