The Myth of Market Share : Why Market Share Is the Fool's Gold of Business

Rating:
Summary: Bigger is not always better!
Review: Heard the taped version of THE MYTH OF MARKET SHARE by
Richard Miniter, which presents an interesting concept that says that
being the biggest player in a market doesn't mean that you will make the
most profits . . . in fact, the opposite is often true; i.e., the
bottom line is that size does NOT automatically lead to profits.

According to Miniter, there are three types of companies in every line of
business: the profit leaders, which make the most money; the market
leaders, which have the largest share of the market; and everyone else.
And the goal, at least as it seems to me, should be to become the
profit leader. Such a company doesn't go in for the dangerous
discounts that sap the strength of its brands in pursuing market share.
It avoids foolish mergers for the sake of size. And it focuses on the
customer, rather than on the competition.

The above might seem easier said than done, but real-life examples
(Mobil, Roche Diagnostics, Dell, etc.) so how this can be accomplished.
As a result, I liked the book and would recommend it, if just for the
conclusion which drives home this key marketing point:

In contrast, companies that are profit leaders can usually survive and
gain a larger share of the market--as long as they continue to focus
on giving the customers precisely what they want, at a profit.

Rating:
Summary: good concept, mediocre writing
Review: The concept is a good one. Too many times we hear that a sale must be won or the competition will get it (regardless of profit). Unfortunately, those executives who need Mr. Miniter's message the most will probably never hear or understand it.

Unfortunately for the book, the author's writing style is mostly surface gloss and generalized facts and figures that "supports" his points. He cites numerous company examples, but I walked away with the feeling that each one was much more complex than he leads the reader to beleive and there were many more variables to the success or failure being presented as "evidence". I have little doubt that he has a good point, but I don't think he backs it up very well.

Case in point: On Page 94, he talks about the Smart car and questions why Daimler would venture into the small car market with such an introduction. Actually, they did not create the car, a small independant maker did and they acquired it. The story of this independant car maker and Daimler's insistance in buying them out would have made more interesting reading and could have added to the depth of the book.

Concept 4 stars, writing 2 stars