EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Market Share Superstition (Letter)

J. Armstrong ()

General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: Anterasian et al. (1996) present a one-sided argument that the use of market share as an objective is detrimental. Because two-sided arguments are persuasive for intelligent audiences, one might wonder why they chose a one-sided approach. Having spent the past decade working on this topic, I conclude that the reason is simple: There is no contradictory evidence. Substantial and growing evidence suggests that market share objectives harm the performance of firms. Given more space, the authors could have provided even more evidence. For example, game theory studies show that competitive objectives are harmful to oneself.

Keywords: market share; superstition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005-02-11
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502063.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Market Share Superstition (Letter) (2004) Downloads
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502063

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany
Bibliographic data for series maintained by EconWPA ().

 
Page updated 2019-03-31
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502063