4.6 Article

Impact of online information on the pricing and profits of firms with different levels of brand reputation

期刊

INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2023.103882

关键词

Brand reputation; Pricing; Sales volume; Ratings; Herding effect; Price effect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of online information on brand reputation and brand premium in the online market. The findings suggest that the presence of online information may change the situation of brand premium, and firms with lower reputation can potentially earn higher profits under certain conditions. Additionally, as the gap in brand reputation increases, the profits of both firms may also increase, leading to a win-win situation in brand competition.
A high brand reputation is usually associated with a brand premium and high profit. Does it still hold in the online market with rich information? How do the sales volume information and ratings information change the influence of the existing brand reputation? This study investigates a two-period pricing model of duopoly firms with different levels of brand reputation (high vs. low) in the presence of online information. We examine the impact of online information on firms' optimal pricing and profits while considering the impact of brand reputation. Our analytical results find that in the presence of online information, the brand premium may be negative, and the firm with a lower brand reputation can earn higher profit under certain conditions. In addition, the profits of both firms may increase as the brand reputation gap increases, which implies a win-win situation in the brand competition. This study deepens our understanding of brand reputation in the context of online market, which is influenced by the herding effect and price effect of online information. The theoretical results provide guidelines for the design of online reputation systems, brand cooperation, and information disclosure.

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