Antitrust Regulations

According to Kotler and Singh (1981), "successful marketing ... requires devising competition-centered strategies, not just customer-centered and distribution-centered strategies" (p. 30). Faced with declining market growth, resource scarcities, and the proliferation of new technologies, companies are increasingly pursuing profit gains at the expense of their rivals through market share rather than market growth.

Strategies directed toward competitors can involve different objectives. On the one hand, a company may employ competition-centered strategies to create a state of peace between rivals (Kotler & Singh, 1981). Such an approach involves a business that entrenches itself in some part of the market in which it has a natural and comparative advantage. This advantage discourages aggressive behavior by rivals and favors peaceful coexistence. Rivalry that does occur is generally the result of one firm poorly servicing its market niche, a new competitor bringing new advantages to

. . .
expense of market share of branded cigarettes. Brown & Williamson, feeling the loss of share of its branded cigarettes, entered the generic market at prices lower than Liggett's. Internal documents released in court describe Brown & Williamson's plan to introduce competing low-price cigarettes in packs designed to look like Liggett's and to use an aggressive rebate system to induce wholesalers to purchase these cigarettes rather than Liggett's. The ensuing price war resulted in Liggett's complaint that Brown & Williamson's strategy amounted to below-cost pricing and an attempt to pressure Liggett to raise prices on generics, which would thus restrain the segment's growth and preserve Brown & Williamson's supracompetitive profits on branded cigarettes. Ultimately, Brown & Williamson's plan succeeded, and the company surpassed Liggett's market share in the low-priced segment and drove up the price of the off-price brands nearer to that of the higher-priced branded cigarettes. The Supreme Court found that predatory discrimination had not occurred, and articulated a two-part standard: First, a plaintiff seeking to establish injury resulting from a rival's low prices must prove that the prices complained of are below an appro
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Street Journal, Supreme Court, Philip Morris, Kotler Singh, Liggett Myers, Salop Scheffman, Brown Williamson's, Sherman Act, Zeithaml Zeithaml, Northern/Santa Fe, predatory pricing, supreme court, philip morris, price war, act 1914, below-cost pricing, market share, branded cigarettes, section 2, brown williamson, brown williamson tobacco, clayton act 1914, burlington northern/santa fe, kotler singh 1981, union pacific southern,
Approximate Word count = 3845
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Antitrust Regulations