The Portfolio Bet That Looks Like a Sure Thing
A company has three products. Product A is mature, generates 70% of revenue, and is growing 2%. Product B is two years old, growing 40%, but is unprofitable and consumes 50% of sales capacity for 20% of revenue. Product C is a small experiment with 3% of revenue but the highest gross margin and a passionate niche. Leadership wants to "double down on A" because it funds everything, and to "fix B" by adding features. The board has asked for a portfolio review. Cash is tight; the next 12 months determine whether B reaches breakeven. Adding features to B is estimated to delay its breakeven by two quarters and consume the capacity that could go to C.
1. Critique the leadership's instinct to double down on A and fix B with features. Use portfolio-management reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Both instincts are understandable and both are probably wrong as stated.
"Double down on A" treats the cash cow as a growth engine. A grows 2% and is mature; investing for growth there usually buys incremental share at high cost. The right role for A is to fund the portfolio and be defended, not to be the growth bet. Doubling down on A also concentrates risk: 70% of revenue in a 2%-growth product is a fragility, not a strength.
"Fix B by adding features" confuses a unit-economics problem with a product problem. B consumes 50% of sales capacity for 20% of revenue and is unprofitable - that is a go-to-market and pricing/cost problem at least as much as a feature gap. Adding features delays breakeven by two quarters and starves C. It is the most expensive possible response because it spends the scarcest resource (sales capacity) on the least efficient product.
C is being underweighted. Highest margin, passionate niche, tiny revenue - the classic profile of an under-funded emerging bet. The portfolio is unbalanced: an over-weighted cash cow, an over-resourced question mark, and a starved seed.
2. Recommend a 12-month portfolio allocation across A, B, and C, and state the metrics you would use to judge each.
Read the worked answer
Allocation:
- A - defend, don't chase. Fund maintenance and retention, not growth initiatives. Metrics: retention/churn, margin, cost to serve. Success = stable revenue and cash.
- B - fix economics before features. Diagnose why 50% of sales capacity yields 20% of revenue: pricing, deal size, sales cycle, onboarding cost. Set a hard breakeven checkpoint (e.g., end of the 12 months) with a defined path. No feature expansion until the economics are understood. Metrics: CAC payback, gross margin, sales-capacity-to-revenue ratio, progress to breakeven. If it misses the checkpoint, that is a decision point, not a reason to add more features.
- C - fund the experiment properly. Give it a protected budget and some sales attention proportional to its margin. Metrics: margin, retention/expansion within the niche, evidence of a repeatable acquisition motion. Success = proof it can scale beyond the niche.
The governing principle: allocate by role in the portfolio, not by current revenue size. A funds; B must earn continued investment with economics; C is the option on the future. Cash-tight years reward discipline about which product is allowed to consume the scarcest resource - here, sales capacity - not enthusiasm for the biggest number on the page.