Many researchers assert that “everyday low pricing” (EDLP) generally outperforms “hi-low pricing” (HLP) in many marketing channels. For example, Ortmeyer et al. (1991) point out that EDLP helps reduce labor costs due to fewer special displays and lower inventory costs. Lattin and Ortmeyer (1991) contend that EDLP reduces advertising expense due to less frequent promotional advertising. Lee et al. (1997) assert that EDLP stabilizes the peaks and valleys in consumer demand induced by frequent price discounts, reducing the need to maintain large safety stocks throughout the supply chain. While EDLP strategies may be appropriate for products or services with constant underlying demand patterns, some items, such as clothes, toys, and bicycles, have attributes that produce seasonal or fluctuating demand patterns. When underlying demand is seasonal, EDLP strategies do little to stabilize demand. If demand is price sensitive, however, HLP may help attenuate and stabilize the naturally occurring seasonal demand swings. When the amplitude of the demand changes is dampened, suppliers may need to make fewer, or less extreme, capacity changes, thereby reducing production costs. In this study, we search for the operating conditions, such as demand pattern, demand amplitude, customer price sensitivity, production change cost structure, and promotional cost structure, that favor a HLP pricing strategy. The profit function is characterized for an integrated supply chain in which pricing and production planning decisions are considered jointly. The experiments are designed to simulate a variety of operating environments based on the identified factors. The results support the assertion that the integration of demand management with production planning process increases the difference between the two supply chain profits, as long as the underlying demand is seasonal. When this is the case, EDLP strategies do little to stabilize demand. If demand is price sensitive, however, HLP may help attenuate and stabilize the naturally occurring seasonal demand swings. By dampening the amplitude of the demand changes, manufacturers need to make fewer, or less extreme, capacity changes, thereby reducing product costs. The main findings are summarized as follows. First, the main effect of the profit difference derives from both the revenue effect and the production cost effect. Given the same demand, the HLP retailer’s average prices are higher than the EDLP retailer’s because the HLP retailer sells more products at the regular price at the peak season than at the deal price in the off-season. As the seasonal effect is stronger, thus, the HLP supply chain outperforms the EDLP supply chain in any operating conditions. On the other hand, the HLP supply chain’s lower average unit costs are less than those of the EDLP supply chain, when the underlying demand is seasonal. As the seasonal effect is stronger, the HLP supply chain’s average unit costs become lower and lower than the EDLP supply chain’s. The reason is that the HLP supply chain has two cushions to relieve the seasonal effect: the price change and the optimized production scheduling, while the EDLP supply chain has only one, optimized production scheduling. Accordingly, the HLP supply chain lessens seasonal demand swings by optimizing the total production for each period based on the demand. Second, when the underlying demand is seasonal, the HLP’s production cost savings can compensate for the promotion expenses. The previous literature asserts that EDLP can save on promotion expenses due to less frequent promotional advertising. Our results show that the HLP supply chain’s production cost savings as compared to the EDLP supply chain’s range from 0.08 to 2.53 percent of the total revenues. The average of the HLP supply chain’s production cost savings is 0.60 percent of the total revenues. Thus, the HLP supply chain is more profitable than the EDLP supply chain because the production cost savings are higher than the promotion expenses, even though the revenue effect is removed.