Solutions

Same systems. Your situation.

There are no special products here. There are 4 systems, and 3 kinds of operators under 3 kinds of pressure. What changes is the install order — and which number we fix first.

Track 01 — brand operators

“Revenue grew. Profit didn’t.”

$5M–$50M private-label brands

Read the track Track 02 — aggregators

“EBITDA varies 20 points between brands.”

Portfolios of 10–60 brands

Read the track Track 03 — manufacturers

“We make the product. Everyone else profits from it.”

Factories and distributors going direct

Read the track

Track 01 — brand operators · $5M–$50M private label

"Revenue grew. Profit didn't."

You're the founder or COO. Ad costs rise faster than sales, the agency reports activity, and the P&L reports the truth. The call usually comes after the second flat-profit quarter on growing revenue.

That quarter is not a coincidence — it's the operating model hitting its ceiling. Disconnected services optimize their own metric; nobody owns the margin.

Avg client outcome — 2025 cohort
+23% contribution margin in 2 quarters

The pressures

Margin compression — costs up, price frozen since launch.
Ad spend rising faster than sales, optimized to the wrong denominator.
Every fix so far has added headcount, not capacity.

First 90 days

Audit — 14 daysProfitability model of your account. Yours to keep.

Profit & Pricing EngineThe margin floor first — fees audited, unit economics current.

Demand & Inventory OSStop the air freight. Reorder points with supplier variance built in.

Margin bridge — published Q1Every point of change attributed: price, fees, ads, mix.

Proof before commitment

The audit ends with a profitability model of your own account — your SKUs, your fees, your margin bridge. Not a sample deck. You keep it either way.

Track 02 — aggregators & holdcos · 10–60 brands

"EBITDA varies 20 points between brands, and the board wants to know why."

You bought the brands; you inherited the operating chaos. Every P&L is built differently, every playbook lives in someone's head, and a diligence-grade answer takes 3 weeks and 4 spreadsheets.

The variance isn't a talent problem. It's the absence of a standard.

Reference case — 23 brands, EU-5
EBITDA variance 19 pts → 7 pts

The pressures

No unified data layer — 23 brands, 23 report formats.
Playbooks are people; people leave.
Board reporting is an archaeology project, quarterly.

First 90 days

Audit — portfolio sample, 14 days3 brands, one method. The variance gets a cause.

One reporting layerAll P&Ls, one format. Diligence-grade in hours, not weeks.

Standardized playbooksBy function, versioned, owned — not tribal.

Coverage reported per brandAutomation coverage becomes a portfolio KPI.

The standard, demonstrated

The audit runs on a 3-brand sample and returns one reporting layer across them — the same layer that would run the portfolio. Constraint from the reference case: 2 brands exited the program in phase 1. Standardization has a cost, and we report it.

Track 03 — manufacturers & distributors · building a marketplace P&L

"We make the product. Everyone else profits from it."

You own the factory floor and none of the shelf. Going direct means channel conflict with the buyers you still need, a MAP policy that collapses the first week nobody enforces it, and a marketplace muscle your org chart doesn't have.

The first failed launch is usually the tuition. The roadmap below is what the second attempt looks like when it's engineered.

Typical engagement
Phased over 3–4 quarters · metrics at every gate

The pressures

Channel conflict — your buyers are also your competitors now.
MAP collapse — the floor is only as real as its enforcement.
Zero marketplace muscle in-house, and hiring it takes a year.

The phased roadmap — named milestones

Phase 0 — audit · 14 daysChannel map + direct-channel P&L model. Gate: board sign-off on the math.

Phase 1 — Q1 · listing system + price guardrailsMAP floor, enforced by monitoring. Gate: zero floor violations, 30 days.

Phase 2 — Q2 · Demand & InventoryDirect forecast split from wholesale. Gate: days-of-cover accuracy ≥90%.

Phase 3 — Q3 · AdvertisingMargin-gated from day 1. Gate: TACOS within target band.

A roadmap with named milestones

Every phase has a gate metric agreed in advance. If phase 1's number doesn't clear, phase 2 doesn't start — and you'll have the map either way.

No new products

3 tracks. 4 systems. 0 new products.

The table your procurement team would build anyway, built for them.

Track	Arrives with	First install	First-quarter metric	Audit deliverable
01 Operators	Flat profit on growing revenue	Profit & Pricing + Demand	Contribution margin Δ	Profitability model of your account
02 Aggregators	EBITDA variance across brands	One reporting layer	Variance between brands	The layer, live on a 3-brand sample
03 Manufacturers	Channel conflict + a failed launch	Listing + price guardrails	Direct-channel contribution	Phased roadmap, gate metrics named

01 Operators

Arrives with: Flat profit on growing revenue
First install: Profit & Pricing + Demand
First-quarter metric: Contribution margin Δ
Audit deliverable: Profitability model of your account

02 Aggregators

Arrives with: EBITDA variance across brands
First install: One reporting layer
First-quarter metric: Variance between brands
Audit deliverable: The layer, live on a 3-brand sample

03 Manufacturers

Arrives with: Channel conflict + a failed launch
First install: Listing + price guardrails
First-quarter metric: Direct-channel contribution
Audit deliverable: Phased roadmap, gate metrics named

Start where your number hurts.

The audit is the same instrument for all 3 tracks — 14 days, read-only access, and a deliverable you keep.

Book a systems audit