The Right Yes: Building Revenue That Reinforces Your Business

In a previous article, I told you to stop trying to do and be everything. That your unfocused diversification is destroying your profitability. I told you when and why it’s important to say “No”.

Now I’d like to share specific ways to help you determine when saying “Yes” makes you stronger.

This isn’t a contradiction—it’s the difference between strategic adjacencies that multiply your advantage and scattered opportunism that fragments your business. Let me show you how to tell them apart.

Traeger wasn’t satisfied with just selling grills, they wanted to build an ecosystem. Once you had purchased a wood pellet grill, they sold you the pellets. Then the rubs. Then the sauces. Then the grill covers and accessories. By 2024, these “adjacent” products generated revenue substantial enough to nearly match their grill sales. More importantly, Traeger claims that 96% of people who own their grills also buy Traeger pellets. And there’s the rub (pun intended)—we’re no longer talking about diversification. We’re talking about customer lock-in. We are talking about making your core value proposition essential in the minds of your customers.

For a contrasting comparison we can take a hard look at Subway’s pizza attempts. Yes, pizza. And yes, attempts – plural. They tried personal pizzas in 2006. Failed. Tried again with “Flatizzas” in 2014. Failed in less than a year. One reviewer said the crust achieved “the worst of both worlds: super chewy as well as super dry.” Another compared it to gas station pizza. Subway’s own Facebook page admitted defeat: “The vast majority of our customers continued to choose our delicious subs and salads, rather than Flatizza.”

Traeger’s adjacencies made their core business stronger. Every pellet sale reinforced the grill purchase. Every rub reminded customers why they loved their Traeger. Meanwhile, Subway’s pizza diluted their identity as THE sandwich place. It confused customers, complicated operations, and distracted them from fixing their core business during a period when traffic was already in significant decline.

What separates strategic growth from scattered opportunism? How do you identify opportunities that multiply your strength rather than dilute it?

If you’re a first-time reader, this article assumes you’ve already identified the distractions you need to cut. If you’re not sure whether you’re over-diversified, start with The Focus Audit: Is Your Business Trying to Do Too Much? It includes a 7-question assessment that will reveal if you’re trying to do too much. Then come back here to learn which opportunities are worth saying yes to.

Let’s revisit Commercial Laundry X from my last article. They serve hotels and hospitals; both need linens, right? Seems adjacent. Seems like “easy” revenue to add because: “How different can it be?” you think. “It’s all laundry.” Wrong.

Hotels—and “hospitality” linen in general—have a largely universal set of criteria they are trying to meet when it comes to deeming the quality of the product they receive as acceptable. There are “shade bands” absolutely; four-star resorts will typically have much more stringent expectations than a two-star chain, but the basic needs are centered around presentation.

Healthcare linen users certainly care how the product looks, but the primary concern is going to be adherence to infection control protocols. A victim of severe laceration isn’t going to care much if their bed sheet has a few wrinkles at the corners. They will absolutely care if they get a bacterial infection from lying on the sheet.

These aren’t adjacent markets. They’re different planets with different languages, different standards, and in the case of producing their linens—entirely different equipment needs.

Trying to serve both means Commercial Laundry X is excellent at neither.

And here’s what “easy” adjacency costs them (and you):

Your team isn’t learning two services—they’re learning how those services conflict, when to prioritize one over the other, and how to explain the differences to customers. What looked like 100% more training becomes 400% more complexity. Your quality standards become subjective; what defines perfect for one customer becomes overthinking it for another. Your cash flow turns you into a bank—Net 60 here, Net 90 there. And when someone asks for a referral from one of your customers? “They do….everything I guess?” Premium pricing requires clarity. Confusion gets you commodity pricing.

But what if Commercial Laundry X added chef coats to a core focus of high-end restaurant table linen service? Same delivery truck. Same customer contact. Same washing equipment. Same service model. That’s a true adjacency; it leverages everything you’ve already built. Does it potentially add a little complexity? Of course—and that’s okay—provided you are leveraging your existing capabilities FIRST.

Non-adjacent opportunities are more akin to building a new business from scratch. And most businesses can’t tell the difference until it’s too late. Research conducted by Bain & Company shows only 1 in 4 adjacency moves succeed. The rest fail either immediately if they’re “lucky”, or after a long, painful slog to the bottom.

The primary reasons? Overreaching beyond core competencies. Underestimating competition. Misjudging what “seems related” versus what IS related.

Before you say yes to any growth opportunity, run it through these three filters.

Three critical questions: Does this use my existing processes? Does it primarily use my existing equipment and infrastructure with minimal additional needs? Can my current team deliver it without significant retraining?

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

A dine-in only restaurant adding “to-go” passes this filter—same kitchen, same cooks, same food, just packaged differently.

