Sales manipulation strategies of competitive firms on an e-commerce platform: Beneficial or harmful?

被引:2
作者
Zhang, Qing [1 ]
Li, Juan [1 ]
Xiao, Tiaojun [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ, Ctr Behav Decis & Control, Sch Management & Engn, Nanjing 210093, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
e-commerce platform; sales manipulation strategy; social influence; consumer behavior; game theory; REPUTATION; DECISIONS; IMPACT; FAKE;
D O I
10.1111/deci.12616
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Consumers are affected by the relative sizes of products' sales volumes, which is regarded as consumers' sales comparison behavior when purchasing online. Therefore, some firms manipulate their sales volumes to attract consumers. To shed light on firms' sales manipulation, we develop game theoretical models to investigate sales manipulation strategies for a high-quality firm and a low-quality firm on a platform. We identify conditions for firms' sales manipulation and investigate its impact on the platform. We find the following: (1) A small amount of sales manipulation volumes may harm each firm. (2) When only the high-quality (low-quality) firm manipulates its sales volume, the total market share shrinks (expands), and the profit of the low-quality (high-quality) firm is damaged. In this case, the platform can only benefit from the high-quality firm's sales manipulation. When both firms manipulate sales volumes, each firm aims to claim a higher sales volume than its competitor. (3) At equilibrium, when the unit sales manipulation cost is intermediate, only the high-quality firm manipulates its sales volume. When the unit sales manipulation cost is low, both firms manipulate sales volumes and consequently get trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma. In this case, the platform's profit cannot be improved. This study then incorporates considerations of consumers' sales comparison behavior, nonlinear cost structures for sales manipulation, firms' long-term vision, and sales manipulation strategy in competitive supply chains to reveal that most aforementioned results are qualitatively robust.
引用
收藏
页码:491 / 509
页数:19
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Agency Selling or Reselling? Channel Structures in Electronic Retailing
    Abhishek, Vibhanshu
    Jerath, Kinshuk
    Zhang, Z. John
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2016, 62 (08) : 2259 - 2280
  • [2] Location, Location, Location: An Analysis of Profitability of Position in Online Advertising Markets
    Agarwal, Ashish
    Hosanagar, Kartik
    Smith, Michael D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2011, 48 (06) : 1057 - 1073
  • [3] Word of Mouth, Observed Adoptions, and Anime-Watching Decisions: The Role of the Personal vs. the Community Network
    Ameri, Mina
    Honka, Elisabeth
    Xie, Ying
    [J]. MARKETING SCIENCE, 2019, 38 (04) : 567 - 583
  • [4] A SIMPLE-MODEL OF HERD BEHAVIOR
    BANERJEE, AV
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1992, 107 (03) : 797 - 817
  • [5] Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment
    Cai, Hongbin
    Chen, Yuyu
    Fang, Hanming
    [J]. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2009, 99 (03) : 864 - 882
  • [6] Platform Supported Supply Chain Operations in the Blockchain Era: Supply Contracting and Moral Hazards*
    Cai, Ya-Jun
    Choi, Tsan-Ming
    Zhang, Juzhi
    [J]. DECISION SCIENCES, 2021, 52 (04) : 866 - 892
  • [7] THE IMPACT OF BESTSELLER RANK ON DEMAND: EVIDENCE FROM THE APP MARKET
    Carare, Octavian
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2012, 53 (03) : 717 - 742
  • [8] Seeding the Herd: Pricing and Welfare Effects of Social Learning Manipulation
    Chen, Li
    Papanastasiou, Yiangos
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2021, 67 (11) : 6734 - 6750
  • [9] Offering return-freight insurance or not: Strategic analysis of an e-seller's decisions
    Chen, Zhongwei
    Fan, Zhi-Ping
    Zhao, Xuan
    [J]. OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2020, 103
  • [10] ON THEORY IN SUPPLY CHAIN UNCERTAINTY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION
    Flynn, Barbara B.
    Koufteros, Xenophon
    Lu, Guanyi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT, 2016, 52 (03) : 3 - 27