The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategic Analysis of the Agency Model for Digital Goods
Abstract
The introduction of digital goods in the media industry has gained a considerable amount of positive press due to superior features such as increased accessibility and portability. However, the distribution of these digital goods in conjunction with their physical analogs (i.e., printed books) has been operationally problematic for media supply chains. Specifically, the types of contracts utilized to distribute these goods such as agency models have come under fire in the press. A high profile case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Apple exemplifies this debate as the DOJ claims that the agency model utilized by Apple caused higher prices and decreased consumer surplus. We create and analyze a model of vertically differentiated goods to compare and contrast the agency model with the wholesale model. We ascertain that both (a) the revenue‐sharing structure and (b) the upstream publisher's control over the price contribute to the benefits of the agency model. We consider a variation of this model which shows that if the retailer utilizes a “fixed price” model, then he suffers from a short‐term loss in profit, possibly to garner additional market share. We also investigate an incentive alignment condition for the agency model which assures that the retailer and the publisher will together commit to selling digital goods alongside physical goods in the supply chain. Finally, we analyze an extension of the original model which incorporates horizontal differentiation in addition to vertical differentiation and shows that in most cases, the horizontal differentiation does not alter our original results that the agency model outperforms the wholesale model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.05 · Cited by 350
Platform Performance Investment in the Presence of Network Externalities
Anderson, E. G., Parker, G. G., & Tan, B. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0505 · Cited by 326
Cited by
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.05 · Cited by 350
How Add‐on Pricing Interacts with Distribution Contracts
Geng, X., Tan, Y. (., & Wei, L. (2018) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.12831 · Cited by 292
Self-citationZou, D., Gu, M., & Liu, D. (2024) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2024.114247 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Tan, Y. (., & Carrillo, J. E.
- Venue
- Production and Operations Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 724-741
- ISSN
- 1059-1478 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-5956
- OpenAlex
- W762620331
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 28.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strategic Analysis of the Agency Model for Digital Goods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/poms.12595
- The paper
- Tan, Y. (., & Carrillo, J. E. (2017). Strategic Analysis of the Agency Model for Digital Goods. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12595
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.