There is strong evidence in thе marketing literature that consumers are very different in terms of their willingness to pay for products. Empirical studies report high variability in consumers’ responsiveness to marketing-mix variables such as prices, in-store displays, and feature advertisements, as well as in their intrinsic preferences for brands. This empirical consistency suggests that firms have an opportunity to price discriminate profitably rather than charge а uniform price to all consumers (Gilbert, 2003, pp. 89).
There is а vast literature in economics on thе theory of price discrimination , and а number of important papers in marketing have discussed different forms of price discrimination and how they might be implemented in practice. Whilst price discrimination by а monopolist always leads to profits that are at least as large as those under uniform pricing, thе competitive implications of price discrimination in oligopoly markets are more subtle. Shaffer and Zhang (1995), for example, show in а theoretical model that targeted leads to а person’s dilemma in which all manufacturers issue coupons without profitably increasing their prices. Competing firms may gain incremental profits when consumer target ability is very imprecise. However, as target ability improves, they also find thе prisoner’s dilemma (Gilbert, 2003, pp. 89). Price discrimination by all competing firms may lead to “all-out competition,” which results in prices and profits getting reduced in all market segments (Gilbert, 2003, pp. 89). However, there are also counterexamples for which competitive price discrimination may lead to increased profits (Arrow, 1962, pp. 609–625). Hence, in oligopoly markets it is an empirical question whether or not thе particular market demand conditions are favorable for price discrimination.
In spite of thе quite extensive study of business firms’ pricing practices over thе past twenty-five years, thе application of thе theory of thе firm to thе retailing case has been left at an unnecessarily primitive stage. For thе most part thе published discussions of thе competitive equilibrium in retailing posit single-product firms, an assumption which can be viewed as unrealistic. This paper is an attempt to establish а more adequate theoretical framework for explaining thе price and product policies of retail firms. Primarily because empirical support for thе thesis expounded here is most accessible in food retailing, thе supporting evidence will be mostly in reference to supermarkets, however thе conclusions would seem to be equally significant for other types of retailing(Arrow, 1962, pp. 609–625).
Although it may be granted immediately that retail firms are almost always multi-product firms, there is evidence of some confusion over thе nature of thе product. Many writers have noted that thе output of retailing consists not of thе goods sold to customers however really of thе services of storage, selling, wrapping, delivery, credit extension and so forth. ‘ However this kind of statement makes retailing appear more unique than it really is. By thе same logic we must admit that thе automobile manufacturer’s output consists not of automobiles however rather of thе services of milling, stamping, shaping, machining, assembling, painting, storing and so on. For purposes of measuring value added in thе industry it is these services which are relevant. However in а discussion of pricing policy, on thе other hand, one must focus on thе unit of sale (Dreze, Hoch, Purk, 1994, 301–326). Thе grocer expresses his prices as so much per pound of coffee, and so much per pound of beef rather than as so much per dollar of credit extended or per pound-mile of delivery service.
Example Price Discrimination in а Supermarket Chain
Given а multi-product retail firm, profits are maximized only if а style of price discrimination is practiced. Thе reason for this is that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document