Growth Can Hide a Bad Business Surprisingly Well
Consider a company selling a product for €50.
Last year it sold 10,000 units and reported €500,000 in revenue. This year it sells 30,000 units. Revenue reaches €1.5 million. Customers are arriving faster, the warehouse is busier, social attention is increasing, and the quarterly presentation contains several arrows pointing in the preferred direction.
There is only one inconvenience.
After manufacturing, fulfilment, payment fees, returns, customer support, discounts and acquisition costs, the company loses €4 on every order.
At 10,000 orders, the defect in the business model cost roughly €40,000 before fixed overhead. At 30,000 orders, management has successfully scaled the defect to €120,000.
Revenue tripled. The economics deteriorated beautifully.
Growth attracts attention because it is visible and easy to compare. Sales increase by 40 percent. Users double. Orders reach a record. Monthly active accounts cross another threshold. These numbers can represent genuine progress, but they say remarkably little about whether the additional activity creates a stronger business.
A company can grow rapidly while margins remain weak, customers leave almost immediately, working-capital requirements become dangerous, support costs explode, and acquisition spending conceals the fact that very few people return voluntarily.
The faster such a company grows, the longer some of those weaknesses can remain hidden.
Volume can disguise bad unit economics
The first question I would ask about impressive sales growth is unpleasantly simple: what happens financially when one additional customer arrives?
Take the €50 order above. Manufacturing costs €21. Packaging and fulfilment consume another €7. Payment processing takes €1.50. Expected returns and refunds average €3. Customer support contributes another €1.50 per order. The company spends €20 acquiring each new customer.
That produces €54 of variable and acquisition cost against €50 of revenue.
Management may argue that customer acquisition will become cheaper at scale. Perhaps. Manufacturing may also become cheaper through volume purchasing. Fulfilment contracts may improve. Repeat customers may require little or no acquisition spending. All of those possibilities belong in a serious model.
They should appear as assumptions with evidence and deadlines rather than as general optimism.
If a company knowingly loses money on the first purchase because a customer typically returns five times, the initial loss may be entirely sensible. If most customers disappear after one purchase, management has built a machine that pays people to transact once.
Both companies can report identical first-quarter growth.
The distinction appears in unit economics.
Growth makes this especially dangerous because cash receipts keep arriving. A rapidly expanding company may receive enough new customer money to create the appearance of financial vitality even while each cohort performs badly. As long as acquisition accelerates, the top line continues to compensate visually for what is happening underneath.
Eventually the acquisition engine slows.
At that point, arithmetic receives more attention.
New customers can conceal the customers who are leaving
Imagine a subscription service begins January with 10,000 users. During the month, 2,000 cancel. Marketing acquires 4,000 new users, so February begins with 12,000.
The company announces 20 percent user growth.
That statement is accurate.
It also describes a business that lost one fifth of its opening customer base in a month.
Continue acquiring customers aggressively enough and poor retention can remain surprisingly well disguised. The total user count rises because the front door admits people faster than the back door loses them.
This becomes particularly dangerous when management rewards acquisition teams for growth while retention, support and product quality live elsewhere in the organization. Marketing can hit every target while the underlying customer relationship deteriorates.
Get Andreas Jäger’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Cohort analysis usually removes some of the glamour. Instead of asking how many customers exist today, ask what happened to the customers acquired three, six or twelve months ago. How many remain? How much did they spend? How expensive were they to serve? Did their behavior improve or deteriorate as the business expanded?
A company acquiring 100,000 customers per month may sound considerably less impressive once you discover that 70,000 of them are gone by month three.
Growth totals aggregate success and replacement. Those are financially different activities.
Revenue can grow faster than the cash available to support it
There is another problem that appears in businesses where success requires inventory, staffing, production or payment terms.
Growth consumes working capital.
A retailer doubling sales may need to purchase substantially more inventory before customers pay for it. A manufacturer may have to order materials months ahead. A service business may hire staff before new contracts generate cash. A company selling to corporate customers may book strong revenue while waiting 60 or 90 days for invoices to be paid.
Suppose a wholesaler earns a healthy margin but must pay suppliers within 30 days while customers pay in 90. Doubling sales also increases the amount of money trapped inside that timing gap. Profitability on paper does not prevent a cash shortage on Friday afternoon.
This is one reason fast-growing companies can fail despite apparently successful products. The income statement records economic activity. Payroll and suppliers remain stubbornly interested in cash.
Growth can therefore create financing requirements before it creates financial strength.
Management needs to know how much additional working capital each increment of growth demands. If another €1 million of annual sales requires €250,000 of additional inventory and receivables financing, that requirement belongs in the growth plan. Enthusiasm does not qualify as a financing instrument.
Scale can make structural problems more expensive to repair
Some operational weaknesses are tolerable when a company is small.
A founder personally handles complaints. Inventory is tracked in an improvised spreadsheet. Refunds require manual intervention. Pricing contains inconsistencies. Contracts vary unnecessarily. Knowledge lives inside the heads of three employees. Customer support receives fifty tickets per week.
Then sales triple.
The spreadsheet becomes infrastructure. The founder becomes a bottleneck. Those fifty tickets become 150. Small pricing errors multiply across thousands of transactions. A manual process requiring six minutes per order becomes 3,000 labor hours at 30,000 orders.
Growth does not merely reveal weak systems. It can embed them.
Replacing a poor process at €500,000 of annual revenue may require a few weeks of uncomfortable work. Replacing the same process after the company reaches €20 million may require migration teams, customer communication, retraining, parallel systems and a consultant whose invoice explains several mysteries about the consulting industry.
Companies sometimes postpone structural repair because rapid growth makes fixing things feel like an interruption. Unfortunately, scale increases the amount of business dependent on whatever you have postponed.
The useful numbers sit underneath growth
I have no objection to growth. Quite the opposite. A business with strong economics should generally prefer more profitable customers to fewer profitable customers.
The difficulty is determining what kind of growth you actually have.
If sales rise 50 percent, I want to know whether contribution margin rose with them. If users doubled, I want retention by cohort. If customer acquisition accelerated, I want acquisition cost compared with realistic lifetime value. If orders reached a record, I want return rates, support costs and repeat-purchase behavior. If revenue is expanding rapidly, I want the working-capital requirement and cash conversion cycle.
There is also a useful stress test: assume growth stops next quarter.
Do the existing customers generate enough margin to support the organization? Does retention leave a durable revenue base? Can the company fund normal operations without constantly replacing departed customers? Are fixed costs reasonable for the business that remains?
If the answer becomes alarming as soon as growth slows, growth may currently be performing two jobs. It is expanding the company while also concealing the parts that do not work.
That arrangement can continue for a surprisingly long time. Capital can finance it. Strong markets can encourage it. Cheap acquisition can extend it. Investors may tolerate it when the eventual economics appear credible.
But scale is an amplifier. It gives excellent businesses more customers, more purchasing power and more operating leverage. It also gives weak businesses larger losses, larger service problems and more expensive corrections.
When the sales chart is rising sharply, the interesting question sits one level below it.
What, exactly, are we scaling?
