The tail has a complexity cost even when each SKU 'covers its costs' on a contribution sheet that ignores shared work.
Too many products is a contribution-by-SKU and complexity-cost problem. The tail consumes sales attention, support, and inventory out of proportion to what it returns. Prune against contribution and against the cost of keeping the SKU alive, not against affection for the catalogue.
The move that usually makes it worse: Adding a bundle that contains the tail so you can say you simplified without killing anything.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures.
If it is your problem and you want the analysis on your numbers, the live page is https://percision.app/we-have-too-many-products. The engine routes this question to Portfolio Strategy. Metrics that decide it: contribution by SKU · complexity cost.
Industry variants: Professional services · Banks & financial services · Healthcare providers · Healthtech / digital health · Logistics & supply chain · E-commerce & DTC · Manufacturing · Construction & trades · Retail · Real estate & property · Fintech
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures.
Some do. Price it as exception work or stop. A catalogue that exists because someone once asked is not a strategy.
Related. If you cannot rank contribution you cannot prune. Start there if the ranking does not exist.