The pricing strategy that stopped working two years ago and is still running because changing it feels risky. The comp policy that is costing more than it is recovering and is still running because it feels like the Guest expects it. The vendor relationship that is producing diminishing returns and is still running because finding a new one is uncomfortable. The revenue model that was built for a different market and is still running because the operator can’t see past it.
[Change Resistance] in the Profit fundamental is the most expensive version because it compounds silently. Every period the wrong Profit model runs, the cost accumulates — not in a single dramatic line item, but in the slow erosion of margin, frequency, and competitive position. By the time the P&L makes the cost undeniable, the operator has been paying it for years.
Loss Aversion is the primary mechanism. The pricing change that would improve margin feels risky because the operator experiences the potential loss of Guests more vividly than the potential gain of margin. The vendor renegotiation that would save money feels risky because the operator experiences the potential loss of the relationship more vividly than the potential gain of the savings. The revenue model change that would produce a more sustainable business feels risky because the operator experiences the potential loss of the current revenue more vividly than the potential gain of the better model.
The Profit discipline of [Change Resistance]: quantify the cost of not changing before evaluating the risk of changing. The operator who has been running the wrong comp policy for two years has been paying a cost every period — and that cost is real even if it is invisible on the dashboard. The decision is not “do I risk changing?” It is “am I willing to keep paying the cost of staying the same?” Named that way, the calculus shifts. [Loss Aversion] loses some of its power when the loss of inaction is made as visible as the loss of action.
