Manufacturer's Return Policies and Retail Competition
AbstractManufacturers' returns policies are a common feature in the distribution of many products. The obvious rationale for returns policies is insurance. Practitioners, not surprisingly, have a different perspective and view returns as a cost of doing business. In this paper, we study the strategic effect of returns policies on retail competition and highlight its profitability implications for a manufacturer. The setting for our research is the distribution of products with uncertain demand, limited shelf lives, and retail competition. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of when manufacturers should adopt returns policies. The insights are obtained with a model based on the economics of strategy and decision making under uncertainty. We show that when retailing is competitive and there is no uncertainty in demand, a returns policy subtly induces retailers to compete more intensely. The provision of a returns policy reduces retail prices without affecting wholesale prices, thereby reducing retailer margins and improving manufacturer profitability. The intuition is that with a returns policy, Cournot-like levels of retail stocks cannot be sustained. Each retailer will order stocks so that it will not be constrained by stocks, and so, intensifying retail competition. When, however, demand is uncertain and there is a single retailer, a returns policy encourages the retailer to over-stock, and so decreases (upstream) manufacturer profits. While the provision of a returns policy leads to lower retail margins, the optimality of returns policy depends on the overall uncertainty and marginal cost. A returns policy reduces the dispersion in retail prices between the high and low states of demand and the range of retail prices in the returns case is contained within the range of retail prices for the no-returns case. In the general setting, when there are competing retailers and demand is uncertain, there is a trade-off for the manufacturer between the benefits (more intense retail competition) and the costs (excessive stocking) of a returns policy. We find that a manufacturer should accept returns when the marginal production cost is sufficiently low and demand uncertainty is not too great. To validate the results of our theory, we conduct an empirical test with data from a major U.S. retailer. The tests confirm our prediction that a returns policy intensifies retail competition and reduces retailer margins. Our theory and empirical test should interest practitioners and researchers in distribution, especially those concerned with managing retail competition.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.
Volume (Year): 16 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
returns policies; retail competition; pricing; perishables; demand uncertainty;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Canan Savaskan, 2001. "Channel Choice and Coordination in a Remanufacturing Environment," Discussion Papers 1328, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Plambeck, Erica L. & Taylor, Terry A., 2004. "Implications of Renegotiation for Optimal Contract Flexibility and Investment," Research Papers 1889, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- Charles E. Hyde, 2001. "What Motivates Returns Policies?," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 821, The University of Melbourne.
- Steven A. Matthews & Nicola Persico, 2007.
"Information Acquisition and Refunds for Returns,"
PIER Working Paper Archive
07-021, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
- James D. Dana & Kathryn Spier, 2000. "Revenue Sharing, Demand Uncertainty, and Vertical Control of Competing Firms," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1511, Econometric Society.
- Wang, Yulan & Zipkin, Paul, 2009. "Agents' incentives under buy-back contracts in a two-stage supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 525-539, August.
- Canan Savaskan & Charles J. Corbett, 2001. "Contracting and Coordination in Closed-Loop Supply Chains," Discussion Papers 1327, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Granot, Daniel & Yin, Shuya, 2007. "On sequential commitment in the price-dependent newsvendor model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(2), pages 939-968, March.
- V. Padmanabhan & I.P.L. Png, 2004. "Returns Policies and Retail Price Competition," Industrial Organization 0401007, EconWPA.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.