Top-down financial projections don’t work as well as bottom-up projections. Here’s why. Listen to how an entrepreneur might talk about a top-down projection.
- “Our venture is selling in the <fill-in-the-blank> market. It is <pick one: ginormous, absolutely huge, so big it’s nearly ridiculous, doubling in size each day>. If we just get 1% of the market, we’ll all be rich and famous. What are you waiting for? Invest today!”
- “We predict that within 3 months we will capture 10% of the market.”
- “In our market in <pick a city> there are 3 main competitors. When we join as the 4th, we should easily get our 25% of the market.”
When sophisticated angel investors, venture capitalists, or bankers hear statements like these, they know immediately that the entrepreneur is an amateur. They will almost assuredly pass on the deal. Why? The entrepreneur’s top-down approach implies that he has more of a dream than a plan.
Top-Down Financial Projections
In theory top-down planning is great. Start with the whole pie, the whole market. Narrow it down by various means to get to the number that you’ll sell. Sounds very logical and analytic. What could go wrong? Well, as it turns out, three main things can go wrong.
- Top-down financial projections often don’t consider the addressable market. In other words, the entrepreneur may have found a figure citing the total market size in units or dollars. However, that figure may include all of the US, while the venture only has distribution in the east coast (at least at first). Because the venture doesn’t address the rest of the market, the total market number is irrelevant.
- Top-down financial projections often don’t consider the right market. For example, the venture may be selling earbuds, but it may cite a market figure for the entire mobile audio market. If it fully intends to enter every product category in mobile audio, that figure is true. Otherwise, it really should find the market for earbuds only.
- The third way that a top-down financial projection can go wrong is the most damaging in the long term. A top down financial projection doesn’t suggest a plan of action for achieving the venture’s goals. Instead of building a plan based on achieving goals, it focuses on subtracting the parts of the pie that it doesn’t believe it will sell – assuming that it will sell the rest. But the projection doesn’t include the operational assumptions or metrics describing how those sales will be accomplished.
Bottom-Up Projections
A bottom-up financial projection is built on a solid foundation of measurable, tangible metrics and assumptions. From day one, the entrepreneur knows what needs to be achieved and has a plan to achieve it. Investors and bankers can see the venture’s operational assumptions in order to determine if they believe they are reasonable and achievable. Maybe more importantly, the entrepreneur can also determine if he believes his operational assumptions are achievable.
Here’s an example. One of the ventures I’ve worked with sells upscale swimwear and accessories. Instead of starting with the swimwear market and subtracting, it started with what it planned to achieve. Starting at launch, it forecast three metrics (plus price, of course) per month:
- The number of cities where it would sign up retailers
- The number of retailers per city
- The number of swimsuits and accessories sold per month at each retailer
So, it built the revenue expectation from real goals – and made sure it felt they were achievable.
- The entrepreneur and I discussed how many cities she could reasonably visit in a month, and listed the actual cities to be visited (by the way, this also allowed us to accurately forecast travel).
- We looked at the cities and determined how easy or hard it would be to meet the goal for signing retailers.
- We looked at the volume typical retailers sell for a given brand and model.
Then instead of subtracting things from a hypothetical pie, we multiplied these assumptions to determine the venture’s projection. Instead of a dream of magically commanding some share of a total market, we now know what we believe to be a reasonable financial projection based upon operational goals we have determined we can achieve.
One final word. What happens if we are unable to achieve the projection? Well, since we have individual metrics we can easily determine where we fell short. Then we can manage that by adjusting operational resources to visit more cities, visit more retailers per city, adjust our POP merchandising – whatever the numbers say is needed – or maybe adjust the projection if we determine we need to.
In other words, bottom-up projections are manageable while top-down projections are not.
