> While many think having a "largest customer" is an asset, it's actually a company's biggest weakness.
100% correct. It's always better to get one nickel each from 100 people than 100 nickels from one person. If you get one nickel each from 100 customers, losing a customer won't hurt you. If you only have one customer, losing them is an existential problem. Also, if you have a customer that is singularly large enough, then that customer will inevitably start to direct how you operate your business.
The extreme example of this is being an employee. In that situation, you have a business with exactly one customer and so that customer has the power to demand all sorts fairly extreme things from you, such as having to work in particular places at particular times, dictating exactly how you engage in that work, etc.
> While many think having a "largest customer" is an asset, it's actually a company's biggest weakness.
100% correct. It's always better to get one nickel each from 100 people than 100 nickels from one person. If you get one nickel each from 100 customers, losing a customer won't hurt you. If you only have one customer, losing them is an existential problem. Also, if you have a customer that is singularly large enough, then that customer will inevitably start to direct how you operate your business.
The extreme example of this is being an employee. In that situation, you have a business with exactly one customer and so that customer has the power to demand all sorts fairly extreme things from you, such as having to work in particular places at particular times, dictating exactly how you engage in that work, etc.
Ordinarily the Pareto Principle would apply and should be considered as a guide in decision making. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle