Basically "the myth of the niche internet business" is true, not a myth, and broadly good advice, especially when first starting.
If you're assuming all customers pay roughly the same amount, it's way riskier to have 100 customers vs 500. Losing 10 customers when you have 100 is a big deal. Less so at 500. When you have lower numbers, every customer that churns results in a bigger % of revenue lost.pic.twitter.com/bfrdqjDIUv
-
-
Of course. That's why it's so dangerous for eg agencies to depend on 2-3 customers. But in the real world, you're just as safe losing 10 customers at 100 as you are at 500. Will it hurt? Yes. Is it materially more likely to kill your business (risk)? No.
-
Bear in mind, these customers are paying you *way* more, you're solving a *real* pain for them, and you're in touch with them so have a much better chance of predicting and mitigating churn weeks/months/years in advance.
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Alternatively, every customer you bring on makes a small dent in revenue. It’s never been harder or more expensive to acquire a customer. So a lower number of customers paying larger amounts can be a really solid way to bootstrap too.
-
2/ as a bootstrapper you’re trying to get to self-sustainability as fast as possible. Given how expensive it can be to acquire a customer and keep a customer, getting bigger chunks of rev w/each customer is a solid strategy. Higher ARPU means you probably solve a bigger pain with
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
building
But:
"Bootstrapping is already hard, don't make it harder!" – Jason Cohen
5 customers is inherently more risky (and generally not a good fit for bootstrappers).
A company with 5 customers is probably an enterprise play.