Retail Competition and the Dynamics of Demand for Tied Goods

References

• Ackerberg D. A new use of importance sampling to reduce computational burden in simulation estimation. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2009) 7(4):343–376Crossref, Google Scholar
• Assunção J. L., Meyer R. J. The rational effect of price promotions on sales and consumption. Management Sci. (1993) 39(5):517–535Link, Google Scholar
• Bell D. R., Lattin J. M. Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price format: Why “large basket” shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(1):66–88Link, Google Scholar
• Borenstein S., MacKie-Mason J. K., Netz J. S. Exercising market power in proprietary aftermarkets. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2000) 9(2):157–188Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg B. J., Kruger M. W., Mela C. F. The IRI marketing data set. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(4):745–748Link, Google Scholar
• Burstein M. L. The economics of tie-in sales. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1960) 42(1):68–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlton D. W., Waldman M., Collins W.Issues in Competition Law and Policy (2008) 1(ABA Press, Chicago) 1859–1880Google Scholar
• Desai P., Srinivasan K. Demand signaling under unobservable effort in franchising: Linear and nonlinear contracts. Management Sci. (1995) 41(10):1608–1623Link, Google Scholar
• Dubé J.-P., Hitsch G. J., Chintagunta P. Tipping and concentration in markets with indirect network effects. (2009a) . Working paper, University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
• Dubé J.-P., Hitsch G. J., Rossi P. E. Do switching costs make markets less competitive? J. Marketing Res. (2009b) 46(4):435–445Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Imai S., Keane M. A model of consumer brand and quantity choice dynamics under price uncertainty. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2003) 1(1):5–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gauri D., Sudhir K., Talukdar D. The temporal and spatial dimensions of price search: Insights from matching household survey and purchase data. J. Marketing Res. (2008) 45(2):226–240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gil R., Hartmann W. R. Empirical analysis of metering price discrimination: Evidence from concession sales at movie theaters. Marketing Sci. (2009) 28(6):1046–1062Link, Google Scholar
• Gordon B. R. A dynamic model of consumer replacement cycles in the PC processor industry. Marketing Sci. (2009) 28(5):846–867Link, Google Scholar
• Hall R. The inkjet aftermarket: An economic analysis. (1997) . Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Heckman J., Rosen S. Heterogeneity and state dependence. Studies in Labor Markets (1981) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 91–139Google Scholar
• Hendel I., Nevo A. Measuring the implications of sales and consumer inventory behavior. Econometrica (2006) 74(6):1637–1673Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyer G. Coordinating channels under price and nonprice competition. Marketing Sci. (1988) 17(4):338–355Link, Google Scholar
• Iyer G., Padmanabhan V., Chakravarty A., Eliashberg J. Contractual relationships and coordination in distribution channels. Managing Business Interfaces: Marketing, Engineering, and Manufacturing Perspectives (2003) (Kluwer Academic Press, Norwell, MA) 105–132Google Scholar
• Klein B. Market power in aftermarkets. Managerial Decision Econom. (1996) 17(2):143–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B., Murphy K. M. Vertical restraints as contract enforcement mechanisms. J. Law Econom. (1988) 31(2):265–297Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lafontaine F., Slade M. E., Buccirossi P. Exclusive contracts and vertical restraints: Empirical evidence and public policy. Handbook of Antitrust Economics (2008) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 391–414Google Scholar
• Lee R. Vertical integration and exclusivity in platform and two-sided markets. (2007) . Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Mathewson F., Winter R., Mathewson F., Stiglitz J. The economics of vertical restraints in distribution. New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure (1986) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 211–239Google Scholar
• Moorthy K. S. Managing channel profits: Comment. Marketing Sci. (1987) 6(4):375–379Link, Google Scholar
• Nair H., Chintagunta P., Dubé J.-P. Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2004) 2(1):23–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oi W. Y. A Disneyland dilemma: Two-part tariffs for a Mickey Mouse monopoly. Quart. J. Econom. (1971) 85(1):77–96Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roy R., Chintagunta P. K., Halder S. A framework for investigating habits, “the hand of the past,” and heterogeneity in dynamic brand choice. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(3):280–299Link, Google Scholar
• Rust J. Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zurcher. Econometrica (1987) 55(5):999–1033Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmalensee R. Monopolistic two-part pricing arrangements. Bell J. Econom. (1981) 12(2):445–466Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C. Aftermarkets and consumer welfare: Making sense of Kodak. Antitrust Law J. (1995) 63(2):483–511Google Scholar
• Sun B. Promotion effect on endogenous consumption. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):430–443Link, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas J. M. Product line design for a distribution channel. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(2):156–169Link, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas S.-B. Vertical relationships between manufacturers and retailers: Inference with limited data. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2007) 74(2):625–652Crossref, Google Scholar