寄售與營收分享的合約方式目前普遍流行於電子商務網站中，亞馬遜(Amazon)和電子灣(eBay)的商業營運模式是個適當例子。然而，是否亞馬遜和電子灣的商業收費結構能夠使供應鏈通路達到協調呢？在電子商務的營運過程中，它是一個很重要的策略性問題，也是一個令人有趣之研究假設的議題。在此寄售與營收分享合約機制下，我們面對一個製造商和一位零售商的通路結構，採用Stackelberg之供應通路的決策制定模型。零售商是領導者，提供製造商一個營收分享的合約(收費結構)，指明零售商的分享比例(和上架費)，和製造商的相對營收分享部份。製造商(供應商)則選擇一個零售價格(和架位空間)做為反應決策。我們在集中型通路和面對分散型通路的合作與不合作的情況下，進行通路決策的均衡分析。 我們的研究顯示不合作的分散型通路利益的損失是顯著的，它也與製造商決定較高的零售價格，和零售商訂定較高的營收分享比例，呈現出一致相符的關係。特別地，通路利益損失的大小會隨著需求之價格彈性的增加而增加，但反而會隨著零售商之通路成本比值的增加而減少。換言之，若零售商之通路成本的比值愈小和(或)需求的價格彈性愈大時，合作的分散型通路將產生比不合作的分散型通路更多利益。除此之外，為了達到通路的完全協調，我們提出利用上架費的利益分享機制，以期在通路成員之中彼此致力於柏拉圖的改善。 Consignment-based revenue-sharing contract is prevalent in internet commerce, such as Amazon’s and eBay’s merchandising business models. Can Amazon’s or eBay’s fee structure coordinate the channel? It’s a critical strategic problem in e-commerce operations and an interesting research hypothesis as well. Under such a contract, we model the decision-making of a supply channel with one manufacturer and one retailer as a Stackelberg game. The retailer, acting as the leader, offers the manufacturer a revenue sharing contract (i.e., fee structure), which specifies the percentage allocation of revenue (and slotting allowance) between herself and the manufacturer. The manufacturer (vendor) chooses a retail price (and number of shelf space) as a response. We conduct equilibrium analysis for both the centralized and decentralized channel settings with and without cooperation. Our study reveals that the profit loss due to non-cooperative decentralization is significant, and it tends to have a consistent bias, i.e., setting higher retail price by the manufacturer and higher revenue-sharing percentage by the retailer. Notably, the loss is increasing in the price elasticity of demand and decreasing in the retailer’s cost-share. In other words, the cooperative decentralization will generate more profit than that of the non-cooperative if the retailer’s cost-share is small and/or the elasticity is high. In addition, a profit-sharing scheme through slotting allowance is proposed to achieve perfect coordination, which leads to Pareto improvements among channel participants.
