TY - JOUR
T1 - Valuation and management of money-back guarantee options
AU - Heiman, Amir
AU - McWilliams, Bruce
AU - Zhao, Jinhua
AU - Zilberman, David
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - In this article, we model money-back guarantees (MBGs) as put options. This use of option theory provides retailers with a framework to optimize the price and the return option independently and under various market conditions. This separation of product price and option value enables retailers to offer an unbundled MBG policy, that is, to allow the customer to choose whether to purchase an MBG option with the product or to buy the product without the MBG but at a lower price. The option value of having an MBG is negatively correlated with the likelihood of product fit and with the opportunity to test the product before purchase, and positively correlated with price and contract duration. Simulation of our model reveals that when customers are highly heterogeneous in their product valuation and probability of need-fit, and if return costs are low, an unbundled MBG policy is optimal. When customers have high likelihood of fit or return costs are excessive, no MBG is the best policy. When customers have small variance in product valuation, but vary greatly in likelihood of product fit, the retailer may prefer to offer a bundled MBG contract, extracting consumer surplus by charging a price close to the valuation level.
AB - In this article, we model money-back guarantees (MBGs) as put options. This use of option theory provides retailers with a framework to optimize the price and the return option independently and under various market conditions. This separation of product price and option value enables retailers to offer an unbundled MBG policy, that is, to allow the customer to choose whether to purchase an MBG option with the product or to buy the product without the MBG but at a lower price. The option value of having an MBG is negatively correlated with the likelihood of product fit and with the opportunity to test the product before purchase, and positively correlated with price and contract duration. Simulation of our model reveals that when customers are highly heterogeneous in their product valuation and probability of need-fit, and if return costs are low, an unbundled MBG policy is optimal. When customers have high likelihood of fit or return costs are excessive, no MBG is the best policy. When customers have small variance in product valuation, but vary greatly in likelihood of product fit, the retailer may prefer to offer a bundled MBG contract, extracting consumer surplus by charging a price close to the valuation level.
KW - Consumer uncertainty
KW - Money-back guarantee
KW - Option value
KW - Product fit
KW - Return policy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036387684&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00065-9
DO - 10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00065-9
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:0036387684
SN - 0022-4359
VL - 78
SP - 193
EP - 205
JO - Journal of Retailing
JF - Journal of Retailing
IS - 3
ER -