The Manufacturers’ Choice of Brand Policy under Successive Duopoly
We propose a non-cooperative game in order to emphasize the srategic rationale in shaping the distribution system. Compared with the received literature, we let manufacturers select which retailer(s) will market their respective brand. This, together with retailers possibly being multi-product dealers, enlarges the set of distribution systems. Whether manufacturers employ two retailers rather than one reflects the tradeoff between two conflicting efects, there is an output incease but more competition is established. High levels of product differentiation and not too large brand asymmetry are enough to incentive manufacturers introduce intra-band competition. However, the well-known exclusive dealing system shows up for little product differentiation and low brand asymmetry. It is worth emphasizing that, if any type of exclusivity relationship ever occurs, it is the equiibrium outcome of a non-cooperative game in which neither manufacturers nor retailers may impose any vertical clauses.
|Date of creation:||01 Jan 2002|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Place Montesquieu 3, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)|
Fax: +32 10473945
Web page: https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/immaq/ires
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Saggi, Kamal & Vettas, Nikolaos, 2002.
"On intrabrand and interbrand competition: The strategic role of fees and royalties,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 189-200, January.
- Saggi, Kamal & Vettas, Nikolaos, 1999. "On Intrabrand and Interbrand Competition: The Strategic Role of Fees and Royalties," CEPR Discussion Papers 2110, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Saggi, Kamal & Vettas, Nikolaos, 1999. "On Intrabrand and Interbrand Competition: The Strategic Role of Fees and Royalties," Working Papers 99-06, Duke University, Department of Economics.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1998. "Exclusive Dealing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 64-103, February.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, "undated". "Exclusive Dealing," Working Papers 96008, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1996. "Exclusive Dealing," NBER Working Papers 5666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bernheim, B.D., 1992. "Exclusive Dealing," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1622, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Rysman, Marc, 2001. "How many franchises in a market?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 519-542, March.
- Besanko, David & Perry, Martin K., 1994. "Exclusive dealing in a spatial model of retail competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 297-329, September.
- Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen & Lars Sørgard, 1999. "Exclusive versus Common Dealership," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 353-366, October.
- Gabrielsen, T. & Sorgard, L., 1999. "Exclusive Versus Common Dealership," Norway; Department of Economics, University of Bergen 200, Department of Economics, University of Bergen.
- Daniel P. O'Brien & Greg Shaffer, 1997. "Nonlinear Supply Contracts, Exclusive Dealing, and Equilibrium Market Foreclosure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 755-785, December.
- Lin, Y Joseph, 1990. "The Dampening-of-Competition Effect of Exclusive Dealing," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 209-223, December.
- Bonanno, Giacomo & Vickers, John, 1988. "Vertical Separation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 257-265, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)