Hugo Galvao de Franca Filho often hears the same pitch from every new marketplace gaining traction in Brazil: another channel, another slice of traffic, another line of revenue for relatively little extra work. However, he has come to doubt the last part of it. Extra revenue rarely arrives for free, and the costs associated with a new channel often manifest in ways that a commission rate never captures.
Enjoy Pets sells actively on three marketplaces and has deliberately stayed off several others that would, on paper, add reach. That decision runs against the instinct to be everywhere a buyer might search, and it comes from watching what actually happens inside the operation once a new channel goes live.
The assumption behind adding another channel
The pitch for a new marketplace usually leads with audience size and commission rate, both of which are easy to compare across platforms in a spreadsheet. What that comparison leaves out is everything that happens after the first sale comes in: a separate inventory feed to keep synced, a separate messaging inbox to monitor, and a separate set of return and cancellation rules to learn.
None of that shows up as a line item anywhere, which is exactly why it gets underestimated. A marketplace’s own onboarding materials focus on how easy it is to list a product, not on how much ongoing attention that listing needs once it starts selling.
What a new channel actually costs
Each marketplace requires its own version of customer service, since messages, complaints, and return requests do not funnel into one shared queue across platforms. A seller running three channels is effectively running three separate support operations, even if the same person handles all of them, answering the same kind of question in three different interfaces with three different response-time expectations.
Inventory sync carries its own risk. A product that oversells because two channels both showed stock that had already run out creates a cancellation on one platform and a possible reputation hit on both, and reconciling that mess costs more staff time than the extra channel earned in the sales that triggered it. To Hugo Galvao de Franca Filho, ads add a third layer: each platform’s campaigns need their own budget, their own creative, and their own person watching whether that spend is actually converting.
Where the math stops working
A fourth or fifth marketplace tends to bring in a smaller slice of incremental revenue than the first three, since the buyers most likely to search there are often already reachable through channels the seller already covers. The marginal sale gets smaller while the marginal overhead, another inbox, another sync point, another set of rules to track, stays roughly fixed.
Hugo Galvao indicates that past that point, adding a channel stops being expansion and starts being maintenance dressed up as growth. The revenue chart moves up slightly; the operational load moves up by more.
Where Enjoy Pets draws the line instead
The team reviews channel performance by revenue per hour of operational attention it requires, not by revenue alone, and a marketplace that scores well on the second number sometimes gets dropped even when the first one looks fine. That filter is what has kept the company at three channels while competitors chase five or six, and it gets revisited every time a promising new platform comes up for discussion rather than decided once and left alone.
Depth on fewer marketplaces, in Hugo Galvao’s experience, tends to beat breadth across many, since the same attention spread over three channels produces sharper listings, faster support, and fewer stockouts than it would spread thin across twice as many storefronts. The question worth asking before joining a new one is not whether it could bring in sales, but whether the team has the hours to make those sales worth having.
