Submitted:
05 June 2023
Posted:
06 June 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. The Model
3.1. Hypothesis of the Research Object
3.2. Symbol Settings
3.3. Modeling
4. Algorithm
5. Numerical Analysis
5.1. Example Analysis
5.2. The Impact of Free Shipping Threshold on Bundled Pricing Strategies
5.3. The Impact of Consumer Organic Preferences on Bundling Pricing Strategies
5.4. The Impact of Consumption Level on Bundling Pricing Strategies
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rinda, N.; Satrio, P.T.; Naufal, H.; Herena, P. Biplot analysis: a study of the change of customer behaviour on e-commerce. Procedia Computer Science 2023, 216, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ante, R.; Viktorija, S. The influence of social trends on the sale of agricultural products. CroDiM: International Journal of Marketing Science 2023, 6, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Woojae, K.; Yuri, P.; Jungwoo, S.; Manseok, J. Consumer preference structure of online privacy concerns in an IoT environment. International Journal of Market Research 2022, 64, 630–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jena, S.K. Impact of bundling on the omnichannel supply chain under price competition. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 2022, 37, 2468–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Liu, Z.Z.; Gao, Z.F; Wen, Q.; Geng, X.H. Consumer preferences for agricultural product brands in an E-commerce environment. Agribusiness 2022, 38, 312–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arijit, R.; Arpita, G.; Devika, V. The consumer perception and purchasing attitude towards organic food: a critical review. Nutrition & Food Science 2023, 53, 578–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X.M.; Zhang, C.; Guo, X.T. Pricing and distribution strategies of fresh agricultural product supply chain considering substitutes. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2022, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Chen, X. Option pricing and coordination in the fresh produce supply chain with portfolio contracts. Annals of Operations Research 2017, 248, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.L.; Huo, Y.J; Guo, X.Y.; Xu, Y. The pricing strategy of the agricultural product supply chain with farmer cooperatives as the core enterprise. Agriculture 2022, 12, 732–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Xu, X.T.; Liu, W.R.; Shi, C.D. Pricing decision of three-level agricultural supply chain based on blockchain traceability and altruistic preference. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3304–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, M.R.; Mashud, A.H.M.; Daryanto, Y.; Wee, H.M. A non-instantaneous inventory model of agricultural products considering deteriorating impacts and pricing policies. Kybernetes 2020, 50, 2264–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlman, Y.; Ozinci, Y.; Westrich, S. Pricing decisions in a dual supply chain of organic and conventional agricultural products. Annals of Operations Research 2019, 314, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Liu, J.; Liu, B. Pricing decisions and channel coordination of fresh produce supply chain under multi-transportation modes. ICIC Express Letters 2018, 12, 9–21. [Google Scholar]
- Taleizadeh, A.A.; Babaei, M.S.; Niaki, S.T.A.; Noori-daryan, M. Bundle pricing and inventory decisions on complementary products. Operational Research 2017, 20, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giri, R.N; Mondal, S.K.; Maiti, M. Bundle pricing strategies for two complementary products with different channel powers. Annals of Operations Research 2020, 287, 701–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.; Jiang, Y.P.; Han, X.X. Bundle pricing decisions for fresh products with quality deterioration. Journal of Food Quality 2018, 2018, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azadeh, A.; Songhori, H.; Salehi, N. A unique optimization model for deterministic bundle pricing of two products with limited stock. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 2017, 8, 1154–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettl, M.; Harsha, P.; Papush, A.; Perakis, G. A data-driven approach to personalized bundle pricing and recommendation. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 2020, 22, 429–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Shang, J.; Kemerer, C.F. Optimizing E-tailer profits and customer savings: Pricing multistage customized online bundles. Marketing Science 2011, 30, 737–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, S.Y.; Hitt, L.M.; Chen, P.Y. Customized bundle pricing for information goods: A nonlinear mixed-integer programming approach. Management Science 2008, 54, 608–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Symbols | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| The set of consumers, | |
| The set of agricultural species, | |
| The set of organic and inorganic, , 0 represents inorganic and 1 represents organic | |
| The set of packages, | |
| Unit cost of product with organic attribute | |
| Consumer ‘s reserve price for product with organic attribute | |
| Reserve price without considering consumer organic preferences | |
| Whether the package contains product with organic attribute , 0 indicates no and 1 indicates yes | |
| Matrix representation of package , | |
| Whether consumer select the package , 0 indicates no, 1 indicates yes | |
| Consumer surplus of consumer | |
| Budget constraints of consumer | |
| Distribution costs of package | |
| Consumers’ green preference coefficient | |
| Free shipping threshold | |
| Price of package |
| Inorganic agricultural products | Product 1 | Product 2 | Product 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost (¥/unit) | |||
| Market price (¥/unit) |
| Inorganic agricultural products | Traditional retail model | IBPS | Increase ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total sales (unit) | 100 | 114 | 14.00% |
| Total sales of inorganic products (unit) | 42 | 54 | 28.57% |
| Total sales of organic products (unit) | 58 | 64 | 10.34% |
| Total consumer surplus (¥) | 1524.2795 | 1689.745 | 10.86% |
| Total sales revenue (¥) | 2052.7301 | 2210.8564 | 7.70% |
| Total profit (¥) | 1152.5061 | 1249.2531 | 8.39% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).