Marketing Papers
Document Type
Journal Article
Date of this Version
1996
Publication Source
MIT Sloan Management Review
Volume
38
Issue
1
Start Page
4
Last Page
5
Abstract
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.
Copyright/Permission Statement
Originally published in MIT Sloan Management Review © 1996 MIT Press.
Recommended Citation
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
Included in
Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business Analytics Commons, Business Intelligence Commons, Marketing Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons
Date Posted: 15 June 2018
This document has been peer reviewed.