营销科学学报

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

考虑促销跨期效应下的新产品两周期定价促销策略

吕高燕 ;黄涛   

  1. 吕高燕,北京大学光华管理学院博士生,E-mail: lvgaoyan@pku.edu.cn
    黄涛,北京大学光华管理学院教授,E-mail: huangt@pku.edu.cn
  • 出版日期:2017-12-30 发布日期:2018-11-09

Cross-time sales influence on new product’s pricing strategy

Gaoyan Lyu,Tao Huang   

  1. Gaoyan Lyu,Guanghua School of Management, Peking University
    Tao Huang,Guanghua School of Management, Peking University
  • Online:2017-12-30 Published:2018-11-09

摘要:

本文源于对一个有趣的现象的观察和思考,由于跨期效应的存在,苹果公司以及圣罗兰公司第一期对新产品先促销后定价的决策与通用公司对雪佛兰SUV先定价后促销决策对新产品第二周期销售产生截然不同的影响。为深入探讨跨期效应以及决策顺序的影响,本文通过构建两周期供应链博弈模型,研究此促销跨期效应下新产品的分主体定价促销策略问题。依据各周期供应商和零售商的决策顺序本文分四种定价促销策略进行探讨:两周期均先供应商定价后零售商促销策略(C-C),两周期均先零售商促销后供应商定价策略(F-F),第一周期先定价后促销第二周期先促销后定价策略(C-F),第一周期先促销后定价第二周期先定价后促销策略(F-C)。同时,本文引入收益共享契约与促销成本分摊契约,研究结果表明:不论是供应商还是零售商,都不应该采用F-C策略。随着价格对需求的敏感度越来越高或者促销成本越来越高,供应商和零售商逐渐产生双方策略协同或策略冲突。当收益共享系数较小,促销成本分摊系数较大时,同时采用C-F策略对双方都有利;当收益共享系数较小,成本分摊系数较大时,同时采用C-C策略对双方都有利。

关键词: 新产品, 博弈论, 定价, 促销, 双周期决策

Abstract:

Cross-time sales influence makes an interesting phenomenon emerge in the market--promote first or pricing first in the first sale period for new product have different influence on the second period’s sales for Iphone7, YSL Lipstick and Chevrolet SUV. This paper analyzes this problem by building two periods supply chain game model. When they are going to launch a new product, the supplier determines retail price and the retailer makes sales effort. Meanwhile, sales effort in the first period has effect on the demand in the second period. This paper seeks to shed light on the impacts of different strategies on the profits of supplier and retailer considering the cross-time sales effort effect. We consider four strategies: pricing first in both of the two periods(C-C strategy), pricing first in the first period and promote first in the second period(C-F strategy), promote fist in the first period and pricing in the second period (F-C strategy), promote first in both of the two periods(F-F strategy). We introduce revenue sharing contract and sales cost sharing contract. Our results show that: 1) Either the supplier or retailer should not choose F-C strategy. 2) When price sensitivity or promotion cost is higher, these strategies coordinate or conflict between the supplier and the retailer. Particularly, when revenue sharing coefficient is smaller and cost allocation coefficient is bigger, it benefits both of the supplier and the retailer to choose C-F strategy; when revenue sharing coefficient is bigger and cost allocation coefficient is smaller, it benefits both of the supplier and the retailer to choose C-C strategy.

Key words: New product, Game theory, Pricing, Promotional effect