A restaurant adding a grocery section fails—different inventory management, different health regulations, different skill set entirely, different cash flow cycles.

Cintas understood this when they expanded from uniforms into first-aid and safety supplies in 1997. They already had trucks visiting over a million businesses weekly. They already had route drivers trained in inventory management and customer service. They already had the subscription-based service model. Adding first-aid cabinets to those routes just increased route density. Today, that adjacent business is reported to generate over $1 billion annually at gross margins exceeding 50%; higher than their core uniform business.

Three more critical questions: Is it the same buyer or decision maker? Does it follow the same buying cycle and pattern? Will it strengthen relationships with existing customers?

Cintas nailed this too. The same safety manager who ordered uniforms also needed first-aid supplies. Same budget. Same compliance concerns. Same vendor management process.

In fact, the company now generates a strong majority of its annual growth from cross-selling additional services to existing customers.

To compare, imagine an HVAC company decided to add plumbing services. Seems logical; both are home services and both involve pipes and systems. But now the company is facing different emergency patterns, different licensing requirements, different tools, different expertise. What looks adjacent on paper becomes a second business in practice.

This is where most businesses lie to themselves.

The final three critical questions: Does this improve margins on your core business? Does it genuinely increase customer lifetime value? Does it create a competitive moat?

FedEx acquired Kinko’s thinking they’d found the perfect synergy; print, pack, and ship all in one place. Same locations, same customers, same transaction. On paper, it passed operational and customer filters cleanly.

But here’s what they missed: both businesses were dying. Email was replacing overnight documents. PDFs were replacing printing. They weren’t creating synergy—they were handcuffing two sinking ships together. The results confirmed it. Revenue barely grew in year one. Operating margins declined. Four years later, FedEx wrote down massive value just to strip the Kinko’s name off. They eventually closed hundreds of locations and withdrew from international markets.

That’s not economic enhancement—that’s doubling down on obsolescence. Even when the first two filters align perfectly, if the economics don’t work or the market is in structural decline, the adjacency fails.

Here’s your Three-Filter scorecard: Does the opportunity pass all three filters? You have a strong strategic opportunity. If it passes only two filters? Proceed with extreme caution. One or zero? You’re building a separate business whether you admit it or not, and if you’re not careful you could destroy both.

Let’s move from theory to reality. Here are the patterns that winning enhancements follow:

Start with your basic service. Add a premium version of the same thing. The same operations, minimal added complexity, higher margins.

Costco perfected this with Executive Membership. Same warehouse, same products, same basic operations—but Executive Members pay double the rate for 2% cash back and extra services. Here’s the genius: customers who pay double don’t just get rewards; they shop more frequently to “get their money’s worth.” Higher visit frequency drives higher basket size.

That 2% they’re earning back? Costco more than makes up for it in incremental purchases. More than a third of Costco members pay for Executive level, driving significant margin increases with virtually zero additional operational complexity. That’s not just an upsell; that’s behavioral economics creating a profit multiplier.

What do your customers need immediately before or after your service? Own that too.

CarMax built a billion-dollar adjacency with in-house financing and MaxCare extended warranties. They already have the customer at point of purchase. They already assessed the vehicle’s condition. The customer is emotionally committed to THIS specific car, and now CarMax offers to protect that investment. The pain of potential repair costs is immediate and vivid—way more real than it’ll be six months from now.

That’s not just lifecycle adjacency—that’s capturing the customer at peak vulnerability. And CarMax reports over half of their customers buy the warranty. Not because of high sales pressure, but because the timing makes it feel necessary. You just spent $25,000 on a used car; of course you want protection. The adjacency works because it solves tomorrow’s anxiety with reassurance delivered today.

Complementary services, same operational model, increases switching costs.

Square started with payment processing, then systematically added every painful part of running a small business—payroll, inventory, scheduling, appointments, lending. Each service solved a problem their customers were already solving badly with multiple disconnected tools.

What makes this an incredible strategy is the simplicity it promises the customer, while actually entrenching them more deeply into Square’s via complexity. Everything runs through the same dashboard, using the same login and pulls from the same data. Your point-of-sale system talks to your payroll system talks to your inventory system talks to your appointment scheduler. Now switching payment processors doesn’t just mean finding a new card reader—it means rebuilding your entire operations stack.

That complexity became Square’s moat. They didn’t just make it easy to take payments—they made it painful to leave.

All these patterns make the CORE offering stronger, not just add revenue. That’s the test. If your adjacency doesn’t reinforce your core business, it’s not an adjacency, it’s a distraction.

Stop guessing. Score every opportunity objectively. Rate each factor from 1-5:

Operational Fit: Can you deliver with current resources, or does it require building new capabilities from scratch?

