<p>I would say this question is pretty close to veering on philosophy but I'll answer</p>
<p>Firstly, I'm not sure I agree with your idea that &quot;the SDO personality trait is incompatible with the theory that companies are driven by profits&quot;. If we consider that money is an abstraction of human work and time, and furthermore is also a powerful mechanism for control in human society, it's not a stretch then to say that making money then represents social dominance within social dominance theory. Additionally if we identify that companies are collections of people and represent a social group in and of themselves, it makes sense then both monetarily and within social dominance theory that they would exist to make money (and increase the social status of those working within those companies)</p>
<p>Secondly, even if the above was not the case - how would you prove or find evidence that a company is working to find market dominance at the expense of long term profits? How do you measure 'economic dominance'? Not one of your examples prove that those decisions were made at the expense of long-term profitability, and a company making (in your opinion) poor long term financial decisions is not proof that they did not set out with the intention to be profitable long-term. In most cases for large multi-nationals it is the opposite - they are often working to secure their future and long-term profitability and the value of the leaders of these businesses comes from the values of their insight and predictions of macro-economic trends</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-24T16:22:23.983Z
Market dominance = total share of a market's profits.

By maximizing their intellectual property ownership, film production companies maximize their total share of the profits within a given market. If production companies spend more money adapting novels into movies, then they will end up sharing a greater proportion of the film industry's intellectual property rights with novelists and will end up with a smaller proportion of the film industry's total profits. In this example,  the film industry's total profits fall while the film companies get a larger percentage of the total profits.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-24T16:26:27.190Z
If the SDO trait is used to explain economics, then companies should care more about the distribution of profits than the total amount of profits made. In other words, SDO suggests that companies care more about the distribution of resources than the total amount of resources available, and they will ensure they always get the lion share of money or resources even if that means shrinking the entire industry and reducing the total amount of money or resources available.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-24T16:33:40.687Z
I'm not asking a philosophical question. If you say that applying psychological theories to economics is philosophical, then you would have to say that behavioral economics is a branch of philosophy. Economics is a social science that's based on real-world empirical data, and I included such data in the research I cited. Philosophy is generally not concerned with empirical data or the facts of reality. It's mainly about opinions about the nature of reality and the opinions about reality should be perceived. I'm also not asking an epistemological question if that's what you're implying.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-24T13:08:21.263Z
2023-08-24T13:08:21.263Z
DamienBradley
<p>I want to know if market dominance (total share of a market's profits) is more important than long-term profitability because psychologists believe that humans and other animals have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">social dominance orientation</a>. According to the SDO theory, humans who have the SDO personality trait prefer to live in an unequal society in which some people have more wealth than others. Primatologists like Frans De Waal say that socially dominant male apes such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans hoard female apes. The psychological desire for social dominance appears to have evolved from the practice of hoarding sexual partners.</p>
<p>I think the SDO personality trait is incompatible with the theory that companies are driven by profits. I would like to know if companies are actually driven by economic dominance. To test that hypothesis, I would like to see if there are industries or companies that showed a clear sign of prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profits. Market dominance sometimes involves maintaining a monopoly on intellectual property rights within a given market.</p>
<p>It's possible for a company to sacrifice a small portion of its long-term profits in order to maintain market dominance. Market dominance is not synonymous with profit maximization, and market dominance doesn't always lead to profit maximization.</p>
<p>If any company prioritizes market dominance and intellectual property ownership over long-term profitability, then that would confirm the hypothesis that the income inequality found in private businesses is driven by the SDO trait and not some other trait. It would also confirm that the SDO trait is a personality trait that can be consistently found in real-world institutions and is not simply the product of how psychology questionnaires are phrased.</p>
<p>For example, film production companies focus on producing movie remakes, reboots, and original screenplays so that they can buy more intellectual property rather than focus on producing movie adaptations of original works of fiction. When a film company buys the film rights to a novel, they are only buying the rights to the novel's film adaptation and don't get to purchase the novel's entire copyright. But when film companies buy screenplays they own the entirety of the copyright of the screenplay. Adapting novels is on average more profitable than making remakes from pre-existing intellectual property such as old movies or toy lines such as Transformers, Lego Bricks, and Barbie.</p>
<p>Forbes cited a study from the <a href="https://www.thebookseller.com/news/films-based-books-take-more-91m-more-globally-original-scripts-825036" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Publisher's Association</a> that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/07/11/why-book-based-films-earn-53-more-at-the-worldwide-box-office/?sh=68ac7e5e306f" rel="nofollow noreferrer">movie adaptations of books earn</a> 53% more at the Box Office than other types of movies. This is a biased source of information, but if it's true, then it would make more financial sense to only adapt bestselling novels rather than remake movies or adapt theme parks and toylines into movies based on screenplays written by screenwriters whose previous scripts likely sold far fewer movie tickets than most New York Times bestsellers have sold physical and digital ebook copies.</p>
<p>It would be more profitable in the long term for film production companies to devote more of their funds to producing movie adaptations of bestselling novels than remaking old movies whose intellectual property they already own. In this example, film companies prioritize monopolizing the intellectual property of fiction stories over maximizing long-term profits.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-24T04:55:53.853Z
You defined market dominance as share of a market's profits. Then you ask `if there are industries or companies that showed a clear sign of prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profits`. So you are asking if profit can be prioritized over profit. That doesn't make sense. If you drop the market dominance concern, you might ask if IP ownership is prioritized over profit. Otherwise, this question is unclear. If you want to ask if short term profit is prioritized over long term profit that would be a intelligible question but you didn't ask it that way.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-25T15:03:55.217Z
I edited my question to clarify that market dominance doesn't always lead to profit maximization and that long-term profits can be sacrificed for market dominance, which sometimes involves maintaining a monopoly on the intellectual property rights of a given market. Your definition of profit rests on the assumption that market dominance will always lead to profit maximization, but in my question, I give an example of how this is not always the case. If profits = market dominance, then market dominance should always lead to profit maximization, but this isn't true.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-21T22:09:18.937Z
Could this not fit into a monopolistic competition framework? In this framework companies are of course profit seekers. However, their products are differentiated from other products. It is a small step from here to imagine that monopolists use some of their profit to sustain their market position through for example branding or accumulation of a certain set of intellectual property rights. Companies such a you mention - I think - partly fit that framework and perhaps so do some companies in the pharmaceutical industry.
Jesper Hybel
<profit-maximization><profits><monopolistic-competition><property><intellectual-property>
Are there any examples of companies prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profitability?
Jude Zambarakji
# Are there any examples of companies prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profitability?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-08-22)

I want to know if market dominance (total share of a market's profits) is more important than long-term profitability because psychologists believe that humans and other animals have a [social dominance orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation). According to the SDO theory, humans who have the SDO personality trait prefer to live in an unequal society in which some people have more wealth than others. Primatologists like Frans De Waal say that socially dominant male apes such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans hoard female apes. The psychological desire for social dominance appears to have evolved from the practice of hoarding sexual partners.

I think the SDO personality trait is incompatible with the theory that companies are driven by profits. I would like to know if companies are actually driven by economic dominance. To test that hypothesis, I would like to see if there are industries or companies that showed a clear sign of prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profits. Market dominance sometimes involves maintaining a monopoly on intellectual property rights within a given market.

It's possible for a company to sacrifice a small portion of its long-term profits in order to maintain market dominance. Market dominance is not synonymous with profit maximization, and market dominance doesn't always lead to profit maximization.

If any company prioritizes market dominance and intellectual property ownership over long-term profitability, then that would confirm the hypothesis that the income inequality found in private businesses is driven by the SDO trait and not some other trait. It would also confirm that the SDO trait is a personality trait that can be consistently found in real-world institutions and is not simply the product of how psychology questionnaires are phrased.

For example, film production companies focus on producing movie remakes, reboots, and original screenplays so that they can buy more intellectual property rather than focus on producing movie adaptations of original works of fiction. When a film company buys the film rights to a novel, they are only buying the rights to the novel's film adaptation and don't get to purchase the novel's entire copyright. But when film companies buy screenplays they own the entirety of the copyright of the screenplay. Adapting novels is on average more profitable than making remakes from pre-existing intellectual property such as old movies or toy lines such as Transformers, Lego Bricks, and Barbie.

Forbes cited a study from the [Publisher's Association](https://www.thebookseller.com/news/films-based-books-take-more-91m-more-globally-original-scripts-825036) that [movie adaptations of books earn](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/07/11/why-book-based-films-earn-53-more-at-the-worldwide-box-office/?sh=68ac7e5e306f) 53% more at the Box Office than other types of movies. This is a biased source of information, but if it's true, then it would make more financial sense to only adapt bestselling novels rather than remake movies or adapt theme parks and toylines into movies based on screenplays written by screenwriters whose previous scripts likely sold far fewer movie tickets than most New York Times bestsellers have sold physical and digital ebook copies.

It would be more profitable in the long term for film production companies to devote more of their funds to producing movie adaptations of bestselling novels than remaking old movies whose intellectual property they already own. In this example, film companies prioritize monopolizing the intellectual property of fiction stories over maximizing long-term profits.

**Tags:** profit-maximization, profits, monopolistic-competition, property, intellectual-property

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You defined market dominance as share of a market's profits. Then you ask `if there are industries or companies that showed a clear sign of prioritizing market dominance or intellectual property ownership over long-term profits`. So you are asking if profit can be prioritized over profit. That doesn't make sense. If you drop the market dominance concern, you might ask if IP ownership is prioritized over profit. Otherwise, this question is unclear. If you want to ask if short term profit is prioritized over long term profit that would be a intelligible question but you didn't ask it that way.  
> **username_0**: I edited my question to clarify that market dominance doesn't always lead to profit maximization and that long-term profits can be sacrificed for market dominance, which sometimes involves maintaining a monopoly on the intellectual property rights of a given market. Your definition of profit rests on the assumption that market dominance will always lead to profit maximization, but in my question, I give an example of how this is not always the case. If profits = market dominance, then market dominance should always lead to profit maximization, but this isn't true.  
> **username_2**: Could this not fit into a monopolistic competition framework? In this framework companies are of course profit seekers. However, their products are differentiated from other products. It is a small step from here to imagine that monopolists use some of their profit to sustain their market position through for example branding or accumulation of a certain set of intellectual property rights. Companies such a you mention - I think - partly fit that framework and perhaps so do some companies in the pharmaceutical industry.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-08-24. Score: 0

I would say this question is pretty close to veering on philosophy but I'll answer

Firstly, I'm not sure I agree with your idea that "the SDO personality trait is incompatible with the theory that companies are driven by profits". If we consider that money is an abstraction of human work and time, and furthermore is also a powerful mechanism for control in human society, it's not a stretch then to say that making money then represents social dominance within social dominance theory. Additionally if we identify that companies are collections of people and represent a social group in and of themselves, it makes sense then both monetarily and within social dominance theory that they would exist to make money (and increase the social status of those working within those companies)

Secondly, even if the above was not the case - how would you prove or find evidence that a company is working to find market dominance at the expense of long term profits? How do you measure 'economic dominance'? Not one of your examples prove that those decisions were made at the expense of long-term profitability, and a company making (in your opinion) poor long term financial decisions is not proof that they did not set out with the intention to be profitable long-term. In most cases for large multi-nationals it is the opposite - they are often working to secure their future and long-term profitability and the value of the leaders of these businesses comes from the values of their insight and predictions of macro-economic trends

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Market dominance = total share of a market's profits.  By maximizing their intellectual property ownership, film production companies maximize their total share of the profits within a given market. If production companies spend more money adapting novels into movies, then they will end up sharing a greater proportion of the film industry's intellectual property rights with novelists and will end up with a smaller proportion of the film industry's total profits. In this example,  the film industry's total profits fall while the film companies get a larger percentage of the total profits.  
> **username_0**: If the SDO trait is used to explain economics, then companies should care more about the distribution of profits than the total amount of profits made. In other words, SDO suggests that companies care more about the distribution of resources than the total amount of resources available, and they will ensure they always get the lion share of money or resources even if that means shrinking the entire industry and reducing the total amount of money or resources available.  
> **username_0**: I'm not asking a philosophical question. If you say that applying psychological theories to economics is philosophical, then you would have to say that behavioral economics is a branch of philosophy. Economics is a social science that's based on real-world empirical data, and I included such data in the research I cited. Philosophy is generally not concerned with empirical data or the facts of reality. It's mainly about opinions about the nature of reality and the opinions about reality should be perceived. I'm also not asking an epistemological question if that's what you're implying.  

---

