This is a topic which always intrigues me. And it may not receive any justice in any included description on which it entails.
Some may think of real life as a "game", with actual rules that you have to follow. The rule-breakers are punished in a fashion that SHOULD detract from their ability to gain financially. With today's prison systems in the U.S., not sure that is so... but I've digressed, pardons.
In the operation of a business, it is competitive in nature. This is especially true if the business type proves quite profitable. When others see the financial rewards, then the market gains another operator (or "player"). We can imagine that half of the total monies from sales could be equally divided between the two. Yet there is nothing fair in the business world as many factors are to be taken into consideration. The "player" that understands these aspects often prove to be effective managers/entrepreneurs.
The more successful a player becomes, the more time that is usually required to promote further growth in order to consume more of the market share. So the larger of the two in the same sector often can produce more. Yet there comes a time when a person can't do it alone. It then behooves them to adopt a "team" strategy. The people they hire to work for them (be it accountant, supervisor, entry-level worker, etc.) becomes a part of that team. Hence the reason that this ideology is stressed so often by many companies. Yet being a team-member should reap rewards in both directions. This is done by pay-raises, bonuses, profit-sharing or commissions and even employee benefits. Some go a step further to provide a safe and enjoyable work environment for all involved.
Advances in technology and overall output quality/quantity affect what is available for consumption on the balance of supply & demand. Many of us understand the economic forces at work when there are overages on either side of the scale. Effective product management could result in lowering overall maintenance, holding, transportation and insurance costs when there is over-supply. For some sectors, like agriculture, there aren't as many options when you have to take into account spoilage. And there is always some kind of attrition. Theft or damaged goods, corporate graft and improper accounting lead to the loss of value to that company (or "team").
When pricing their end-product, be it service or good oriented, the market share and overall demand is taken into account. Those seeking to increase the former will lower prices and are forced to do so in the latter. But the basis of any venture is to turn a profit. Therefore the more they can charge while they either fill a niche, sell during times of shortages or ride a wave of popularity. The computer gaming console industry is a prime example of where start-up costs and production facilities are amazingly high. The market share is divided among prime players and have already forced a few manufacturers out of business. To the "team" that is in the business of building them wins, the consumer is the ultimate loser in that they have a lesser selection to choose from to purchase.
Something many corporations do not grasp is that there is only so much disposable income. It is to their advantage to seek out business partners that provide complimentary products at low costs (3rd parties or other "teams"). Now we are looking at cooperation within a competitive environment. Some might even have witnessed examples of retailers redirecting potential customers to a direct competitor that has the items in stock. While it seems counter-intuitive to have such practices, they supposedly lost sale by providing something so intangible... called "goodwill".
If there were a score-keeper, the one thing that truly can not be measured is the amount of good-will a "player" or "team" has. They could be considered a favourite, just like in the sports world... certain ones that we root for based upon their kind treatment, their community and charity support while staying environmentally friendly or green. Other companies tout they are either local, family-owned, ethically or Christian-owned (for a single example of religious orientation). Word of mouth continues to perpetuate sales and quality products that continue to enjoy public use are advertisements in their own right.
The score-keeper again needs to look at disposable income. If they fail to pay their employees a "competitive" salary, they might be considered losing a resource (human manpower/horsepower/work hours) but do not recognize sub-par pay to existing employees means overall total loss of sales across the board. This is such a finely minuscule point due to the massive amount of information handling that would be involved in getting an accurate picture of how much impact is involved. For luxury items, it is all the more important. High ticket sales is aimed at the financially exclusive club of those that have it to spend in excess.
The majority of the populace in this country and to much greater degrees in backward or impoverished nations do not have the funds to spend on everything. They have to budget where to spend. And in the game of business, the more money that is flowing between the buyers and sellers, the more successful everyone tends to be. In hard times, those providing the essential items/services are those that will continue to make money and often have less risk of failure. The irony is that many manufacturers/service organizations feel their product is essential. People can live without telephone and cable/satellite television these days. They can utilize public transportation when available... or even ride bicycle.
When "players" or "teams" are blind to the potential losing trend of customers that slip away to intangibles or the tiny implications, they didn't really fully understand the entire economic cycle. Or they simply didn't care during the better times. With the rising costs of transportation, that ends up being passed along to the consumer. Hence less disposable income after they purchase such goods/services. Once a business has it's sale for the moment, it rarely matters what impact it will have later in that individual's life or the future in relation to itself and them.
And in the end, the most successful players who'd benefited from being in the right place.. the right time... and with the right know-how and financial backing are the most hated in that specific sector. They even realize this, so Bill Gates could care less what other people think of him. :)
