Problem with dominating the market share-Why Investors Get Market Size Wrong Over And Over Again

Can businesses with small market shares be successful? If so, what strategies characterize such businesses? This article seeks to answer these questions by using research on businesses, 40 of which have demonstrated superior performance despite low market shares. Strategists tend to place much importance on having high-market-share positions. Bruce Henderson of the Boston Consulting […].

Problem with dominating the market share

Problem with dominating the market share

Goodrich, Seven-Up, and others have found it profitable to mention or picture the products of their large competitors Vibe magazen their ads, and then to suggest the superiority of their own products. High rates of change benefit companies that can move quickly, as well as those seeking product differentiation opportunities. The high-share company is always wrestling with the question of whether to meet price cuts and maintain its share or give up a little share and maintain its margins. Purchase decisions for industrial products are based largely on performance, service, and cost. If a lower level of risk does not compensate for the reduced profitability which may or may not exist, since prices may Toph sucking anngs dick game higher or marketing costs lower and profitability unchanged and for transitional costs, then the Problem with dominating the market share lower market share is not optimal. What kinds of industry settings do these businesses enter?

Free cumshot thumbnail pictures. Determining an Optimal Market Share

Escorts in nyc Read Edit View history. As products and business sales ebb and flow over time the numbers reveal where industries Dick bobnick headed. As an investor would like to know the exact numbers including the watch. At times, I hated Steve Jobs for his attitudes and opinions. Starting with its current share, management can analyze:. As such, it can range from 0 to 10, moving from a very large amount of very small firms to a single monopolistic producer. Based on rising ASPs of devices and services revenue Apple is doing very well, until Problem with dominating the market share is any evidence that Apple is shedding customers this hand wringing is silly. A dominant company must refuse to be content with the way things are. Certain companies have gained the trust of the buying public because of their continuous efforts to respond to such social needs—one thinks immediately of Sears, Zenith, and Whirlpool. Displaying photos of team members on your company website and social media profiles enhances your credibility while making your business appear personable and approachable. What value are you creating? You can implement feedback strategies and provoke conversation with your customers through a variety of platforms, including customer service, website forums, social media and survey forms. Therefore, the high market-share company should give serious consideration to those strategies that not only fill its coffers but also respond to consumer and social needs. Its weak sister, product imitation, may be appropriate for growth in a growing market, but it will probably not alter Problem with dominating the market share market shares.

A variety of internal and external forces can affect the longevity of products and services your business offers.

  • It moved 46 million iPhones this last quarter, but that was basically unchanged from the same period last year, and fewer than expected.
  • A variety of internal and external forces can affect the longevity of products and services your business offers.
  • The Mortgage Bankers Association released its mid-year data showing who is ahead of the pack when it comes to multifamily servicing in

Recent research suggests that, as consumers feel that their choices are restricted, many respond by turning away from the market leader. But this is not necessarily true. Over the past decade, popular social networking sites including Friendster, MySpace and Bebo initially picked up a large number of users only to lose ground to new competitors and fade into the background.

Facebook, by contrast, has succeeded at dramatically expanding its position in the global market, even as it has worked to manage an increasing number of dissatisfied users. Similar patterns of emergence, growth and dominance, followed by consumer disenchantment or ambivalence and a loss of brand equity have affected well-known technology companies such as Microsoft and AOL. Why do companies move from market strength to vulnerability? However, one critical factor has largely been ignored: the psychological forces that drive decisions consumers make and, specifically, the degree to which people feel they have choices.

Over the past decade, we have taken a behavioral economics approach to analyzing this phenomenon. Murray and G. To examine this phenomenon, we created a set of unique websites that allowed consumers to search for a variety of news stories.

Some participants were allowed to choose the website they learned to use while others were assigned to a single interface and given no alternatives. We found that once consumers learned to use a particular interface, they were reluctant to switch; in some cases, the initial website retained all of its users, and the competing interface ended up with zero market share.

But we also found that there were limits to how far leading companies can leverage this product loyalty via customer training and a unique interface. Psychological reactance works like this: As people learn to use a particular electronic interface associated with information search or online shopping, for example, they often become locked in and develop extremely high levels of loyalty even when otherwise equivalent competitors are available; the cost of switching outweighs the benefit of using another product.

However, our research indicates that the depth of loyalty weakens when consumers feel that their freedom to choose is restricted. Companies that appear to have the power of a monopoly thus become surprisingly vulnerable to customer defections.

That is not to say that all customers will make the switch overnight. However, when an attractive alternative becomes available, the market leader is especially vulnerable to losing those consumers who feel that the dominant company has restricted their ability to freely choose the products that they use. Our research has important implications for executive teams, both at leading companies and their competitors, and some of the implications are counterintuitive.

Implications for Market Leaders Given the risks of triggering psychological reactance among current and potential users, market leaders should be careful about becoming too dominant and appearing too successful. Ironically, it may be good business to support and even cultivate competitors. In such cases, they will need to appeal to their customers who are motivated to find reasonable alternatives offered by other, perhaps smaller players, particularly if they are able to reapply the skills they have learned.

