Probabilistic Selling for Vertically Differentiated Products with Salient Thinkers

References

• Azar OH (2014) Optimal strategy of multi-product retailers with relative thinking and reference prices. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 37(November):130–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodner R, Prelec D (1994) The centroid model of context-dependent choice. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2012) Salience theory of choice under risk. Quart. J. Econom. 127(3):1243–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Sailence and customer choice. J. Political Econom. 121(5):803–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2016) Competition for attention. Rev. Econom. Stud. 83(2):481–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chao Y, Liu L, Zhan D (2016) Vertical probabilistic selling under competition: The role of consumer anticipated regret. Working paper, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Turut Ö (2013) Context-dependent preferences and innovation strategy. Management Sci. 59(12):2747–2765.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Tomlin B, Wang Y (2013) Coproduct technologies: Product line design and process innovation. Management Sci. 59(12):2772–2789.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahremöller C, Fels M (2015) Product lines, product design, and limited attention. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 119(November):437–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S (2009) Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):315–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deneckere RJ, McAfee RP (1996) Damaged goods. J. Econom. Management Strategy 5(2):149–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drolet A, Simonson I, Tversky A (2000) Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Lett. 11(3):199–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fay S, Xie JH (2008) Probabilistic goods: A creative way of selling products and services. Marketing Sci. 27(4):674–690.Link, Google Scholar
• Fay S, Xie JH (2010) The economics of buyer uncertainty: Advance selling vs. probabilistic selling. Marketing Sci. 29(6):1040–1057.Link, Google Scholar
• Fay S, Xie JH (2015) Timing of product allocation: Using probabilistic selling to enhance inventory management. Management Sci. 61(2):474–484.Link, Google Scholar
• Fay S, Xie J, Feng C (2015) The effect of probabilistic selling on the optimal product mix. J. Retailing 91(3):451–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Rangel A (2011) Neuroeconomic foundations of economic choicerecent advances. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(4):3–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath TB, Chatterjee S (1995) Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analytic and experimental evidence. J. Consumer Res. 22(3):268–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedgcock WM, Rao RS, Chen HA (2016) Choosing to choose: The effects of decoys and prior choice on deferral. Management Sci. 62(10):2952–2976.Link, Google Scholar
• Herweg F, Müller D, Weinschenk P (2017a) Salience, competition, and decoy goods. Econom. Lett. 153(April):28–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herweg F, Müller D, Weinschenk P (2017b) Salience in markets. Technical report, Mimeo, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.Google Scholar
• Huang TL, Yu YM (2014) Sell probabilistic goods? A behavioral explanation for opaque selling. Marketing Sci. 33(5):743–759.Link, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inderst R, Obradovits M (2016) Competitive strategies when consumers are relative thinkers: Implications for pricing, promotions, and product choice. Working paper, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
• Jerath K, Netessine S, Veeraraghavan SK (2010) Revenue management with strategic customers: Last-minute selling and opaque selling. Management Sci. 56(3):430–448.Link, Google Scholar
• Jiang Y (2007) Price discrimination with opaque products. J. Revenue Pricing Management 6(2):118–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York).Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):262–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maskin E, Riley J (1984) Monopoly with incomplete information. RAND J. Econom. 15(2):171–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussa M, Rosen S (1978) Monopoly and product quality. J. Econom. Theory 18(2):301–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narasimhan C, Turut Ö (2013) Differentiate or imitate? The role of context-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. 32(3):393–410.Link, Google Scholar
• Orhun AY (2009) Optimal product line design when consumers exhibit choice set-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. 28(5):868–886.Link, Google Scholar
• Özer Ö, Zheng Y (2012) Behavioral issues in pricing management. Özer Ö, Phillips R, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management (Oxford University Press, New York), 415–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pan XA, Honhon D (2012) Assortment planning for vertically differentiated products. Production Oper. Management 21(2):253–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 16(2):158–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Joseph K, Subramaniam R (2015) Probabilistic selling in quality-differentiated markets. Management Sci. 61(8):1959–1977.Link, Google Scholar