Anticompetitive Effects of a Dominant Retailer’s Guaranteed Profit Margin and Low-Price Contracts

A retailer can insist on a guaranteed margin contract with its supplier, wherein it requires a margin on each sale. In addition, it may want to have the lowest selling price in a market with competing retailers, and if this strategy of offering the lowest price reduces its margin, the supplier must pay up the difference. There has been recent debate on whether this approach leads to anticompetitive behavior with elevated retail prices, monopolistic market, or diminished market coverage. We analyze a game-theoretic model involving a supplier and two retailers where the focal retailer adopts either the guaranteed margin contract or the guaranteed margin contract with lowest price guarantee. We show that when product category competition is intense, the guaranteed margin contract is anticompetitive: The supplier forms an exclusive distribution with the focal retailer leading to higher prices and reduced product access in comparison with when they both adopt a wholesale price contract. However, if the intensity of competition is low, consumers benefit by paying lower prices with wider access as long as the supplier sets identical wholesale prices, but prices remain higher when they set differentiated wholesale prices. The guaranteed margin contract with lowest price guarantee, however, always leads to higher prices by dampening competition. As such, the ability of the focal retailer to choose the contract type and the intensity of product category competition leads to outcomes that can either benefit or hurt consumers. Our results help inform policy makers on the necessary interventions to alleviate anticompetitiveness. This paper was accepted by Jayashankar Swaminathan, operations management. Funding: A. Jain’s work on this research was supported by PSC-CUNY Award jointly funded by The Professional Staff Congress and The City University of New York. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.06332 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Management Science
Published
2025-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.06332
Primary Topic
Supply Chain and Inventory Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anticompetitive Effects of a Dominant Retailer’s Guaranteed Profit Margin and Low-Price Contracts

Haresh Gurnani, Leela Nageswaran, Aditya Jain
Management Science
Supply Chain and Inventory Management
article

Anticompetitive Effects of a Dominant Retailer’s Guaranteed Profit Margin and Low-Price Contracts

Haresh Gurnani, Leela Nageswaran, Aditya Jain
article en

Abstract

A retailer can insist on a guaranteed margin contract with its supplier, wherein it requires a margin on each sale. In addition, it may want to have the lowest selling price in a market with competing retailers, and if this strategy of offering the lowest price reduces its margin, the supplier must pay up the difference. There has been recent debate on whether this approach leads to anticompetitive behavior with elevated retail prices, monopolistic market, or diminished market coverage. We analyze a game-theoretic model involving a supplier and two retailers where the focal retailer adopts either the guaranteed margin contract or the guaranteed margin contract with lowest price guarantee. We show that when product category competition is intense, the guaranteed margin contract is anticompetitive: The supplier forms an exclusive distribution with the focal retailer leading to higher prices and reduced product access in comparison with when they both adopt a wholesale price contract. However, if the intensity of competition is low, consumers benefit by paying lower prices with wider access as long as the supplier sets identical wholesale prices, but prices remain higher when they set differentiated wholesale prices. The guaranteed margin contract with lowest price guarantee, however, always leads to higher prices by dampening competition. As such, the ability of the focal retailer to choose the contract type and the intensity of product category competition leads to outcomes that can either benefit or hurt consumers. Our results help inform policy makers on the necessary interventions to alleviate anticompetitiveness. This paper was accepted by Jayashankar Swaminathan, operations management. Funding: A. Jain’s work on this research was supported by PSC-CUNY Award jointly funded by The Professional Staff Congress and The City University of New York. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.06332 .

Management Science
City University of New York (US), University of Washington (US), Stony Brook University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Supply Chain and Inventory Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.