Purpose This study aims to examine how network externality affects coordination in a fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) supply chain in which a supplier undertakes product innovation and a retail platform controls advertising and access. It evaluates stationary outcomes under unilateral and bilateral cost sharing within a commission-based platform channel. Design/methodology/approach An infinite-horizon differential game is developed with product quality and goodwill as state variables. Operational decisions are represented by interior stationary candidates implied by open-loop necessary conditions. In the cost-sharing scenarios, commission-indexed stationary response-based rules are derived by substituting the recipient's stationary effort response into the financing party's current-value Hamiltonian. The analysis compares stationary operating values, sharing-rate interiority, profit-rate differences, and numerical patterns. The case analysis illustrates how supplier product development and platform promotion jointly support goodwill formation and market expansion. Findings Within maintained existence and demand-interiority conditions, the centralized stationary candidate yields the highest research and development (R&D) effort, advertising effort, product quality, goodwill, and demand. Under the response-based rules, a low commission rate supports an interior supplier contribution to platform advertising, while an intermediate rate supports interior contributions to both advertising and R&D. Network externality magnifies demand effects arising from governance-induced goodwill differences. Across examined admissible ranges, member-level stationary-profit-rate differences increase with network externality. Originality/value This study integrates product-quality evolution, goodwill accumulation, consumer-side network externality, and commission-based platform governance within a dynamic framework. It separates advertising-side from R&D-side coordination and shows that bilateral sharing is not merely a stronger subsidy, but a distinct mechanism whose relevance depends on commission conditions and the source of goodwill formation across FMCG categories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: