Comment by devmunchies
3 years ago
for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
3 years ago
for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
I think this is a weird framing of the issue. Sure, lots of businesses go under, and maybe being larger would have saved them, but maybe not. Plenty of VC-funded businesses go under precisely because they tried to be too large, when they could have perfectly comfortably served a few satisfied initial clients for enough money to pay all their bills.
I think the idea that companies go under because they aren't ambitious enough says more about modern attitudes towards growth than it does about the reality of business.
When I say growth I mean net profits. Those imploding VC companies were never profitable.
A larger profitable company has more chance of survival by shrinking into a smaller profitable company. It's a buffer. But an already small profitable company doesn't have that option, there's more risk.
> for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
If your goal is to fight a monopoly, then the mere existence of competition means that you've accomplished your goal.