Whether to offer return-freight insurance or open a physical showroom: A strategic analysis of an online retailer’s decisions

Abstract

Return-freight insurance (RI) and physical showroom (PS) can be a double-edged sword for retailers, as they can help consumers reduce product mismatch and information uncertainty but may lead to higher return rates and operating and construction costs. In this study, we examine four corresponding configurations regarding whether to provide RI (yes-R, no-N) and whether to open a PS (yes-S, no-N): NN, RN, NS, and RS. First, we find that offering RI or opening a PS does not necessarily expand market demand. Whether demand grows is closely related to the RI premium. When the RI premium is low, the RN strategy, which offers only RI, can expand the market, and the NS and RS strategies, where retailers open a PS, can shrink the market. In addition, retailers offering RI charge a higher sales price, while those opening a PS adopt a price reduction strategy. Second, the optimal strategy configuration for retailers depends on four factors: the RI premium, the proportion of consumers, the retailer’s cost of handling returns and the PS construction cost. Retailers consider opening a PS only when both the proportion of high-cost consumers and the PS construction cost are low. An interesting result is that when the RI premium is higher, offering RI still benefits the retailer. Third, we present an intuitive decision support matrix to help retailers recommend the optimal strategy configuration, using the RI premium as a proxy for the product online return rate and the proportion of high-cost consumers as a proxy for the degree of product standardization. Depending on whether products with high (low) return rates are highly personalized or standardized, retailers decide whether to use an NS (RS) or NN (RN) strategy.