Revenue and Cost Management for Remanufactured Products

This paper considers pricing and remanufacturing strategy of a firm that decides to offer both new and remanufactured versions of its product in the market and is concerned with demand cannibalization. We present a model of demand cannibalization and a behavioral study that estimates a key modeling parameter: a fraction of consumers who switch from new to remanufactured product. As we show, this fraction has an inverted‐U shape, and, thus, the underlying consumer behavior cannot be modeled using the standard methodologies that rely on consumers' willingness to pay (WTP). We find that by incorporating the inverted‐U‐shaped consumer behavior, the firm remanufactures under broader conditions, charges a much lower price, and typically remanufactures more units—leading to an increase of profits from remanufacturing by up to a factor of two as compared with making decisions based on the WTP only. Lastly, we find that the behavior of the low‐price market segment plays an important role because the firm reacts to it differently than the WTP‐based logic would suggest.     

Optimal Pricing of Two Successive‐Generation Products with Trade‐in Options under Uncertainty

To entice consumers to purchase both current and next generation products, many manufacturers and retailers offer trade‐in programs that allow buyers of the first generation product to trade‐in the product and purchase the new generation product at a lower price. By considering the interactions between “forward‐looking” consumers and a firm when a trade‐in program is offered, we analyze a two‐period dynamic game to determine the optimal prices of two successive‐generation products in equilibrium, and examine the conditions under which trade‐in programs are beneficial to the firm. Our model incorporates market heterogeneity (valuation of the first generation product varies among the consumer population), product uncertainty (the incremental value of the new product is uncertain before its introduction), and consumers' forward‐looking behavior (consumers take future product valuation and prices into consideration when making purchasing decisions). With the trade‐in option, we show that consumers are willing to pay a price that is higher than their valuations of the current product. Furthermore, trade‐in programs are more beneficial to the firm when: (i) the durability of the current product is high; (ii) the market heterogeneity is low; or (iii) the uncertainty level (or the expected incremental value) of the new product is high. Finally, when the incremental value of the new product is more uncertain, consumers are more willing to purchase the current product because of the “option” value of the trade‐in programs and thus trade‐in programs can be more beneficial to the firm in this case.     

Multi‐Product Quality Competition: Impact of Resource Constraints

We study a multi‐product firm with limited capacity where the products are vertically (quality) differentiated and the customer base is heterogeneous in their valuation of quality. While the demand structure creates opportunities through proliferation, the firm should avoid cannibalization between its own products. Moreover, the oligopolistic market structure puts competitive pressure and limits the firm's market share. On the other hand, the firm has limited resources that cause a supply‐side fight for adequate and profitable production. We explicitly characterize the conditions where each force dominates. Our focus is on understanding how capacity constraints and competition affect a firm's product‐mix decisions. We find that considering capacity constraints could significantly change traditional insights (that ignore capacity) related to product‐line design and the role of competition therein. In particular, we show that when the resources are limited, the firm should offer only the product that has the highest margin per unit capacity. We find that this product could be the diametrically opposite product suggested by the existing literature. In addition, we show that for intermediate capacity levels, whereas the margin per unit capacity effect dominates in a less competitive market, proliferation and cannibalization effects dominate in a more competitive market.     

Optimal Per‐Use Rentals and Sales of Durable Products and Their Distinct Roles in Price Discrimination

We consider a setting in which consumers experience distinct instances of need for a durable product at random intervals. Each instance of need is associated with a random utility and the consumers are differentiated according to the frequency with which they experience such instances of need. We use our model of consumer utility to characterize the firm's optimal strategy of whether to sell, rent, or do a combination of both in terms of the transaction costs and consumers' usage characteristics. We find that the two modes of operation serve different roles in allowing the firm to price discriminate. While sales allow the firm to discriminate among consumers of different usage frequencies, rentals allow it to discriminate according to consumers' realized valuations. Consequently, even when transaction costs are negligible, it is often optimal for the firm to simultaneously rent and sell its product. In addition, we find that although sales and rentals are substitutes and that the offering of sales weakly increases rental prices, it is possible that the introduction of rentals to a pure selling operation can either increase or decrease the optimal sales prices.     

Advance Selling by a Newsvendor Retailer

Retailers often face a newsvendor problem. Advance selling helps retailers to reduce demand uncertainty. Consumers, however, may prefer not to purchase in advance unless given a discount because they are uncertain about their valuation for the product in advance. It is then unclear whether or when advance selling to pass some uncertainty risk to consumers is optimal for the retailer. This paper examines the advance selling price and inventory decisions in a two‐period setting, where the first period is the advance selling period and the second is the selling (and consumption) period. We find that an advance selling strategy is not always optimal, but is contingent on parameters of the market (e.g., market potential and uncertainty) and the consumers (e.g., valuation, risk aversion, and heterogeneity). For example, we find that retailers should sell in advance if the consumers' expected valuation exceeds consumers' expected surplus when not buying early by a certain threshold. This threshold increases with the degree of risk aversion but decreases with stock out risk. If the degree of risk aversion varies across consumers, then a retailer should sell in advance if the probability for a consumer to spot buy is less than a critical fractile.     

