1- Introduction

2- Literature review

3- Model framework

4- Analysis

5- The effect of return policy on the value of information sharing

6- Conclusions

7- Managerial implications

References

Abstract

In this research, we consider a supplier-e-tailer supply chain where the e-tailer offers a full return policy (i.e., full refund) to its consumers and both the supplier and the e-tailer have their own information about the product demand of online selling. In this setting, we investigate what effective mechanism can be utilized to motivate the supplier and the e-tailer to share their information and also eliminate information distortion simultaneously, and how the e-tailer’s return policy impacts the value of information sharing. Our results show that when the two-part tariff mechanism is implemented, both the supplier and the e-tailer would share their information conditionally. As a result, both the supplier and the e-tailer have their motivations to distort the shared information. However, the cooperative wholesale price with profit sharing is an effective mechanism to be utilized to motivate the supplier and the e-tailer to share their information truthfully and create a win-win solution. Furthermore, our results show that comparing to the two-part tariff mechanism, the cooperative wholesale price mechanism has a competitive advantage to help both the supplier and the e-tailer achieve higher profits. In addition, our results also indicate that both the supplier and the e-tailer have stronger motivation to implement an information sharing arrangement when a full return policy is offered to consumers.

Introduction

Product return is an essential option in the post-purchase decisionmaking process of consumers. As online shopping becomes more commonplace, the return policy is a critical part of doing business in the market today. Unlike consumers who shop at brick-and-mortar stores, online consumers don’t have the chance to touch or physically inspect the product before buying it. As a result, consumers return online purchases for a variety of reasons. For example, sellers delivered the wrong product, the products turned out to be different from what was described, the product is defective or became damaged during shipping, the risk (e.g. performance risk, financial risk, and social risk) of keeping the product is perceived to be high, or the consumers change their minds after buying. Therefore, allowing consumers to return the products protects consumers who experience product misfit, wrong order, and other problems. Having a well-thought-out return policy is the key to attracting and keeping consumers and a lenient return policy potentially increases consumers’ willingness to purchase the products and thus leads to more product purchases (Zhang et al., 2017); this in turn creates a competitive advantage for firms. However, product returns also increase monetary costs for companies. According to Stock et al. (2006), the value of products consumers returned to e-tailers in the U.S. market exceeds $100 billion each year. Therefore, the return policy is a set of tradeoffs for a firm: A generous return policy helps improve sales revenue by motivating more consumers to purchase but also results in higher costs due to more product returns. As a result, a key question arises: Should an e-tailer offer a full return policy (i.e. full refund) to consumers and what are the important implications of this on supply chain management?

Although the digital transformation of knowledge production has put communication front and center in the production and recreation of academic fields, research on scientific communities still mostly promotes an actorcentric or institutionalist understanding of academic fields. This, we argue, points to the need for a digital transformation of our understanding of academic fields, one that does justice to the important role of communication in the production and recreation of academic fields. Therefore, in this paper, we draw on the “communicative constitution of organizations” (CCO) view to explore how academic fields are communicatively constituted. Our GABEK-based discourse analysis focuses on the communicative constitution of the academic field of corporate social responsibility. Our findings illustrate how academic fields are constituted through the enactment of three communicative practices: embedding, diverging, and converging. Furthermore, our results indicate how the communicative constitution of academic fields occurs through the sequential enactment of these practices. Our theoretical framework extends the literatures on scientific communities and CCO by beginning to develop a communication view of academic fields. These ideas also have implications for the digital transformation of social theory more generally.

Introduction

Ever since Kuhn’s (1970) canonical ideas on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scholars have been interested in how academic fields are organized as they produce and recreate social theory. Many of Kuhn’s concepts gained traction. For example, the notion of “paradigms” has become a well-established term for describing the dynamics of scientific knowledge produced by academic fields (Shepherd and Challenger, 2013). Similarly, although less well-known, the author’s writing on “scientific communities” has inspired many scholars to examine processes of organizing not just in and around organizations but academic fields. This practice has become particularly prevalent in management research. The widely observed fragmentation of this discipline (Durand et al., 2017; Hambrick, 2004; Whitley, 1984) has spurred thoughtful reflection on the organization of academic fields therein (e.g., Arend, 2016; Hambrick and Chen, 2008; Vogel, 2012). Much of the literature on the organization of academic fields is actor-centric in that it conceives of scientific communities literally as groups of scholars, mobilizing metaphors such as “tribes” (Becher and Trowler, 2001), “guilds” (Battilana et al., 2010), “chapels” (Courpasson et al., 2008), and “colleges” (Crane, 1972) to reflect the ideological character of these groups. This literature has been complemented by an institutionalist understanding of scientific communities, which foregrounds the legitimacy-building measures that are needed to establish academic fields (e.g., Biglan (1973); Bird et al. (2002); Hambrick and Chen (2008)). Although these approaches provide insightful descriptions and conceptualizations of scientific communities, they underplay an important post-Kuhnian idea: that scientific communities are constituted in and through communication (Vogel, 2012).

