Companies tend to build channel mix opportunistically, chasing whichever channel is producing the best growth in a given period, rather than thinking about the mix as a portfolio decision that has to balance return against concentration risk. That approach works fine until the fastest-growing channel hits a wall or a major partner changes terms unexpectedly, and there's no other channel built up enough to absorb the shortfall.
No Single Channel Should Be a Single Point of Failure
I now set a policy cap on what percentage of total revenue any single channel, retailer, or platform is allowed to represent before I actively invest in diversifying away from over-reliance on it. That's uncomfortable in the short term, because the concentrated channel is usually the most efficient and highest-return one in the moment, and deliberately slowing investment there to build up a less efficient alternative channel feels like leaving growth on the table.
It isn't. It's insurance against the very real scenario where that dominant channel partner changes their algorithm, renegotiates terms, or simply deprioritizes your category, and you have no fallback built with any real scale behind it.
Match Channel Economics to Channel Purpose
Different channels serve different strategic purposes, and treating them all as equivalent revenue sources misses that distinction. Wholesale builds volume and brand presence but compresses margin and cedes the customer relationship. Direct channels protect margin and customer data but require sustained marketing investment to generate comparable volume. Marketplace channels offer fast reach but weak loyalty and pricing control.
I now build channel investment decisions around what strategic function each channel is actually serving, rather than purely chasing whichever one shows the best return this quarter. A balanced mix costs some efficiency in the short term and buys real resilience against the channel shock that eventually hits every growing business.