Relationship Organization and Price Delegation: An Experimental Study

References

• Amaldoss W, Jain S (2005) Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. J. Marketing Res. 42(1):30–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, Jain S (2010) Reference groups and product line decisions: An experimental investigation of limited editions and product proliferation. Management Sci. 56(4):621–644.Link, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, Meyer R, Raju J, Rapoport A (2000) Collaborating to compete. Marketing Sci. 19(2):105–126.Link, Google Scholar
• Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):122–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besanko D, Dube JP, Gupta S (2003) Competitive price discrimination strategies in a vertical channel with aggregate data. Management Sci. 49(9):1121–1138.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhardwaj P (2001) Delegating pricing decisions. Marketing Sci. 20(2):143–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6):1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H, Ham SH, Lim N (2011) Designing multiperson tournaments with asymmetric contestants: An experimental study. Management Sci. 57(5):864–883.Link, Google Scholar
• Coughlan A, Sen SK (1989). Salesforce compensation: Theory and managerial implications. Marketing Sci. 8(4):324–332.Link, Google Scholar
• Cui TH, Raju JS, Zhang ZJ (2007) Fairness and channel coordination. Management Sci. 53(8):1303–1314.Link, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Eliashberg J, Huber J, Saini R (2005) Emotional bidders? An analytical and experimental examination of consumers' behavior in a priceline-like reverse auction. Management Sci. 51(3):352–364.Link, Google Scholar
• Dugar S (2010) Nonmonetary sanctions and rewards in an experimental coordination game. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 73(3):377–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gachter S, Kirchsteiger G (1997) Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental evidence. Econometrica 65(4):833–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Klein A, Schmidt KM (2007) Fairness and contract design. Econometrica 75(1):121–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frenzen H, Hansen A-K, Krafft M, Mantrala MK, Schmidt S (2010) Delegation of pricing authority to the sales force: An agency-theoretic perspective of its determinants and impact on performance. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 27(1):58–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen A-K, Joseph K, Krafft M (2008) Price delegation in sales organizations: An empirical investigation. Bus. Res. 1(1):94–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho T-H, Zhang J-J (2008) Designing price contracts for boundedly rational customers: Does the framing of the fixed fee matter? Management Sci. 54(4):686–700.Link, Google Scholar
• Joseph K (2001) On the optimality of delegating pricing authority to the sales force. J. Marketing 65(1):62–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalra A, Shi M, Srinivasan K (2003) Salesforce compensation scheme and consumer inferences. Marketing Sci. 49(5):655–672.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Lal R (1986) Delegating pricing responsibility to the salesforce. Marketing Sci. 5(2):159–168.Link, Google Scholar
• Lehmann D (2001) The impact of altruism and envy on competitor behavior and satisfaction. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 18(1–2):5–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim N (2010) Social loss aversion and optimal contest design. J. Marketing Res. 47(4):777–787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim N, Ho T-H (2007) Designing price contracts for boundedly rational customers: Does the number of blocks matter? Marketing Sci. 26(3):312–326.Link, Google Scholar
• McKelvey R, Palfrey T (1995) Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):6–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mishra BK, Prasad A (2004) Centralized pricing versus delegating pricing to the salesforce under information asymmetry. Marketing Sci. 23(1):21–27.Link, Google Scholar
• Mishra BK, Prasad A (2005) Delegating pricing decisions in competitive markets with symmetric and asymmetric information. Marketing Sci. 24(3):490–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Ridlon R, Shin J (2013) Favoring the winner or the loser in repeated contests. Marketing Sci. 32(5):768–785.Link, Google Scholar
• Simester D, Zhang J-J (2013) Why do salespeople spend so much time lobbying for low prices? Working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Srivastava J, Chakravarti D (2009) Channel negotiations with information asymmetries: Contingent influences of communication and trustworthiness reputations. J. Marketing Res. 46(4):557–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephenson PR, Cron WL, Frazier GL (1979) Delegating pricing authority to the sales force: The effects on sales and profit performance. J. Marketing 43(2):21–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vanberg C (2008) Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 76(6):1467–1480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weinberg CB (1975) An optimal commission plan for salesmen's control over price. Management Sci. 21(8):937–943.Link, Google Scholar