Using the Lanchester model to describe the dynamics of the market where two firms compete for customers by advertising, we solve the problem of determining an optimal advertising strategy for maximum discounted profits. We develop both open- and closed-loop strategies and explain the relationship between them. Using a new mathematical approach, we prove that our closed-loop solution is a global Nash equilibrium. The closed-loop strategy is time-variant and depends linearly on the actual market share. The time-variant coefficient incorporates the discount factor, its computation requires the solution of a backward differential equation and a set of two nonlinear differential equations for an initial value problem. The closed-loop advertising expenditures are proportional to the open-loop advertising expenditures and to the square of the competitor's actual market share. This provides a very practical adaptive control rule that allows the manager to adjust the actual advertising expenditure and to deviate from budget. We illustrate the use of our control rule, using data for the period 1968--1984 of the Cola War Marketing implications of the results are provided.marketing, competitive strategy, Nash equilibrium, bilinear-quadratic differential game, noncooperative

In many business sectors such as airlines, hotels, trucking, and media advertising, customers' arrivals and willingness to pay are uncertain. Managers must decide whether to quote a price low enough to guarantee early sales, or to quote a higher price and risk that some units remain unsold. In allocating capacity, they face a trade-off between two types of potential losses; (1) —selling at a low price, and losing a better price later, and (2) —waiting in vain to sell at a high price, and losing the opportunity of an earlier low price offer. Yield loss means that consumers who value the product most do not get to use it, and spoilage loss means that valuable products are wasted because no consumers get to use them. Sellers typically hedge against the risk of spoilage loss by selling some units early at low prices, and against the risk of yield loss by blocking some units in hope of selling them later at a high price. In this paper we show that the use of overselling with opportunistic cancellations can increase expected profits and improve allocation efficiency. Under this strategy, the seller deliberately oversells capacity if high-paying consumers show up, even when capacity is already fully booked. The seller then cancels the sale to some low-paying customers while providing them with appropriate compensation. We derive a new rule to optimally allocate capacity to consumers when overselling is used, and show that overselling helps limit the potential yield and spoilage losses. Yield loss is reduced because the seller can capture more high-paying customers by compensating low-paying customers who give up their right to the product. Spoilage loss is reduced because the compensation decreases the price spread perceived by the seller, and as a result, the seller is less anxious to speculate and “block” units. Overselling with opportunistic cancellations assures that the product will be sold to consumers who value it most. This means that “everybody wins”, and resources are allocated more efficiently than in conventional selling.Overselling, Overbooking, Yield Management, Yield and Spoilage Losses, Capacity Management

Satisfaction Guaranteed is defined as a selling policy assuring that no consumer is worse off after purchase. The authors show that for a wide spectrum of guarantee policies, the most profitable policy is a Satisfaction Guaranteed policy. Setting a price equal to the willingness to pay of satisfied customers, but generously compensating dissatisfied customers for all costs involved, this policy can be a “creative device” to capture back-added economic value created for consumers through the guarantee. Comparing this policy with a no-guarantee policy, a Satisfaction Guaranteed policy comes with a higher price in a monopoly market and in a competitive market. Conditions under which selling with a Satisfaction Guaranteed policy is more profitable than selling without it are derived. Although this policy seems to be an attractive offer to consumers, the authors show that because of its high price, it may not. Easy-to-satisfy consumers are better off without the Satisfaction Guaranteed policy.

No abstract

We consider a manufacturer's dual distributions channels consisting on the one hand of a virtual (online) channel operated directly by a manufacturer and on the other hand of a real (offline) channel operated by an intermediate retailer. Customers are assumed heterogeneous in their virtual acceptance, deriving a surplus according to the channel they shop at. Assuming that customers' derived benefits are random with a known probability distribution, we obtain a probabilistic model, which is used to construct an inter-temporal model for shopping online. In addition, we suppose that the retailer uses a markup pricing strategy and has a strategic role. This results in a Stackleberg differential game where the manufacturer is leader and the retailer is a follower. The optimal policy shows that the manufacturer charges the same price across both channels. This finding is consistent with classical results in economics. However, our research goes beyond this observation and indicates that the online price, the retailer's markup and the probability to buy are affected by consumers' heterogeneity in a specific manner. Moreover, we show that while the retailer sets a price equal to the product value, the online price is lower and is equal to the product value less the guarantee provided by the manufacturer for the risk the customer take to buy online. This guarantee is not discriminating and is set to the risk of the customer with the lowest virtual acceptance. Finally, we show that the introduction of the online store is a win-win strategy; both the customers and the manufacturer are better off.