主管:中国科学院
主办:中国优选法统筹法与经济数学研究会
   中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院

中国管理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (7): 277-289.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2023.1310

• • 上一篇    

考虑定价权差异的直播渠道引入策略分析

魏莹, 徐楚翔, 杨锐思()   

  1. 暨南大学管理学院,广东 广州 510632
  • 收稿日期:2023-08-16 修回日期:2025-01-09 出版日期:2026-07-25 发布日期:2026-06-18
  • 通讯作者: 杨锐思 E-mail:778584249@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(72072073);广东省哲学社会科学规划2022年度重大基础理论研究专项项目(GD22ZDZGL03);广东省自然科学基金项目(2023A1515010630)

Pricing Authority and Channel Introduction in Live Streaming

Ying Wei, Chuxiang Xu, Ruisi Yang()   

  1. School of Management,Jinan University,Guangzhou 510632,China
  • Received:2023-08-16 Revised:2025-01-09 Online:2026-07-25 Published:2026-06-18
  • Contact: Ruisi Yang E-mail:778584249@qq.com

摘要:

考虑一个由品牌商及线上零售商组成的简单二级供应链,品牌商引入网络主播带货的直播渠道。由于品牌商和主播的市场地位存在差异,直播渠道的定价权归属有所不同。本文考虑主播主导定价和品牌商主导定价两种情形,深入探讨直播渠道定价权差异对供应链价格博弈与供应链成员利润的影响,以及直播渠道引入策略的可行区域。研究发现,掌控直播渠道的定价权对品牌商而言总是有利,对于主播而言则未必。主播掌控定价权情形下,批发价格和两个渠道的销售价格均低于品牌商掌控的情形。品牌商是否引入直播渠道取决于定价权、主播的坑位费和消费者观看直播的成本。特别地,当坑位费中等时,在品牌商掌控定价权情形下,品牌商会选择在直播观看成本较低时引入直播,以获取更大的需求量。而在主播掌控定价权情形下,由于品牌商失去了直播渠道的定价权,除了在直播观看成本较低时引入直播外,品牌商也可能在直播观看成本较高时引入直播,以降低传统渠道面临的渠道威胁。只有在直播观看成本较高时引入直播才对零售商有利。

关键词: 直播, 渠道引入, 定价权, 供应链

Abstract:

In recent years, the rapid advancement of internet technology has led to a surge in brand owners utilizing live streaming channels as a supplementary marketing avenue to traditional online retail. The real-time, interactive nature of live streaming allows consumers to access more detailed product information, thereby diminishing the uncertainty surrounding their perception of product value. However, consumers need to adjust their schedules to watch live streams at specific time slots, incurring potential hassle costs. Typically, brand owners collaborate with live streamers through a fixed payment and a commission rate based on sales revenue generated from the live streaming channel. In practice, the decision-making authority over live streaming channel pricing may vary depending on the market positions of the brand owner and the live streamer, with either party potentially wielding pricing power. The impact of live streaming channel price ownership on the introduction of live streaming channels and on operational performance under two scenarios is investigated: when the brand owner determines the live stream channel price and when the live streamer does. With a game-theoretic model, how the live streaming channel pricing ownership influences participants’ pricing decisions and their resulting profits within the online platform supply chain is analyzed. The feasible regions for introducing live streaming channels is discussed and the willingness of supply chain members to participate is assessed.The main findings are as follows. The brand owner always takes advantages from holding the pricing authority in the live streaming channel, but this is not the case for the live streamer. When the live streamer sets the live streaming channel price, the wholesale price and the selling prices in both channels are lower than in the scenario where the brand owner controls pricing. Whether a brand owner introduces a live streaming channel hinges on the pricing ownership, the fixed fee, and consumers’ hassle cost associated with live streaming viewing. Specifically, when the fixed fee is moderate, under the scenario where the brand owner holds pricing power, they choose to introduce a live streaming channel when the hassle cost is low. In contrast, under the scenario where the live streamer determines the channel price, the brand owner prefers to introduce live streaming when the hassle cost is either low or high. The latter occurs because, once the brand owner loses pricing power, the live streamer sets a lower selling price, intensifying competition between the live streaming channel and the traditional online retail channel, thereby reducing the brand owner’s profits from the traditional channel. To mitigate the channel threats posed by the live streaming channel, the brand owner introduces the new channel when the hassle costs are high in order to decrease channel conflicts with the retailer and the resulting profit from the traditional online channel. For the retailer, it benefit from the live streaming only when consumers’ hassle cost for live streaming viewing is high.Our study offers valuable managerial insights for practitioners. When live streamers and brand owners compete for pricing authority in live streaming channels, brand owners should strive to retain pricing ownership to balance profits across multiple channels. For live streamers, however, relinquishing pricing ownership to brand owners may be a more advantageous choice, particularly when the commission rate and the hassle cost are low. The results also provide guidance for brand owners in choosing live streaming time slots. When brand owners have control over the pricing in the live streaming channel, live streams should be conducted during peak hours when consumers hassle costs are low to boost live streaming channel demand. Conversely, when the live streamer holds pricing ownership, brand owners can schedule live streams during off-peak hours when consumers’ hassle costs are high.

Key words: live streaming, channel introduction, pricing ownership, supply chain

中图分类号: