"So bigger is better, right? Not necessarily"

"WHEN IT COMES to operating a successful business—as the common wisdom goes—bigger is better.
Bigger means you have more purchasing power. Bigger means that your fixed costs are spread over a larger base, which—as a rule— helps your profitability. Bigger means that it’s scarier to compete against you, and maybe fewer competitors will venture into your market space. In many cases, bigger means that you’ve successfully acquired or otherwise vanquished many of your competitors, which gives you the opportunity to raise your prices with relative impunity, which means you can spend more on research and development (R&D) and on marketing your product, which means that you’ve created a virtuous circle.
Much of the thinking coming out of universities and consulting firms in the past half century follows these general lines. For the most part, the scholars and consultants have argued that big companies have big advantages vis-à-vis their smaller competitors. Or, conversely, they argue that the little fish must eventually be forced out of the pond.
So bigger is better, right?
Not necessarily. In this chapter, I argue that in many cases bigger is worse. I’m not just talking about conglomerates that compete in multiple industries. I show that even within a specific industry, bigger is not always better. More specifically, I argue that the right definition of “market share” is far more helpful than the wrong definition of market share—even if your resulting market share is smaller as a result."

Um excelente começo para a minha leitura de "Where Value Hides: A New Way to Uncover Profitable Growth For Your Business"