Blog · Board and management reporting
A reading guide for a customer concentration table: why the level of the top-ten share is the least informative column, the trend as the first read, the count-to-half as the second, the customer detail behind the top ten, contract, sites, contacts, as the third, and the per-rep and per-segment views that a company-level table hides, with the two rows to open, the customer that rose fastest and the rep whose count to half is one.
A concentration table leads with the top-ten share and the reader stops there. The number that matters is three columns to the right, and the view that matters is a level down. This guide is the reading order for a concentration table: trend, count to half, the detail behind the top ten, the per-rep view, and the two rows to open.
| Order | Column or view | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trend of top-ten share and count to half | The signal is direction, not level |
| 2 | Count to half | How many relationships carry the business |
| 3 | Detail behind each top-ten customer | Strength or dependency |
| 4 | Per-rep and per-segment | Where the company table hides the finding |
| 5 | Level of top-ten share | Last, against industry structure |
| Measure | This year | Last year | Two years ago |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-ten share | 52% | 46% | 44% |
| Count to half | 9 | 11 | 12 |
| Customer count | 380 | 375 | 370 |
Trend: rising six points with a static customer count, and three fewer relationships carrying half. That is the finding before any level is read.
| Customer | Share | Contract | Sites | Products | Contacts, recent | Trend | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2207 | 14% | 3-year, expires in 20 months | 6 | 5 | 4 | +28% | Strength; note the expiry |
| 4471 | 9% | None | 1 | 1 | 1 | +41% | Dependency growing fastest |
| 9034 | 7% | 2-year | 3 | 3 | 2 | +3% | Fine |
Customer 4471 rose fastest, has no contract, one site, one product and one contact. That is nine percent of the company on one relationship. Open that row.
| Rep | Revenue | Top-1 share | Count to half |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-04 | $6.1m | 61% | 1 |
| R-11 | $4.8m | 18% | 6 |
| R-17 | $3.9m | 12% | 9 |
Rep R-04's book is one customer. The company table said 14 percent and nothing about this. Open that row too.
The customer that rose fastest into the top ten: 4471. The conversation is about a contract, a second contact and a second site.
The rep whose count to half is one: R-04. The conversation is about coverage of the other sixty-one accounts, and about what happens if 4471 leaves.
Level read first. Fifty-two percent, and a debate about whether that is high.
Trend ignored. The rise from forty-four is the whole story.
Detail skipped. 2207 and 4471 at similar shares, one a strength and one a risk.
Company view only. R-04's one customer invisible.
Covirage lays out the concentration table trend first, count to half second, detail behind the top ten, then per rep and per segment, with the level last. The customer concentration guide covers the measures, and the concentration by industry hub covers the structure the level is read against.
Because a top-ten share of 60 percent is normal for a supplier to a few health systems and alarming for a distributor with two thousand accounts. The level is read against the industry's structure and the company's own history, and the trend is where the history is.
For each: contract term and expiry, sites and product lines, number of recent contacts, revenue trend. A customer with a multi-year contract, several sites and three contacts is a strength. One with no contract, one site and one contact is a dependency at the same share.
Because the company's largest customer at 14 percent is one rep's at 61. That rep's number is one relationship, and their coverage, load and succession are a different conversation from the company's concentration. The company table cannot show it.