"Call for prices": Strategic implications of raising consumers' costs

Many consumer durable retailers often do not advertise their prices and instead ask consumers to call them for prices. It is easy to see that this practice increases the consumers' cost of learning the prices of products they are considering, yet firms commonly use such practices. Not advertising prices may reduce the firm's advertising costs, but the strategic effects of doing so are not clear. Our objective is to examine the strategic effects of this practice. In particular, how does making price discovery more difficult for consumers affect competing retailers' price, service decisions, and profits? We develop a model in which a manufacturer sells its product through a high-service retailer and a low-service retailer. Consumers can purchase the retail service at the high-end retailer and purchase the product at the competing low-end retailer. Therefore, the high-end retailer faces a free-riding problem. A retailer first chooses its optimal service levels. Then, it chooses its optimal price levels. Finally, a retailer decides whether to advertise its prices. The model results in four structures: (1) both retailers advertise prices, (2) only the low-service retailer advertises price, (3) only the high-service retailer advertises price, and (4) neither retailer advertises price. We find that when a retailer does not advertise its price and makes price discovery more difficult for consumers, the competition between the retailers is less intense. However, the retailer is forced to charge a lower price. In addition, if the competing retailer does advertise its prices, then the competing retailer enjoys higher profit margins. We identify conditions under which each of the above four structures is an equilibrium and show that a low-service retailer not advertising its price is a more likely outcome than a high-service retailer doing so. We then solve the manufacturer's problem and find that there are several instances when a retailer's advertising decisions are different from what the manufacturer would want. We describe the nature of this channel coordination problem and identify some solutions. © 2010 INFORMS.

Optimized approach to decision fusion of heterogeneous data for breast cancer diagnosis.

As more diagnostic testing options become available to physicians, it becomes more difficult to combine various types of medical information together in order to optimize the overall diagnosis. To improve diagnostic performance, here we introduce an approach to optimize a decision-fusion technique to combine heterogeneous information, such as from different modalities, feature categories, or institutions. For classifier comparison we used two performance metrics: The receiving operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve [area under the ROC curve (AUC)] and the normalized partial area under the curve (pAUC). This study used four classifiers: Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), artificial neural network (ANN), and two variants of our decision-fusion technique, AUC-optimized (DF-A) and pAUC-optimized (DF-P) decision fusion. We applied each of these classifiers with 100-fold cross-validation to two heterogeneous breast cancer data sets: One of mass lesion features and a much more challenging one of microcalcification lesion features. For the calcification data set, DF-A outperformed the other classifiers in terms of AUC (p < 0.02) and achieved AUC=0.85 +/- 0.01. The DF-P surpassed the other classifiers in terms of pAUC (p < 0.01) and reached pAUC=0.38 +/- 0.02. For the mass data set, DF-A outperformed both the ANN and the LDA (p < 0.04) and achieved AUC=0.94 +/- 0.01. Although for this data set there were no statistically significant differences among the classifiers' pAUC values (pAUC=0.57 +/- 0.07 to 0.67 +/- 0.05, p > 0.10), the DF-P did significantly improve specificity versus the LDA at both 98% and 100% sensitivity (p < 0.04). In conclusion, decision fusion directly optimized clinically significant performance measures, such as AUC and pAUC, and sometimes outperformed two well-known machine-learning techniques when applied to two different breast cancer data sets.

Are mature smokers misinformed?

While there are many reasons to continue to smoke in spite of its consequences for health, the concern that many smoke because they misperceive the risks of smoking remains a focus of public discussion and motivates tobacco control policies and litigation. In this paper we investigate the relative accuracy of mature smokers' risk perceptions about future survival, and a range of morbidities and disabilities. Using data from the survey on smoking (SOS) conducted for this research, we compare subjective beliefs elicited from the SOS with corresponding individual-specific objective probabilities estimated from the health and retirement study. Overall, consumers in the age group studied, 50-70, are not overly optimistic in their perceptions of health risk. If anything, smokers tend to be relatively pessimistic about these risks. The finding that smokers are either well informed or pessimistic regarding a broad range of health risks suggests that these beliefs are not pivotal in the decision to continue smoking. Although statements by the tobacco companies may have been misleading and thus encouraged some to start smoking, we find no evidence that systematic misinformation about the health consequences of smoking inhibits quitting.