Calder & Co.Food & Beverage
Finding the margin hiding in the fee schedule
Calder's revenue was growing and its margin was not. The gap was in fee tiers, storage and unreconciled returns.
Engagement: Operations and analytics · 10 months
Headline results
+6.3pt
Contribution margin
As a share of net revenue
-42%
Storage fees
Trailing 6 months
100%
Reconciliation
Dashboard to settlement report
Illustrative figures. This case study is demonstration content. Replace the brand, quote and every number here with verified, client-approved data before publishing — see src/content/case-studies.ts.
The challenge
What was actually wrong.
Calder reported Amazon revenue before returns and fees, so the channel appeared far more profitable than it was.
A packaging change eighteen months earlier had never been reflected in Amazon's dimension records, putting several SKUs in the wrong fee tier.
Background
Food and beverage carries tight margins and high storage sensitivity, so fee tier errors compound quickly.
Finance and marketing were working from different definitions of 'Amazon revenue', which made every budget conversation an argument about data.
Strategy
What we decided to do — and in what order.
Agree the definitions first
Before building anything, we agreed one definition each for revenue, net revenue and contribution margin, and documented them.
Reconcile to settlement
The dashboard was validated against a known settlement period rather than assumed to be accurate.
Correct the record, then claim
Dimension and weight corrections were filed first so the overcharge stopped, then historical claims were pursued.
Make storage a planned cost
Aged inventory was modelled against removal and discount options rather than left to accrue.
Execution
The work, week by week.
- Audited recorded dimensions and weights across the catalogue; filed corrections on 19 SKUs.
- Ran a full reimbursement audit within current eligibility windows and tracked each claim to resolution.
- Built a contribution margin model per ASIN including landed cost, fees, returns and storage.
- Reconciled the dashboard against a full settlement period and documented every definition.
- Introduced an aged-inventory review with removal, discount and bundle options modelled monthly.
Before vs after
The movement.
| Metric | Before | After | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| SKUs in incorrect fee tier | 19 | 0 | After dimension corrections |
| Long-term storage exposure | High | Low | Aged units as share of inventory |
| Definitions of 'Amazon revenue' in use | 4 | 1 | Documented and agreed |
| Dashboard-to-settlement variance | Unknown | Under 1% | Reconciled monthly |
View the underlying data as a table
| Period | Indexed value |
|---|---|
| M1 | 11 |
| M3 | 13 |
| M6 | 15 |
| M8 | 16 |
| M10 | 17 |
Timeline
How it unfolded.
Weeks 1–4
Definitions and audit
Metric definitions agreed; dimension and reimbursement audit run.
Weeks 5–12
Corrections and claims
Fee corrections filed; historical claims pursued to resolution.
Months 4–7
Margin model
Contribution margin by ASIN built and reconciled to settlement.
Months 8–10
Embedding
Monthly aged-inventory review and weekly written summary established.
Key learnings
What we'd tell the next brand.
Operational margin recovery is unglamorous and often larger than the gain available from bid optimisation.
A dashboard that has never been reconciled to settlement is an assumption, not a report.
Agreeing metric definitions before building the reporting removes most future disagreements.
Nothing about our advertising changed in the first quarter. Our margin still went up.
Placeholder attribution. Client names and quotes are published only with written permission.
Services used in this engagement
Revenue recovery
Reimbursement claims, fee corrections and the quiet leakage most accounts never audit.
ExploreReporting & analytics
One dashboard that reconciles to your accounts, with a written recommendation attached.
ExploreInventory management
Forecasting, replenishment and stock coverage so rank is never lost to an avoidable stockout.
Explore