• 5 = Uses 90% + existing equipment, processes, and skills
• 3 = Uses 50% existing capabilities, some new investment needed
• 1 = Requires entirely new capabilities, equipment or skills

Customer Fit: Will your existing customers buy this from you, or are you chasing entirely new markets?

• 5 = Same decision maker(s), same budget, same buying process
• 3 = Same company, different department or modified sales process
• 1 = Completely new customer segment or decision makers

Economic Benefit: Does this enhance margins, increase customer lifetime value, or create competitive advantage?

• 5 = Higher margins than core AND increases customer lifetime value
• 3 = Similar/lower margins than core but significant increase in customer lifetime value
• 1 = Lower margins than core and no significant impact on customer value

Implementation Ease: Can you test this quickly, or does it require massive upfront investment?

• 5 = Can test within 30 days using existing resources
• 3 = 3-6 months to launch, moderate investment required
• 1 = 6+ months to launch and significant investment to test

Strategic Importance: Does this make you harder to replace, or just busier?

• 5 = Creates significant switching costs and competitive moat
• 3 = Some differentiation, moderate retention impact
• 1 = No impact on competitive position or customer lock-in

20-25 points: Strong strategic opportunity. This is your “Right Yes.” Move forward with confidence but maintain discipline.

15-19 points: Possible opportunity. Test carefully with a pilot program before full commitment. Set clear metrics for success and “kill” criteria upfront. Then stick to it.

Under 15 points: Distraction dressed as opportunity. Protect your focus. Say no clearly and quickly.

A uniform rental company is considering adding flame-resistant specialty uniforms to their catalogue of offerings:

Operational fit = 5 (same equipment, same logistics, small change to wash process)

Customer fit = 5 (same buyers, same customers)

Economic benefit: 4 (30% higher margins)

Implementation = 3 (certification needed on wash processes, moderate expense for testing)

Strategic Importance = 3 (only one competitor offering similar products)

Total = 22 – A clear strategic opportunity.

Even if an opportunity scores 20+, timing matters. Don’t pursue ANY adjacency if:

• You’re not yet excellent at your core (still fixing quality/delivery issues)
• Your core market isn’t saturated (still plenty of core growth available)
• You lack (or are developing) management bandwidth
• Cash flow is tight (adjacencies always cost more than expected)

The best time for adjacencies? When you’re dominating your core, have stable operations, strong cash reserves, and hitting natural growth ceilings. Until then, every adjacency—even a “perfect” one—is potentially damaging to your business if you’re not prepared to execute with discipline and sound judgement.

Whether you’re adding strategic adjacencies or cutting distractions, execution determines success.

Start with a pilot program. Test with a limited time frame and a select few top customers you trust to give you honest feedback. Set kill criteria upfront—specific metrics that trigger exit if not met. Measure true fully-loaded cost, including the complexity tax. Include management time, training costs, error rates, customer confusion, and opportunity cost of not improving your core.

Testing with a few top customers is critical. If they don’t want it, nobody will—or at least nobody you WANT as a customer. Their feedback is worth more than any market research.

Give customers 60-90 days’ notice or more, wherever possible. Provide referrals to specialists who can serve them better in that particular niche. Make exit easy; waive penalties, help with transition, maintain the relationship. Most will thank you. They knew they weren’t getting your best. You were both pretending otherwise.

Be transparent about your focus. “We’re choosing to be exceptional at X rather than mediocre at X, Y, and Z.” Most customers will respect the specialization. The ones who don’t were probably problem customers anyway.

The right growth opportunities don’t just add revenue—they multiply your strength. They make your core business more valuable, your customer relationships stickier, your competitive position stronger.

Traeger’s pursuit of adjacencies multiplied strength while Subway’s divided it.

Remember: Most adjacency moves fail. The successful ones follow clear patterns – they leverage existing operations, serve existing customers better, and enhance overall economics.

They pass all three filters and they score 20+ on the strategic assessment.

Every other opportunity, no matter how attractive it seems, is building a second business. And if you wanted to run two businesses, you already would be. If you ARE running two businesses, you probably have them branded differently, for good reasons.

The question isn’t whether to grow. It’s whether that growth reinforces or fragments your business. Choose reinforcement. Choose multiplication. Choose the Right Yes.

Ready to evaluate your growth opportunities objectively? Download The Right Yes Scorecard and evaluate three opportunities currently sitting on your desk in under 10 minutes. It’s completely free; no logins, no email requests, just click to download.

Still unsure which opportunities are strategic versus distracting? Let’s map your path forward together. Proceed to Contact and schedule a discovery call by providing some basic information on a secure form.

Thomas Geller is the Principal of TBG Advisory, specializing in operational and financial transformation for small and mid-sized companies. He’s spent over 15 years as COO and CFO helping others build strategic advantages through disciplined expansion. His approach: Think Strategically. Build Deliberately. Grow Sustainably.