IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0412032.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Share Superstition (Letter)

Author

Listed:
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School - University of Pennsylvania)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2004. "Market Share Superstition (Letter)," General Economics and Teaching 0412032, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412032
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0412/0412032.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    market share; superstition;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.