Nearly a quarter of all products purchased in U.S. supermarkets and drug stores are store brands (SBs). Although the presence of SBs benefits both consumers and retailers, it is a threat to the dominance of the incumbent national brand manufacturers (NBMs). When considering the potential threat of an SB, an NBM generally pursues one of three strategies: accommodate, displace, or buffer. Under the accommodation strategy, the NBM repositions the products in his existing product line. Under the displacement strategy, the NBM elects to supply the SB to preempt the entry of the SB supplier. Under the buffering strategy, the NBM adds a defender product, which competes with his own product offering and the new SB. Using a game-theoretic model, we consider a market where consumers are heterogeneous in their valuation of product quality and analyze an NBM's response to an SB threat. We focus on two important drivers: the NBM's ability to differentiate on the quality dimensions and his cost advantage over the outside supplier of SB. To completely characterize the NBM's response, we consider two regimes. In the first regime, the NBM is a monopolist producer. In the second regime, the retailer has the added option of procuring an SB product from an independent, nonstrategic SB manufacturer. By comparing the results from both regimes, we develop a descriptive theory that clarifies the incentives of the NBM to accommodate, displace, or buffer. In doing this, we determine how the NBM's whole product portfolio should be designed, i.e., the positioning (quality levels) and prices of all its offerings.

Previous studies have shown that quantity commitment by all firms in an industry mitigates price competition. This paper shows that when firms have a choice, asymmetric outcomes can arise, with some firms choosing to commit to a quantity and other firms choosing not to. To study the commitment decision, we analyze a multistage game within a duopoly of differentiated firms à la Hotelling. In the first stage of the game, firms choose whether or not to commit to a quantity. In the second stage, each firm that chose to commit sets a quantity, which represents an upper bound on how much it can sell to consumers. In the third stage, both firms set prices strategically, regardless of whether or not they committed. In the final stage, demand is allocated as consumers maximize their utilities. Firm(s) that chose not to commit to a quantity in the first stage can fulfill any quantity that consumers demand at the equilibrium prices. We find that if product differentiation is sufficiently low, both firms choose to commit to a quantity in equilibrium. This symmetric equilibrium allows both firms to avoid the intense price competition associated with low product differentiation. If the level of differentiation is sufficiently high, the equilibrium in quantity commitment is asymmetric such that one firm chooses to commit and its competitor chooses not to commit. Under this equilibrium, a pricing equilibrium in pure strategies does not exist, only a pricing equilibrium in mixed strategies does, and the equilibrium prices can result in a committed firm not clearing the entire quantity it chose earlier. This paper was accepted by J. Miguel Villas-Boas, marketing.

Personalized prices affect fairness concerns, and firms have incentive to invest in technology that obfuscates prices and mitigates consumers’ fairness concerns.

No abstract