Committing the sunk cost fallacy involves continuing a behavior

[DonalCerry]

as a result of previously invested resources, like continuing to use software that doesn’t work well because of the time, energy and money you’ve invested in setting it up. Ultimately, that’s a flawed way of making evaluations, though. Switching from a poor software to a good one will save you resources in the long run. Let’s walk through an example.

You might be using a marketing automation platform (tool X). Maybe that tool integrates hong kong cell phone number data well with a CRM (tool Y), which integrates with many other tools. So, through that integration with tool Y, you could connect tool X with different tools to try to build out your tech stack’s functionality. In order to properly integrate numerous tools, though, you need to account for data integrity and maintaining the accuracy of information across your platforms.

Say you wanted to connect a chatbot (tool Z) to your marketing automation platform to book meetings. If tool X doesn’t have the necessary functionality, you could only connect tool Z to X through Y. To do so, you would need to properly connect Z to Y and Y to X. From there information would be passed between the platforms. Then, you would need to build a trigger in tool X to ensure the information is properly received and translated. Overall, this process is not ideal.

It would be much simpler to integrate tool X directly with tool Z, but if tool X doesn’t have that functionality, there’s nothing you can do. Instead, you must rely on two layers of software to transfer data.