Talk:Porter's generic strategies/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Porter's generic strategies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lack of Citations
More and specific sources should be included, like some of Porter's articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.145.225 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. This page needs more citations, specifically when discussing Dell and Walmart. MgtPhD (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Image Copywrite
I am not sure about the copyright status of the picture I included with this article. It is a very common diagram and can be found in most strategy text books, but it originally came from the Porter book which is copyrighted. I have made significant changes to the diagram and have cited the source. I hope the modifications will mitigate any potential copyright conflicts. - - mydogategodshat 22:56, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I disagree with one of the statements in the article. "Companies with a medium market share are not viable". Many industries that are an oligopoly or cartel have a medium market share. However, you could argue that in that case the cartel is effectively one big player rather than several medium players. For example Coca-Cola has around 40-60% market share historically; if it had a larger share, it would be subject to anti-monopoly restrictions. So, Coca-Cola intentially doesn't pursue 100% market share.
- I agree. There are some instances there a medium market share is viable and I think Porter would agree. He is claiming that these three strategies are the best out of the 29 possible options. I don't think that just because he prefers these three that he rejects the other 26. mydogategodshat 00:35, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- By the way, a company need not obtain 100% market share to be considered a dominant low cost leader. 50 or 60% seems dominant enough to me. mydogategodshat 00:38, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)llolo
whole section of OR removed.
The section (crit) I have just removed comes from here - the link speaks for itself - http://www.siamventure.net/competitive_advantage.htm
This work is also published on wikipedia; to link to that page directly, click on the wiki's logo on the left. Ajarn Paul is a contributing writer, contributor and editor at large for wikipedia.
No here buddy get a blog.
--Charlesknight 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong redirection to German version
The German (Deutsch) version should link to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wettbewerbsmatrix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.215.172 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent developments
Can we really call the Treacy/Wiersema 1993 model a "recent" development? Suggest it is retitled or removed. Wee Paddy (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Added link to Michael E. Porter page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.63.234 (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Research
To fix some issues in the differentiation section I removed this unsourced statement:
"Some research does suggest that a differentiation strategy is more likely to generate higher profits than is a low cost strategy because differentiation creates a better entry barrier."
If you can find research that proves this, or anything else related, please do include it!