Explores the manufacturer’s choice between AI-generated and human livestreamers, highlighting preferences in a supply chain context.
Purpose This study focuses on the manufacturer's choice between human streamers and AI-generated streamers in an online-offline dual-channel supply chain under consumer disappointment aversion. Design/methodology/approach To address whether the adoption of AI-generated livestreamer is better for the manufacturer, we consider two scenarios: Human livestreamer sales (Scenario H) and AI-generated livestreamer sales (Scenario A). Consumer disappointment aversion is embedded in the utility specification, enabling us to derive demand and formulate a Stackelberg pricing game between the manufacturer and the retailer. A comparison of the equilibrium results across the two scenarios reveals how each supply chain member values human versus AI-generated livestreamers. Findings The manufacturer replaces the human livestreamer with the AI-generated one under conditions of (1) moderate consumer acceptance of AI-generated livestreamers and low disappointment aversion level or (2) high consumer acceptance of AI-generated livestreamers. Moreover, interestingly, the increase in the commission rate for the human livestreamer does not always result in the manufacturer preferring the AI-generated livestreamer, but rather impacts the manufacturer's preferences non-monotonically. Finally, six extensions indicate that the findings regarding the manufacturer's livestreamer selection remain robust under certain conditions. Originality/value This study is the first to integrate AI technology, consumer disappointment aversion, and a dual-channel structure into a unified framework to investigate supply chain pricing and livestreamer selection decisions. The findings offer theoretical guidance for dual-channel supply chain members in livestream commerce regarding product pricing, livestreamer choice, and managing consumer disappointment aversion behavior.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: