3 ms·
I'm certainly not going to argue against his point, however there's a related and more subtle one which gets ignored a lot. Generally if you are writing off su
by notauser 17y ago
I'm certainly not going to argue against his point, however there's a related and more subtle one which gets ignored a lot.
Generally if you are writing off sunk costs there are also some accrued benefits lurking. Before you terminate X you need to look at those.
Examples are things like:
- Cost of restarting things like advertising in the future from a cold start.
- Continuity and loyalty benefits from suppliers.
- R&D realized or in-progress.
- Accrued experience.
That last one is a biggie. There's a reason that failing companies get new injections of capital. Quite often their major asset is that they know where the toxic slime pits in market are - because they fell into them.
So, the money is gone and you shouldn't give it a second thought. But you probably bought some assets with it (plant, experience, contacts) and you should think about which ones will diminish of evaporate the moment you stop doing something.
Revalue these assets in terms of the cash flow you can extract from them, write off the actual amount spent, and then you have a good basis for making the decision.
- smartbear 17y agoI agree completely. In the real world costs are often NOT completely sunk. I could even add to your list, e.g. employee morale. Along your lines of argument, you might say you've INVESTED money instead of just SUNK. At the same time, we also tend to hold on to obviously fruitless enterprises. So the real lesson of course is to try to be objective about what's really going on, suspending your ego for the benefit of the project. Which I'm sure we agree on!