Date of this Version
MIT Sloan Management Review
Anterasian et al. present a one-sided argyment that the use of market share as an objective is detrimental. Because two-sided argujments 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.
Originally published in MIT Sloan Management Review © 1996 MIT Press.
Armstrong, J. S. (1996). Market Share Superstitions (Letter). MIT Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), 4-5. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/400
Date Posted: 15 June 2018
This document has been peer reviewed.