Market Share Superstition (Letter)
AbstractAnterasian 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0412032.
Length: 1 pages
Date of creation: 10 Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 1
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://220.127.116.11
market share; superstition;
Other versions of this item:
- A - General Economics and Teaching
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-12-20 (All new papers)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.