4.6 Article

Strategic Analysis of the Agency Model for Digital Goods

期刊

PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 724-741

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/poms.12595

关键词

digital goods; channel coordination; e-book industry; agency pricing

资金

  1. Ray Greenly Scholarship by National Retail Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduction of digital goods in the media industry has gained a considerable amount of positive press due to superior features such as increased accessibility and portability. However, the distribution of these digital goods in conjunction with their physical analogs (i.e., printed books) has been operationally problematic for media supply chains. Specifically, the types of contracts utilized to distribute these goods such as agency models have come under fire in the press. A high profile case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Apple exemplifies this debate as the DOJ claims that the agency model utilized by Apple caused higher prices and decreased consumer surplus. We create and analyze a model of vertically differentiated goods to compare and contrast the agency model with the wholesale model. We ascertain that both (a) the revenue-sharing structure and (b) the upstream publisher's control over the price contribute to the benefits of the agency model. We consider a variation of this model which shows that if the retailer utilizes a fixed price model, then he suffers from a short-term loss in profit, possibly to garner additional market share. We also investigate an incentive alignment condition for the agency model which assures that the retailer and the publisher will together commit to selling digital goods alongside physical goods in the supply chain. Finally, we analyze an extension of the original model which incorporates horizontal differentiation in addition to vertical differentiation and shows that in most cases, the horizontal differentiation does not alter our original results that the agency model outperforms the wholesale model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据