T his research investigates the value of category captainship (a management practice in which a retailer relies on a manufacturer for recommendations regarding strategic category management decisions) in retail supply chains. We consider a setting where the scope of category management is limited to assortment decisions and demand enhancing activities. We assume that the retailer selects a category captain among multiple competing manufacturers with privately known capabilities for driving category traffic. First, we consider a benchmark scenario where the retailer is responsible for category management. Then, we consider the category captainship scenario where the retailer selects one of the manufacturers as a captain to manage the category. We find that captainship is more likely to emerge in categories where the cost of managing variety, the retail margins, and the competition for captainship are moderate and the captain is more capable of driving traffic compared to the retailer. In such categories the collaboration between the retailer and the captain ensures sufficient surplus for both parties. Finally, we show that captainship can also benefit the non-captain manufacturers.

W e consider a newsvendor who dynamically updates her forecast of the market demand over a finite planning horizon. The forecast evolves according to the martingale model of forecast evolution (MMFE). The newsvendor can place multiple orders with increasing ordering cost over time to satisfy demand that realizes at the end of the planning horizon. In this context, we explore the trade-off between improving demand forecast and increasing ordering cost. We show that the optimal ordering policy is a state-dependent base-stock policy and analytically characterize that the base-stock level depends on the information state in a linear (loglinear) fashion for additive (multiplicative) MMFE. We also study a benchmark model where the newsvendor is restricted to order only once. By comparing the multiordering and single-ordering models, we quantify the impact of the multiordering strategy on the newsvendor's expected profit and risk exposure.

S helf-space scarcity is a predominant aspect of the consumer goods industry. This paper analyzes its implications for category management. We consider a model where two competing manufacturers sell their differentiated products through a single retailer who determines the shelf space allocated to the category. The scope of category management is pricing. We consider two category management mechanisms: retailer category management (RCM), where the retailer determines product prices and category captainship (CC), where a manufacturer in the category determines them. Our analysis reveals that the retailer can use the form of category management and the category shelf space to control the intensity of competition between manufacturers to his benefit. We also show that the emergence of CC depends on the degree of product differentiation, the opportunity cost of shelf space, and the profit sharing arrangement in the alliance. The equilibrium category shelf space under CC may be higher than under RCM if the value to the retailer of eliminating double marginalization and putting price pressure on the non-captain manufacturer dominates the loss from sharing the profit with the category captain. CC has been criticized for disadvantaging non-captain manufacturers. While we provide some support for this claim, we also find that CC may benefit non-captain manufacturers when implemented by a powerful retailer in categories with sufficiently differentiated products, because the shelf space allocated to the category increases in this case.

Category captainship (CC) is a retailing practice wherein a retailer collaborates with one of the manufacturers in a product category (referred to as the captain) to develop and implement a category management strategy. Although CC has been studied using both theoretical models and surveys, empirical evidence on the benefits and drawbacks of CC is scarce. The authors use a unique data set collected during a CC implementation to empirically examine the impact of CC on the retailer, the captain, and the other manufacturers in the category. The authors find that both the retailer's private label and the captain benefit from CC because of pricing and assortment changes. They also find that some competing manufacturers benefit from CC while others suffer. Specifically, the manufacturers that closely compete with the captain benefit, whereas the manufacturers that are in close competition with the private label suffer because the retailer protects its private label. The authors show that category sales would have been higher if the retailer had not protected its private label. This study sheds light on how joint consideration of assortment and pricing, the presence of a private label, and product characteristics may influence the outcomes of CC implementations.

Retail assortment planning can have a tremendous impact on a retailer's bottom-line performance. Over the past years, retailers have increasingly relied on their leading manufacturers for recommendations regarding the assortment to be offered to the consumers in a particular category, a practice often referred to as category captainship. Our research investigates the consequences of using category captains for assortment selection decisions. We develop a game-theoretic model where multiple manufacturers sell their products to consumers through a single retailer. We compare a model where the retailer selects the assortment in the category with a model where the retailer relies on a category captain for assortment decisions in return for a target category profit. We show that category captainship can, in some circumstances, benefit not only the retailer and the category captain, but also the noncaptain manufacturers. Our results have implications regarding the implementation of category captainship practices.retail supply chains, category management, category captainship, assortment planning, game theory