The reason that you spent that much money building the cargo has comparatively little to do with the cost of the launch and everything to do with the fact that you really don't get multiple chances to get it right
I think you need to go back to your initial assumption, which might not be true any longer. With lower $/kg to your selected orbit, replacing a satellite is economically possible and building a satellite with a much shorter projected lifetime is probably optimal because the alternative is for the operator to be stuck with 20-year-old technology in orbit (given 15-year design lifetimes and a 5-year design-to-launch cycle, which might be optimistic).
If you really run that sort of company, you need to be looking about what could happen if your assumptions are wrong. And not advertising the fact that you aren't doing that.