Market Share Superstition (Letter)

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 4-5, Fall 1996

1 Pages Posted: 22 Jul 2008

See all articles by J. Scott Armstrong

J. Scott Armstrong

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department

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, management, planning

Suggested Citation

Armstrong, J. Scott, Market Share Superstition (Letter). Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 4-5, Fall 1996. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=684542

J. Scott Armstrong (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department ( email )

700 Jon M. Huntsman Hall
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340
United States
215-898-5087 (Phone)
215-898-2534 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/faculty/armstrong.cfm

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
13
Abstract Views
154
PlumX Metrics