Given the choice, companies might be better off maintaining the image of being small. In fact, markets with exceptionally strong incumbents may be ripe for entry when psychological reactance produces a segment of consumers ready to switch. A complex set of factors affects the choices that consumers make in rapidly evolving markets such as mobile apps, social networks and other emerging electronic interfaces.

Aggressive players respond by focusing on product development, branding and rapidly gaining critical mass. Our research suggests that an important driver of consumer loyalty is the extent to which individuals feel that they have a choice in the interface they use, and that psychological reactance can have substantial effects on both consumer preferences and market shares.

There is still much that we do not know about how dominant companies might be able to counteract reactance. Small market shares or even failure in other product lines might mitigate reactance. For example, Apple holds a dominant share in the tablet market, but has a relatively small share in desktops and laptops. Ultimately, market leaders that wish to remain dominant should seek to find a way to address their vulnerability to consumer reactance.

The key to success seems to be having consumers locked-in while making them feel they are still free to choose.

The key to success is to offer a product or service that is so valuable to the consumer or business that they choose not to switch regardless of if an alternative exists. They must innovate or be over-taken. Apple is good case study. Monopolies that remain uninspired and bloated may have short-term successes but create the kind of market dynamics that encourage disruption by new and innovative entrants.

I stumbled on this gem. Its insights are very intuitive and, I believe, offer a very strong argument for free market capitalism. Instead of trust busters, perhaps all the regulation that is needed are ground rules to establish the limits of fair play.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Image courtesy of Apple Inc. Related Research K. All rights reserved. Add a comment Cancel reply You must sign in to post a comment.

Image source: Getty Images. For the game theory, see Strategic dominance. Diversifying your product attracts new niches to your business as well. Of course, the company that chooses to use competitive pacification strategies must be careful to avoid behaving in what could be considered a collusive manner. So it took the initiative and introduced such consumer-oriented programs as unit pricing, open dating, and some nutritional labeling. In general, the best defense for maintaining market share is a good offense—product innovation, the same strategy that works so well for the underdog. Market-share management strategies fall into four broad categories: 1 share building, 2 share maintenance, 3 share reduction, and 4 risk reduction.

Problem with dominating the market share

Problem with dominating the market share

Problem with dominating the market share

Problem with dominating the market share. Navigation menu

.

Why Dominant Companies Are Vulnerable

At the outset, Microsoft underestimated the power and effectiveness of the EU. And back then it was a company at the peak of its corporate power, staffed by sleek, smart and seemingly invincible executives — of the type that now walk the corridors of Google. Where Microsoft was picked up over the dominance of its operating system and browser, Google is facing investigations on multiple fronts.

Were Google a manufacturer, say, a monopoly such as it has over internet search would never be allowed. Firstly, digital services, however ubiquitous, seem less tangible and therefore do not appear so obvious a threat to commercial pluralism, innovation and to consumer interests.

Dominance itself, in competition law, is not a problem. It becomes one when that position is abused, and that is the charge the EC has now made — that Google is using its search monopoly to make a move on shopping, maps and flight information. But that misses the fundamental point that its overwhelming strength comes from its ownership of vast datasets — and that data has often been acquired under exclusive deals or with ill-informed consent.

Its monopoly on data is unmatched by any other entity. It could be that we need to radically reconsider how we treat data, which has become the fundamental constituent of our economy. Civic data on public services, infrastructure, roads and resources could be opened up to startups and public organisations; the personal information gathered by search engines could be made available to researchers under strict ethical standards.

Cultural products — books, music, film, news — could be mediated by digital public libraries. The wider problem is that Google has become the ultimate monopolist of the information age. The US can barely hide its frustration at the way the European Union is mismanaging the crisis in Greece.

The Obama administration simply cannot understand why the Europeans are unwilling or unable to sort out the mess. America knows what it is like to suffer a Great Depression. You get growth going first, then worry about the deficit. You stop banks from going bust, because the economy ceases to function when credit dries up. You try public works programmes to put people back to work. There was debt forgiveness, there was Marshall aid, and there was the pressure to make Europe think and act collectively that eventually resulted in the creation of pan-European institutions in the s.

For the first time in six decades, there is a risk that closer European co-operation and integration will be put into reverse. Greece is struggling to find the money to repay loans next month, and its banks are suffering from capital flight. Should Greece not meet its debt payments, the pressure on the banks would intensify and Athens would have little alternative but to introduce capital controls. The door to euro exit would swing wide open. And, make no mistake, Grexit would lead to pressure on banks in other euro countries.

All this can be avoided, but only if Europe starts to think like Americans. That means writing off a big chunk of Greek debt. It means ensuring that doubts over the financial viability of Greek banks are removed. For the first time, an oil company AGM was dominated by one subject that is usually pitifully ignored: climate change.

The move will therefore will do nothing in itself to actually reduce global warming. But it shows fossil fuel companies are beginning to realise they must act or be completely sidelined in the growing debate over stranded assets and divestment. Austerity is no use to Greece The US can barely hide its frustration at the way the European Union is mismanaging the crisis in Greece. Topics Google Business leader. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations.

Show 25 25 50 All. Threads collapsed expanded unthreaded. Loading comments… Trouble loading?

Problem with dominating the market share