We ended the contract with the client that was 41% of our revenue
No board, no runway, no second opinion. The decision took eight months to execute and the replacement revenue arrived four months later than the plan assumed.
The decision timeline
Three moments, kept separate. What became known later sits in its own column so it cannot be read back into the reasoning.
Known at the time
- 41% of revenue, 60% of senior time, at roughly half the margin of the next-largest account
- Payment terms moved unilaterally from 30 to 75 days
- Two senior staff had asked in writing to be reassigned
- Four months of operating cash; six-month notice period
Decided, and why
- Attempted renegotiation first, because ending was survivable but not preferable
- Served notice after the renegotiation produced only 60-day terms, because the senior-time problem was untouched
- Started business development four months before serving notice, to shorten the revenue gap
Known later
- Replacement revenue took fourteen months, not ten
Members see the full outcome.
Trust and provenance
What we checked, and what we did not.
The decision context
| Problem | One client represented 41% of revenue, 60% of senior team time, and had moved payment terms from 30 to 75 days unilaterally. Two senior staff had asked to be moved off the account. |
|---|---|
| Deadline | The contract had a six-month notice period and an annual renewal date in October. |
| Stakes | Existential |
| Decision-maker | Owner. No board, no partners. |
Constraints
| Budget | Four months of operating cash. Losing 41% of revenue without replacement was not survivable past roughly five months. |
|---|---|
| Time | Six-month notice period meant the decision had to be taken by April to take effect at the October renewal. |
| Information | No reliable way to test whether replacement demand existed without visibly going to market. |
| Authority | Complete. Which removed the usual check of having to persuade somebody else. |
| External | The client was a reference for two prospects in the same sector. |
Alternatives
Options considered, and the stated reason each rejected option was rejected.
Evidence, reasoning and outcome
The remaining six field groups — evidence, reasoning, action, outcome, reflection and transferability — are available to members.
- Three years of per-client profitability, which showed this account at roughly half the margin of the next-largest
- Time-tracking data showing the senior team concentration
- Business survives the transition on available cash
Read the rest of this case
Membership opens the full library: the evidence available at the time, the decision criteria, the measured outcome and what the creator would do differently.
Prices and terms are shown in full before you pay. Cancel any time.
Rights and licensing
Published terms for this case.
| Consent | Creator confirms permission to publish. The former client has not reviewed this account. |
|---|---|
| Licence | Non-exclusive, perpetual licence to publish and monetise. |
| Anonymisation | Client and business names redacted. Figures expressed as percentages. |
| Compensation | Eligible for the creator revenue pool under the published allocation rule. |
Think something here is wrong? Request a correction or takedown.
Related decisions
Matched on decision type, industry, stakes and shared tags.
We took a down round instead of an acquisition offer. Eighteen months later the company closed.
An offer on the table at roughly half the last valuation, against a bridge at a 60% markdown. The reasoning was documented at the time. It did not survive contact with the following year.
We killed a feature after six months of build. The reasoning held; the timing did not.
Adoption sat at 4% of target after two quarters. Four options on the table, three rejected. The decision to discontinue was defensible on the evidence available — the error was waiting two months longer than the criteria required.
One senior engineer or two juniors on the same budget
A Series B team with one open requisition and a delivery commitment eight months out. The decision turned on who would do the mentoring, and that question had no good answer.