The Potential for Cannibalization of New Products Sales by Remanufactured Products*

The potential for cannibalization of new product sales by remanufactured versions of the same product is a central issue in the continuing development of closed‐loop supply chains. Practitioners have no fact‐based information to guide practice at firms and academics have no studies available to use as the basis for assumptions in models. We address the cannibalization issue by using auctions to determine consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for both new and remanufactured products. The auctions also allow us to better understand the potential impact of offering new and remanufactured products at the same time, which provides us insights into the potential for new product cannibalization. Our results indicate that, for the consumer and commercial products auctioned, there is a clear difference in WTP) for new and remanufactured goods. For the consumer product, there is scant overlap in bidders between the new and remanufactured products, leading us to conclude that the risk of cannibalization in this case is minimal. For the commercial product, there is evidence of overlap in bidding behavior, exposing the potential for cannibalization.     

The Impact of Limited Supply on a Firm's Bundling Strategy

A firm's two‐product bundling decision is examined when the supply of one product is limited and consumer valuations are normally distSteckeributed. The firm can choose to sell products separately and/or through a bundle. We find that the impact of limited supply on a firm's bundling decision depends on the correlation between the consumer valuations of the two products as well as the symmetry level of the two products in terms of their attractiveness (how much they are valued by consumers). When the valuation correlation is high and the symmetry level of the two products is low, limited supply can drive bundling. When the valuation correlation is low or the symmetry level is high, limited supply can drive no bundling. When the attractiveness of both products are low or the valuation correlation is very high, limited supply has no impact on a firm's bundling decision: The firm should not bundle for all supply levels. This study offers a new driver for product bundling: the limited supply of a product. The existing bundling literature suggests that a firm should bundle symmetric products that have a low consumer valuation correlation, when bundling is driven by consumer valuation heterogeneity reduction. In contrast, when bundling is driven by limited supply, a firm should bundle asymmetric products with a high consumer valuation correlation. The benefit of supply‐driven bundling depends on the severity of supply limitation. When supply limitation is moderate, bundling creates value by expanding the market of the less attractive product. When supply limitation is severe, bundling enables a firm to extract a higher margin from the less attractive product.     

Capacity Investment and Product Line Decisions of a Multiproduct Leader and a Focus Strategy Entrant

In this article, I investigate the capacity investment cost conditions where a multiproduct market leader may respond to a focus strategy entrant by using different strategies such as changing the product mix, production volumes, quality levels, and/or by investing in more capacity. The products offered in the market are quality differentiated and customers are heterogeneous in their willingness to pay for quality. The capacity investment costs of the two firms (i.e., the leader and the entrant) may also be different. The classical Stackelberg model predicts that an incumbent does not change its position in response to entry. However, when heterogeneous customer base, product differentiation, and capacity costs are taken into consideration, I find that the leader with a low capacity cost may choose to expand its product line and increase its production. The leader with low capacity cost may introduce a product that it was holding back when the entrant has to bear the high‐capacity cost and cannibalization threat is relatively small. Nevertheless, the extent of production volume strategies reduces as the capacity cost increases for the leader. I also find that when the leader has the power to set the industry standards by deciding the quality levels, as a response to a high‐quality focused entrant, the leader increases both levels of quality and production of the low‐quality product. Moreover, when the capacity investment cost is high for both the entrant and the leader, I find that market prices may increase with entry.     

How Does Product Recovery Affect Quality Choice?

We study the impact of product recovery on a firm's product quality choice, where quality is defined as an observable performance measure that increases a consumer's valuation for the product. We consider three general forms of product recovery: (i) when product recovery reuses (after reprocessing) quality inducing components or material (e.g., remanufacturing), (ii) when product recovery does not reuse quality inducing components or material but it is overall profitable (e.g., cell phone recycling), and (iii) when product recovery is costly (but mandated by legislation, e.g., recycling of small appliances in the European Union). Using a stylized economic model, we show that the form of product recovery, recovery cost structure, and the presence of product take‐back legislation play an important role in quality choice. Generally speaking, product recovery increases the firm's quality choice, except for some instances of recovery form (ii). In addition, we find that product take‐back legislation can lead to higher quality choice as opposed to voluntary take‐back. We further demonstrate that both the firm and the consumers benefit from recovery form (ii), while both are worse off with recovery form (iii). However, environmental implications of the three recovery modes differ from their impact on consumer surplus and firm profit. While recovery forms (i) and (iii) reduce consumption and increase environmental benefits, the same is not true with recovery form (ii), which can increase consumption, potentially resulting in higher environmental impact.     

Product Positioning in a Two‐Dimensional Market Space

This paper examines the optimal product portfolio positioning for a monopolist firm in a market where consumers exhibit vertical differentiation for product performance and horizontal differentiation for product feature. Our key results are as follows: (i) Variable costs drive vertical differentiation. In the presence of significant volume‐dependent manufacturing costs, the optimal portfolio contains a mix of vertically and horizontally differentiated products and an increase in the variable cost makes adding vertically differentiated products relatively more profitable; if fixed volume‐independent design costs dominate, the portfolio exhibits solely horizontal differentiation. (ii) Horizontal differentiation is the main profit lever, and vertical differentiation brings only a marginal benefit; this is true even when most of the consumers exhibit low willingness to pay for performance, which is often used as an excuse to offer low‐end products. (iii) There are more low‐quality products than high‐quality ones, and market coverage increases when the willingness to pay for performance increases. In summary, the model shows how portfolio composition decisions depend on the product cost structure and the consumer preferences.     

Does the Entry of Third‐Party Remanufacturers Always Hurt Original Equipment Manufacturers?

Researchers and managers broadly agree that the entry of third‐party remanufacturers (TPRs) hurts original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) because of the cannibalization problem. Thus, OEMs should always try to deter the entry of TPRs. In this article, we present a contrasting view: Competing OEMs without remanufacturing capacities sometimes benefit from the entry of TPRs. The key feature of our model is that there exists a group of newness‐conscious consumers in the market who do not buy the remanufactured product regardless of the price, whereas a group of functionality‐oriented consumers (FOCs) may buy a remanufactured one at a low price. In a steady‐state‐period setting, we investigate how the number of TPRs affects the OEMs’ profits. We find that, from the perspective of two competing OEMs: (i) The entry of one or many TPRs may lead to a higher profit; (ii) The entry of many TPRs may be better than the entry of one TPR; and (iii) The impact of the entry of one or many TPRs may be reversed as FOCs’ willingness‐to‐pay for the remanufactured product increases.     

Optimal Policies for Selling New and Remanufactured Products

Because of environmental and economic reasons, an increasing number of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nowadays sell both new and remanufactured products. When both products are available, customers will buy the one that gives them a higher (and non‐negative) utility. Thus, if the firm does not price the products properly, then product cannibalization may arise and its revenue may be adversely impacted. In this paper, we study the pricing problem of a firm that sells both new and remanufactured products over a finite planning horizon. Customer demand processes for both new and remanufactured products are random and price‐sensitive, and product returns (also called cores) are random and remanufactured upon receipt. We characterize the optimal pricing and manufacturing policies that maximize the expected total discounted profit. If new products are made‐to‐order (MTO), we show that when the inventory level of remanufactured product increases, the optimal price of remanufactured product decreases while the price difference between new and remanufactured products increases; however, the optimal selling price of new product may increase or decrease. If new products are made to stock (MTS), then the optimal manufacturing policy is of a base‐stock policy with the base‐stock level decreasing in the remanufactured product inventory level. To understand the potential benefit in implementing an MTO system, we study the difference between the value functions of the MTO and MTS systems, and develop lower and upper bounds for it. Finally, we study several extensions of the base model and show that most of our results extend to those more general settings.     

Browse‐and‐Switch: Retail‐Online Competition under Value Uncertainty

Although online shopping is becoming popular, consumers who are unsure about whether to buy a product may find it advantageous to visit a brick‐and‐mortar retail store to first examine the product before purchasing it. But, after browsing at the store, consumers have the option of switching to an e‐tailer to purchase the item at a cheaper price rather than buying at the store. Recent business press refers to this browse‐and‐switch behavior as “showrooming,” and attributes to it the declining profits of brick‐and‐mortar retailers. To study the effect of the browse‐and‐switch option on retail and online pricing strategies and profits, we analyze a stylized economic model that incorporates uncertainty in consumers' valuation of the product, captures the heterogeneity among consumers in their inclination to purchase online, and permits product returns. We consider various equilibrium scenarios for different combinations of consumer shopping behaviors, characterize the parameter ranges for each scenario, and demonstrate that browse‐and‐switch behavior can indeed occur under equilibrium. Our analysis further shows that the option for consumers to browse‐and‐switch intensifies competition, reducing the profits for both firms.     

考虑参照依赖与产品展示的体验式商品定价与订购策略

消费者在购买体验式商品时面临着产品价值的不确定性，因而会产生参照依赖行为。本文研究了考虑消费者参照依赖行为的定价与订购问题，并分析了产品展示策略的影响。研究发现，给定产品满足率时，只有当消费者获得高价值的概率大于某个临界值时，参照依赖下的最优价格才会高于没有参照依赖下的最优价格，并且产品价值维度与产品价格维度的参照依赖对最优价格起着相反的作用。进一步给出了最优订购量满足的条件，并发现在一定条件下最优价格随着订购量的增大而增大。当企业采取产品展示策略之后，会产生两方面的效应，一是消费者数量减少，二是剩余消费者的保留价格增大，此时最优价格随着展示系数的增大而增大。最后，通过数值分析得到了更多的管理启示。     

How Costs and Heterogeneous Consumer Price Sensitivity Interact with Add‐On Pricing

Firms often cite cost savings as a reason why they charge separately for add‐ons. Firms also often face situations where consumers' price sensitivity is correlated with their valuation of add‐ons. While cost savings may directly translate into profit gains in some scenarios, this study examines the strategic implications of add‐on pricing and is the first to suggest that cost savings from add‐on pricing may in fact result in profit loss for firms when consumers are heterogeneous in price sensitivity. This is because add‐on pricing can trigger a revenue loss that exceeds any cost savings, thus leading to a negative net profit change for competing firms. Even if firms have the capability to pre‐commit to not adopting add‐on pricing, we show that competing firms can be locked in a prisoner's dilemma where all choose to adopt add‐on pricing and lose profits (as compared to none adopting add‐on pricing). We further show the possibility that the greater the cost of providing the add‐on (and the greater the cost savings generated from add‐on pricing), the worse this profit loss gets.     

Mass Customization and Guardrails: “You Can Not Be All Things to All People”

A mass customization strategy enables a firm to match its product designs to unique consumer tastes. In a classic horizontal product‐differentiation framework, a consumer's utility is a decreasing function of the distance between their ideal taste and the taste defined by the most closely aligned product the firm offers. A consumer thus considers the taste mismatch associated with their purchased product, but otherwise the positioning of the firm's product portfolio (or, “brand image”) is immaterial. In contrast, self‐congruency theory suggests that consumers assess how well both the purchased product and its overall brand image match with their ideal taste. Therefore, we incorporate within the consumer utility function both product‐specific and brand‐level components. Mass customization has the potential to improve taste alignment with regard to a specific purchased product, but at the risk of increasing brand dilution. Absent brand dilution concerns, a firm will optimally serve all consumers’ ideal tastes at a single price. In contrast, by endogenizing dilution costs within the consumer utility model, we prove that a mass‐customizing firm optimally uses differential pricing. Moreover, we show that the firm offers reduced prices to consumers with extreme tastes (to stimulate consumer “travel”), with a higher and fixed price being offered to those consumers having more central (mainstream) tastes. Given that a continuous spectrum of prices will likely not be practical in application, we also consider the more pragmatic approach of augmenting the uniformly priced mass customization range with preset (non‐customized) outlying designs, which serve customers at the taste extremes. We prove this practical approach performs close to optimal.     

Price Incentives and Coordination in a Two‐Product Decentralized Supply Chain

We investigate pricing incentives for competing retailers who distribute two variants of a manufacturer's product in a decentralized supply chain. Under a two‐dimensional Hotelling model, we derive decentralized retailers' prices for the products, and distortions in pricing when compared to centrally optimal prices. We show that price distortions decrease as consumers' travel cost between retailers increases, due to less intense competition. However, price distortions do not change monotonically in consumers' switching cost between products within stores. To fix decentralized retailers' price distortions, we construct a two‐part pricing contract that coordinates the supply chain. We show that the coordinating contract is Pareto‐improving and analyze increase in the supply chain profit under coordination.     

Product Positioning Using a Self‐Organizing Map and the Rings of Influence

In this article, we propose a new product positioning method based on the neural network methodology of a self‐organizing map. The method incorporates the concept of rings of influence, where a firm evaluates individual consumers and decides on the intensity to pursue a consumer, based on the probability that this consumer will purchase a competing product. The method has several advantages over earlier work. First, no limitations are imposed on the number of competing products and second, the method can position multiple products in multiple market segments. Using simulations, we compare the new product positioning method with a quasi‐Newton method and find that the new method always approaches the best solution obtained by the quasi‐Newton method. The quasi‐Newton method, however, is dependent on the initial positions of the new products, with the majority of cases ending in a local optimum. Furthermore, the computational time required by the quasi‐Newton method increases exponentially, while the time required by the new method is small and remains almost unchanged, when the number of new products positioned increases. We also compute the expected utility that a firm will provide consumers by offering its products. We show that as the intensity with which a firm pursues consumers increases, the new method results in near‐optimal solutions in terms of market share, but with higher expected utility provided to consumers when compared to that obtained by a quasi‐Newton method. Thus, the new method can serve as a managerial decision‐making tool to compare the short‐term market share objective with the long‐term expected utility that a firm will provide to consumers, when it positions its products and intensifies its effort to attract consumers away from competition.