Short excerpt of a YouTube video by Mike Andes (May 8, 2025) in which he advises a business owner to eliminate certain services that require the owner to be on-site. Argument: sacrificing some project revenue (around 20%) can dramatically reduce on-site time (claimed 60–80%), freeing the owner to improve communication, close more business, and increase profitability.
Questions this video answers
Cut out about 20% of project revenue while cutting 60–80% of the time spent on job sites.
Biggest complaints we had was not answering the phone. Communication was terrible.
What I would say then is like, if the constraint of the business is you being able to communicate better with customers, we need to free you up. So then this question is like, why are you not free now? Well, I have to be on the jobs. Like they have to be perfect. Okay, great. What are the things that if you're not there, fall through the cracks and then eliminate those services. There's also a reason why having a good P and L and even you could use Java for this. Figure out what which services you're making revenue from. Because I happen to believe you could cut out 20% of your project revenue, but cut out 60, 70, 80% of the amount of time you must be on the job site. But by doing that, increase our communication and double the other parts of the business because we just have better close ratio, better communication.
I don't want to have to be out there. I don't.
That should be the thing we solve for. And if that means cutting out 10 to 15% of revenue so we can attach attack the other 80% of revenue, good idea.
