Who This Article Is For
- Owners deciding whether to leave an unprofitable activity
- People who feel they have invested too much to stop
- Leaders improving decision-making
The Concorde Fallacy: Judge Future Value Beyond Sunk Costs
Recognize how past investment delays stopping, and use fresh-start questions, advance criteria, and independent review to protect future resources.
Published
Separate Irrecoverable Investment from the Value of Continuing
The Concorde fallacy is continuing because it feels wasteful to give up past time or money. Irrecoverable expenditure can distort future decisions, prolonging losses and delaying action.
Ask whether continuing offers value from now on. A stopping decision can protect resources and become part of a strategy.
What Is the Concorde Fallacy?
It is also called the sunk-cost effect. Sunk costs are resources already spent and no longer recoverable, including time, effort, staffing, and emotional investment.
The term became associated with development of the Concorde supersonic airliner: enormous prior expenditure helped sustain a project despite concerns about commercial viability.
The central problem is allowing an irrecoverable past investment to justify further future losses.
Common Business Examples
The pattern also occurs in ordinary companies, including among highly responsible people.
A business may receive years of investment while sales remain weak and losses continue. “We have come this far” then becomes a reason to keep going.
Other examples include:
- Repeatedly improving an unsold product
- Keeping an ineffective advertising initiative
- Continuing an unsuitable recruitment method
- Maintaining a business relationship with little future potential
Past investment constrains the choice.
Three Psychological Obstacles to Stopping
Loss aversion, consistency, and attachment can all contribute.
Reluctance to Realize a Loss
Stopping can feel like confirming that past investment failed. Continuing avoids that pain temporarily.
If it adds further losses, however, the avoidance becomes more expensive.
Reluctance to Revise Your Own Decision
Changing a chosen policy can feel like admitting an error, especially for the person responsible.
Management needs the ability to update a judgment as circumstances change.
Attachment Clouds the Figures
A business you founded, a product you developed, or an initiative you chose can carry strong attachment.
The attachment has meaning, but an exit decision needs an outside view alongside it.
Three Ways to Review the Decision
Use arrangements that remain helpful when feelings are strong.
Consider Starting from Zero
Would you invest in this business today if you were beginning anew?
If the answer is uncertain, past investment may be doing more of the work than current prospects.
Choose Exit Criteria in Advance
Define criteria through sales, margin, retention, or acquisition cost before emotional attachment grows.
Examples include:
- Review after three consecutive loss-making months
- Pause when acquisition cost exceeds a limit
- Exit if the target volume is not reached
An advance agreement is harder to reshape afterward for emotional reasons.
For distinguishing persistence from attachment, see Separating Sunk Costs from Persistence. It considers signs of improvement and priorities among alternatives alongside stopping criteria.
Invite an Independent Assessment
People less involved can examine the figures more calmly.
Their role is to question assumptions that have become hard to see. A stopping decision can particularly benefit from outside scrutiny.
SpreadSite is a no-code website builder that lets you create, publish, and update a website from Google Sheets using ready-made templates.
To update your website to reflect the services and priorities you choose to continue, give SpreadSite a try!
Build a website with SpreadSite →
About the Author
Thank you for reading!
I develop and operate SpreadSite, a service for creating websites from spreadsheets.
It helps people with limited time and money communicate what makes their work appealing. Consider it if you need a website! SpreadSite
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How does the fallacy differ from persistence?
A: Persistence rests on future potential. The fallacy rests on reluctance to give up past investment.
Q: Is ignoring sunk costs cold?
A: It protects future resources. Irrecoverable expenditure cannot be restored by adding further losses.
Q: Does this occur in small decisions?
A: Yes, such as finishing an uninteresting film or keeping an unused subscription. Small decisions provide practice.
Q: What if acknowledging failure feels frightening?
A: Think of stopping as creating room for the next allocation. Resources preserved can support a future attempt.
