{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021872863978127138, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.177215189873418, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Impact of Product Returns and Retailer's Service Investment on Manufacturer's Channel Strategies

We study the distribution channel decision of a manufacturer who considers whether to add an online channel (direct channel) to its brick-and-mortar retailer (indirect channel). The retailer faces the opportunity to invest in store assistance to help consumers choose products and thus reduce product returns. Special attention is given to the impact of product returns and retailer's store assistance investment on manufacturer's dual channel decision. We examine conditions under which the manufacturer uses dual channels and how various relevant factors affect its channel decision under two settings, depending on whether the retailer has its own online store or not. When the retailer does not have its online store, we find that (i) the addition of the direct channel raises the wholesale price; (ii) the direct channel addition hurts the retailer if the nonreplacement rate is low; (iii) the manufacturer has a lower incentive to add the direct channel when the retailer's service cost is lower or its returns reduction rate from service investment is higher; and (iv) the manufacturer should treat its own returns handling cost as a key factor in its channel structure decision. In addition, when the retailer operates an online store, we find that the manufacturer may have an incentive to add a direct channel such that both firms own direct channels.