Cited by 350Supply Chain and Inventory ManagementConsumer Market Behavior and PricingDigital Platforms and Economics

Platform or Wholesale? A Strategic Tool for Online Retailers to Benefit from Third-Party Information1

Kwark, Young, Chen, Jianqing, Raghunathan, Srinivasan·2017·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Online retailing is dominated by a channel structure in which a retailer either buys products from competing manufacturers and resells to consumers (wholesale scheme) or lets manufacturers sell directly to consumers on its platform for a commission (platform scheme). Easy access to publicly available third-party information such as product reviews that facilitate consumers’ purchase decisions is another distinctive and ubiquitous characteristic of online retailing. We show that retailers can use the upstream pricing scheme, wholesale or platform, as a strategic tool to benefit from third-party information. Information on the quality dimension homogenizes consumers’ perceived utility differences between competing products and increases the upstream competition, which benefits the wholesale-based retailer but hurts the platform-based retailer. Information on the fit dimension, in constrast, heterogenizes consumers’ estimated fits to the products and softens the upstream competition, which hurts the wholesale-based retailer but benefits the platform-based retailer. Consequently, when the precision of the third-party information is high (low), a retailer can benefit from third-party information by adopting the wholesale (platform) scheme if the quality dimension plays a dominant role and by adopting the platform (wholesale) scheme if the fit dimension is dominant. Furthermore, the effect of precision improvement on the retailer’s profit depends on the pricing-scheme choice and the relative importance of quality and fit attributes in consumers’ evaluations of products. For instance, when the fit dimension is dominant, increasing the precision can hurt the wholesale-based retailer but benefit the platform-based retailer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.05

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Retailers can use the upstream pricing scheme as a strategic tool to benefit from online product reviews.

    “Kwark et al. (2017) show that retailers can use the upstream pricing scheme as a strategic tool to benefit from online product reviews.”

    From Two-Sided Adverse Selection and Bilateral Reviews in Sharing Economy (2019) · cites this paper as Kwark et al. (2017)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2017-09-01
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
763-785
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W3123706299
Cited by
350
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
28.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
online retail, third-party information, product reviews, information precision, upstream competition, product quality, product fit, manufacturer-retailer relationships, purchase decision

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