Any market researcher, studying any particular market, will tend to find something like a Pareto distribution often applies: up to 80 percent of results are produced by 20 percent of actors. Some might call that the rule of three.
Market share structures in computing, connectivity and software tend to be fairly similar: leadership by three firms, corresponding to the rule of three.
“A stable competitive market never has more than three significant competitors, the largest of which has no more than four times the market share of the smallest,” BCG founder Bruce Henderson said in 1976.
Codified as the rule of three, the observations explains the stable competitive market structure that develops over time, in many industries.
Others might call this winner take all economics.
Consider market shares and installed base in the U.S. home broadband market (including small business accounts). Of a possible total installed base of 122 million locations, 90 percent of the installed base is held by 15 companies.
Just two firms have 52 percent of the installed base of accounts.
The point is that when tracking market developments, the big broad trends are discernible from understanding the actions, strategies and results of a mere handful of firms. And while the full range of “big company” strategies, opportunities and actions can vary substantially from those of perhaps hundreds to thousands of small firms, the trends that move the needle financially typically can be gleaned from following just a relative handful of firms.
In other words, the business “laws of motion” are dictated by a relative handful of actors, even in markets with thousands of contestants.
That might seem unimportant. For market analysts, it is a foundational assumption.
No comments:
Post a Comment