据MS官网显示，来自重庆大学的郁培文、Haiyang He和雷蕾，合作撰写的论文“Pricing Durable Add-Ons: Selling vs. Leasing”，在国际管理学顶刊《Management Science 》线上正式发表。
Title: Pricing Durable Add-Ons: Selling vs. Leasing
耐用附加产品定价：销售与租赁对比
郁培文
重庆大学
Haiyang He
重庆大学
雷蕾
重庆大学
Many firms offer products that consist of a durable base good (e.g., a vehicle) and a durable add-on (e.g., autopilot software). Some lease the add-on, whereas others sell it through intertemporal price discrimination or bundled pricing. Motivated by these practices, we examine whether a monopolistic firm should lease or sell the add-on when offering both durables. The literature suggests that leasing is preferable for a single durable good as it avoids the time inconsistency problem associated with selling. However, because leasing lacks an intertemporal link, it is less efficient than selling in balancing surplus extraction across consumers, leading to what we call the intraperiod imbalance problem. When the firm sells the base good, this can resolve the time inconsistency of add-on selling but perpetuate the intraperiod imbalance of add-on leasing. Thus, selling the add-on can be more profitable than leasing it. When the firm can choose between selling or leasing the base good, selling both the base good and the add-on can be more profitable than leasing both.
许多公司提供的产品由耐用基础产品（如汽车）和耐用附加产品（如自动驾驶软件）构成。一些公司选择出租附加产品，而另一些则通过跨期价格歧视或捆绑定价的方式出售。受这些商业实践的启发，本文研究了在同时提供两种耐用产品的情况下，垄断企业对于附加产品究竟应该选择出租还是出售。文献表明，对于单一的耐用产品而言，出租更为可取，因为这样可以避免与销售相关的时间不一致问题。然而，由于出租缺乏跨期联系，在平衡不同消费者之间的剩余提取方面，其效率低于销售，这就导致了本文所称的 “期内失衡问题”。当企业出售基础产品时，这可以解决附加产品销售中的时间不一致问题，但却会使附加产品租赁的期内失衡问题持续存在。因此，出售附加产品可能比出租更有利可图。当企业可以在出售或出租基础产品之间做出选择时，同时出售基础产品和附加产品可能比同时出租两者更有利可图。
疯狂暗示↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
