Effectiveness of coop advertising programs in competitive distribution channels. (English) Zbl 1165.90529

Summary: We propose a model of retail promotions for competitive distribution channels and investigate whether cooperative advertising programs are profitable for such channels. While previous studies showed that coop programs increase total channel profits in bilateral monopolies, no evidence of such a result has been provided for channels where competition is present at the manufacturing and the retailing levels. In this paper, we consider a distribution channel formed by two manufacturers and two retailers and propose a model that accounts for brand and store substitution effects generated by the retailer’s promotional efforts. The efficiency of the coop plan is investigated by comparing equilibria of four non-cooperative games; one where manufacturers do not offer any promotional support to the retailers, one where manufacturers do offer such a support and two scenarios where in turn only one manufacturer is offering such program. We show that when competition is introduced, coop ad programs may be dueto a prisonner’s dilemma situation for the manufacturers. The benefit for retailers and consumers is also assessed.


90B60 Marketing, advertising
91A12 Cooperative games
91B42 Consumer behavior, demand theory
Full Text: DOI


[1] Arnold C., Marketing News pp 4–
[2] Bergen M., Journal of Marketing Research pp 357–
[3] DOI: 10.2307/3149542 · doi:10.2307/3149542
[4] DOI: 10.1057/jors.1992.165 · doi:10.1057/jors.1992.165
[5] Brennan L., Sales and Marketing Management pp 65–
[6] DOI: 10.1287/mksc.14.4.343 · doi:10.1287/mksc.14.4.343
[7] DOI: 10.1057/jors.1996.141 · doi:10.1057/jors.1996.141
[8] Green J., Brandweek 41 pp 34–
[9] DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00327-1 · Zbl 0989.90083 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00327-1
[10] DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00024-X · doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00024-X
[11] DOI: 10.1023/A:1017547630113 · Zbl 0980.91006 · doi:10.1023/A:1017547630113
[12] DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00641-0 · Zbl 1137.90573 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00641-0
[13] DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1889(01)00072-0 · Zbl 1023.91035 · doi:10.1016/S0165-1889(01)00072-0
[14] DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.1.59 · doi:10.1287/mksc.18.1.59
[15] DOI: 10.1287/mksc.15.1.60 · doi:10.1287/mksc.15.1.60
[16] DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.36.3.276 · Zbl 0699.90065 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.3.276
[17] Serafin R., Advertising Age 61 pp 3–
[18] Teinowitz I., Advertising Age 63 pp 1–
[19] DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.44.7.896 · Zbl 0988.90530 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.7.896
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.