Since when is a start-up aggressive growth company's success measured soley on its revenue growth?
I guess the author of the article I posted from Entrpeneur magazine yesterday must be a moron for detailing out the importance of giving up "expensive" revenues for lower more profitable revenues.
Growth companies have many variables which need to be looked at in determining their future. Aggressive growth companies do not live and die by the sword from revenues and net income in their first 5 years of operations.
So let's stop pretending that Labor SMART's success can only be measured by what they are producing in revenues. Let's also stop predicting what they should be doing when it is quite obvious that we do not know.