Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Many companies are implementing trade-in programmes through multiple channels. This may ultimately lead to fiercer channel conflict and competition. Few studies have explored firms’ optimal trade-in policies in such an environment. To fill the gap, we build a theoretical model that captures the features of a dual-channel situation in which a manufacturer implements a trade-in programme through retail and direct channels simultaneously. Compared with the case in which there is no trade-in rebate, the results show that a trade-in programme can intensify or mitigate the double marginalisation effect if the retailer can initially decide the trade-in rebate in the retail channel. This significantly relies on market segmentation. However, when the retailer cannot decide the trade-in rebate in the retail channel, the trade-in programme aggravates the double marginalisation effect. Second, the trade-in rebate offered by the retailer may be higher than the subsidy offered by the manufacturer, as long as the retailer can autonomously decide the trade-in rebate in the retail channel. Furthermore, we find that both the manufacturer and retailer prefer to obtain the right to autonomously decide the trade-in rebate in the retail channel, but the supply chain prefers that the manufacturer do it. Some numerical examples are provided to further explain these outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: