Different reports use different definitions of sales and margin. The leadership team wants to compare channels, but product costs, fulfillment, returns and shared operating spend are not presented on a consistent basis.
The starting point
The fictional leadership team has several useful reports, each created for a different purpose. The next step is to agree which view belongs in the operating review and what it is intended to explain.
The work to define
The proposed engagement pairs the reporting structure with a definitions sheet. That makes room to discuss product cost inputs, returns and allocation choices without presenting one universal margin number.
Any real analysis would depend on agreed policies and verified information. This case shows the questions and deliverables, rather than claiming a financial finding.
The approach
Define the question before the metric
Agree which decision the channel view should support and which period it should describe.
Write down the reporting definitions
Make the treatment of returns, channel fees, product costs, fulfillment and shared costs explicit in the management view.
Keep the bridge understandable
Present the steps between channel activity and the agreed contribution view, with notes where inputs or allocations remain uncertain.
What the work could produce
Management-reporting definitions sheet
Illustrative channel contribution bridge
Cost-input and allocation responsibility map
Review agenda for exceptions and planning questions
A comparison becomes more useful when everyone knows what is included, what is excluded and which assumptions sit behind it.
The bridge is an example of communication design, not an accounting calculation or a client's result. No claim is made that either channel is more profitable.
All cases