The market share-ROI relationship is examined to determine the extent of the causal versus spurious association. By making use of the PIMS data base, it is found that a large proportion of the association is spurious in the sense that both market share and ROI are the joint outcome of some third factor(s). The direct impact of market share on ROI is found to be much smaller than previous studies have indicated. It is suggested that too much emphasis is placed on market share and that more attention needs to be focused on other fundamentals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A. (1984), Strategic Market Management, New York: Wiley.
2.
BoxG. E. P., and JenkinsG. M. (1970), Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control, San Francisco: Holden-Day.
3.
BranchBen (1980), “The Laws of the Marketplace and ROI Dynamics,”Financial Management, 9 (Summer), 58–65.
4.
BuzzellRobert D., GaleBradley T., and SultanRalph G. M. (1975), “Market Share—A Key to Profitability,”Harvard Business Review, 53 (January-February), 97–106.
5.
BuzzellRobert D., and WiersemaFrederick D. (1981), “Modelling Changes in Market Share: A Cross-Sectional Analysis,”Strategic Management Journal, 41 (January-March), 27–42.
6.
FisherFranklin M., and McGowanJohn J. (1983), “On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monopoly Profits,”American Economic Review, 73 (March), 82–97.
7.
GaleBradley T., and BranchBen S. (1982), “Concentration versus Market Share: Which Determines Performance and Why Does It Matter?,”The Antitrust Bulletin, 27 (Spring) 83–103.
8.
GaleBradley T., HeanyDonald F., and SwireDonald S. (1977), “The Par ROI Report: Explanation and Commentary on Report,”Cambridge, MA: Strategic Planning Institute.
9.
HambrickDonald C., and MacMillanIan C. (1982), “The Product Portfolio and Man's Best Friend,”California Management Review, 24 (Fall), 84–95.
10.
HamermeshR. G., AndersonM. S., and HarrisJ. E. (1978), “Strategies for Low Market Share Businesses,”Harvard Business Review, 56 (May-June), 95–102.
11.
KoyckL. M. (1954), Distributed Lags and Investment Analysis, Amsterdam: North Holland.
12.
ManckeRichard B. (1974), “Causes of Interfirm Profitability Differences: A New Interpretation of the Evidence,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88 (May), 181–193.
13.
PhillipsLynn W., ChangDae R., and BuzzellRobert D. (1983), “Product Quality Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses,”Journal of Marketing, 47 (Spring), 26–43.
14.
RumeltRichard P., and WensleyRobin (1980), “In Search of the Market Share Effect,” working paper MGL-61, University of California at Los Angeles.
15.
SchererF. M. (1980), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Chicago: Rand McNally.
16.
ShepardWilliam G. (1972), “The Elements of Market Structure,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 54 (February), 25–37.
17.
WebsterFrederick E. (1981), “Top Management's Concerns about Marketing: Issues for the 1980s,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 9–16.
18.
WooCarolyn Y., and CooperArnold C. (1982), “The Surprising Case for Low Market Share,”Harvard Business Review, 60 (November-December), 106–113.