1- Introduction

2- Method and procedures

3- Results and discussion

4- General discussion

5- Conclusions

References

Abstract

This study examined a sample of 26 cases from 2001 to 2017, in which remote online internet audiences witnessed a disturbed person’s threat over a webcam to commit suicide. In almost all cases (92%) the would-be suicide went through with the threat. Baiting or jeering (encouraging the suicide attempt and/or denigrating the victim) occurred in 11 of 26 cases (42%). However assistance (attempts to discourage the suicide threat) also occurred in 88% of cases. This study of online baiting extends Mann’s (1981) archival study of crowd baiting in episodes of suicide threats from buildings and bridges. Analysis of accounts of the 26 online episodes in our study revealed consistent with Mann (1981) that larger internet audiences witnessing the suicide threat and also episodes of longer duration were more likely associated with suicide baiting. We also found audience baiting was associated with apparent drug use by the suicide threatener. Audience anonymity, victim stigmatization, and a belief the victim is “playing” the audience might contribute to online baiting behavior. The high lethality associated with online suicide threats (92% in our sample) reinforces the importance of professional intervention and rapid response in episodes of online suicide threats.

Introduction

Researchers have attempted to understand anti-social behaviors (e.g. trolling, cyberbullying, cybersuicide) associated with the internet (Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016; McDonald, Horstmann, Strom, & Pope, 2009; Phillips, 2015; Suler & Phillips, 1998; Willard, 2006). While some online forms of antisocial behaviour could simply be considered disruptive (Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016; Suler & Phillips, 1998), other behaviours are more serious for users and service providers (Sigala, 2017). The present study examines extreme cases of antisocial behaviour online, specifically the phenomenon of suicide baiting of a disturbed person by an online audience. Episodes of threatened and actual suicides have been broadcast in real time on webcams (Polder-Verkiel, 2012; Seko, 2016; Senft, 2008; Westerlund, Hadlaczky, & Wasserman, 2015). Rather than assist the victim (Polder-Verkiel, 2012), many of the witnesses to these online suicide attempts have actually jeered and denigrated the victim instead, encouraging them to perform the act (Polder-Verkiel, 2012; Seko, 2016). As incitement to suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. Pirkis, Neal, Dare, Blood, & Studdert, 2009) some witnesses have been sought by police, and most witnesses have subsequently deleted their contributions to discussion boards following the suicide baiting episode (Westerlund, Hadlaczky, & Wasserman, 2015). In other instances the hosts of such episodes have either taken down the website (Smith, 2010), or sought further protective options (Guynn, 2017). To better understand the phenomenon of online suicide threats and audience baiting and to begin consideration of preventative and protective measures the present paper analyses a sample of 26 cases for factors associated with and contributing to the online baiting phenomenon.

Abstract

Internet usage continues to explode across the world with digital becoming an increasingly important source of competitive advantage in both B2C and B2B marketing. A great deal of attention has been focused on the tremendous opportunities digital marketing presents, with little attention on the real challenges companies are facing going digital. In this study, we present these challenges based on results of a survey among a convenience sample of 777 marketing executives around the globe. The results reveal that filling “talent gaps”, adjusting the “organizational design”, and implementing “actionable metrics” are the biggest improvement opportunities for companies across sectors.

Introduction

Wharton Professor George Day identified the widening gap between the accelerating complexity of markets and the capacity of most marketing organizations to comprehend and cope with this complexity. Although the forces of market fragmentation and rapid change are everywhere, we believe that Internet usage is the main driver behind the widening gap (Day, 2011). The 1990s being the decade of e-commerce, the early part of the 21st century has become the era of social commerce (Fader & Winer, 2012). The role of ‘‘digital marketing’’ is confirmed in a study by IBM consisting of interviews with CMOs (IBM Institute for Business Value, 2011). These CMOs formulate the following four biggest challenges: (1) explosion of data (sometimes also called big data), (2) social media, (3) proliferation of channels, and (4) shifting consumer demographics.

Three of these four biggest challenges correspond to digital marketing developments. The Internet has become one of the most important marketplaces for transactions of goods and services. For example, online consumer spending in the United States surpassed USD 100 billion (already in 2007), and the growth rates of online demands for information goods, such as books, magazines, and software, are between 25% and 50% (Albuquerque, Pavlidis, Chatow, Chen, & Jamal, 2012). Other anecdotic evidence that stresses the importance of the Internet as a transaction channel comes from Amazon where on the peak day, November 26, 2012, customers ordered more than 26.5 million items worldwide across all product categories, which is a record-breaking 306 items per second (Cheredar, 2012; Clay, 2012). Digital music sales in 2011 exceeded physical sales in the United States for the first time in history (Fisch, 2010). Besides B2C and B2B markets, online C2C markets have emerged with considerable success. Examples are LuLu, eBay, and YouTube. The rise of online use for communication is also quite substantial from around 10% in 2008 to over 20% in 2013. Newspapers and magazines have lost share in this period (Marketing news, May 2013, p. 16).