Complete product and service cases

Original fictional cases in BRL (R$), with no currency conversion. Follow the calculations and replace inputs with your own evidence. The workbook handles contribution and hours; the cash examples below are explained separately.

Divide batch cost by the units you can sell

The batch consumes R$ 120 of paper, R$ 60 of printing and R$ 36 of accessories: R$ 216. Thirty kits were attempted but three were unusable, leaving 27 saleable kits. Material cost per good kit = 216 ÷ 27 = R$ 8.

Dividing by all 30 attempts gives R$ 7.20 and hides R$ 0.80 per sold kit. Physical loss is 3 ÷ 30 = 10%. The consumed cost is distributed across units capable of producing revenue.

Fictional batch cost

That loss is already included through the divisor of 27. Adding another 10% to R$ 8 would count the same waste twice. Record recoverable leftovers separately. If outputs have different quality or selling prices, do not treat all units as full-price products.

This batch provides a unit-cost estimate. A monthly scenario of 300 sales does not claim that exactly 300 kits were produced in complete batches of 27 during that month. Opening inventory, partial production or closing stock may exist. A margin workbook is not a physical inventory system.

To adapt, record each input, quantity consumed, purchase unit and cost; total consumption, count saleable outputs and divide. Compare representative batches when material, supplier, process or observed waste changes. No daily measurement routine is imposed.

Calculate the contribution from one sale

Add monetary variable costs: R$ 8 materials + R$ 2 packaging + R$ 1 seller-paid delivery = R$ 11. Deduct proportional charges of R$ 3.30 too. Contribution = 30 − 11 − 3.30 = R$ 15.70.

Contribution margin = 15.70 ÷ 30 = 52.33% of revenue. This is not a 52.33% net profit margin: the contribution still needs to cover monthly fixed costs.

One kit sale

Contribution answers how much this sale adds before the operating structure that must already be maintained. It allows price, channel and variable cost to be compared consistently. Monthly operating result requires multiplying unit contribution by sold volume and subtracting fixed costs.

At a price of R$ 10, proportional charges would be R$ 1.10 and contribution would be 10 − 11 − 1.10 = −R$ 2.10. More sales then increase losses even before fixed costs. A deliberate loss-making campaign needs its own explicit objective and limit; rising revenue alone does not make its economics healthy.

Reconstruct the price to check the calculation: monetary variable costs + proportional charges + contribution must equal the charged amount. Preserve intermediate precision. Actual transaction-level rounding may differ by provider; model the contractual rule when material.

Turn unit contribution into a monthly operating result

For 300 kits at R$ 30, revenue is R$ 9,000. Monetary variable costs are 300 × 11 = R$ 3,300, and proportional charges are 300 × 3.30 = R$ 990. Total contribution = 9,000 − 3,300 − 990 = R$ 4,710. Operating result = 4,710 − 3,140 = R$ 1,570.

Operating margin is 1,570 ÷ 9,000 = 17.44%. Use that name: interest, unusual events and other excluded amounts could change a broader final result.

Result for 300 kits

Cross-check with 300 × R$ 15.70 − R$ 3,140. Both calculations must agree. Otherwise investigate duplicated charges, inconsistent volumes or batch costs mistaken for unit costs.

The result depends on sales recognized in the period, not views, quotes sent or maximum capacity. Producing 300 kits and selling 200 does not permit recording revenue for 300. Selling on credit does not imply receiving all the money that month.

At 20 minutes per kit, 300 kits use 100 hours out of 120 productive hours available. The work fits, but that does not establish demand, sufficient inventory or financing. The workbook shows planned and capacity-limited results without silently replacing the volume entered.

Subtract hours unavailable for delivery

The case starts with 160 available monthly hours. Administration takes 40, proposals 20 and contingency 20, leaving 80 delivery hours. At four hours per project, capacity is 80 ÷ 4 = 20 whole projects.

Planning 15 projects uses 60 hours, or 75% of delivery capacity. This is a scenario assumption, not a schedule requirement or a daily target imposed by the course.

Sebrae's service-pricing method considers time actually devoted to delivery when determining hourly cost. The transferable point is that contracted or personal availability is not entirely sellable time.

Categories must be exclusive. If project briefing is already inside the four-hour scope, do not subtract the same time again as administration. Unsuccessful proposals consume commercial capacity despite generating no revenue. Contingency reserves time before a problem occurs; when used, update the scenario without counting those hours twice.

Capacity is a ceiling under assumptions, not a sales forecast. If demand supports eight projects, allocating costs as if twenty were guaranteed will not produce the missing cash. Compare estimates with representative completed deliveries when useful; minute-by-minute reporting in Checkmenot is not required.

Calculate contribution per project and per hour

Each project uses R$ 50 of licensed inputs and R$ 30 of external support: R$ 80 variable costs. Fictional rates total 10% of R$ 600, or R$ 60. Contribution = 600 − 80 − 60 = R$ 460. Across four hours, that is 460 ÷ 4 = R$ 115 per hour.

Monthly fixed costs total R$ 4,600: labour R$ 3,000, tools R$ 600, infrastructure R$ 700 and depreciation R$ 300. Fifteen projects produce 15 × 460 − 4,600 = R$ 2,300 operating result.

Base service case

R$ 115 per hour is not the provider's net pay. That contribution still supports R$ 4,600 of monthly costs. It is not a selling rate to multiply by four either, because variable costs and proportional charges must also be recovered.

Allocating fixed costs across 80 capacity hours gives R$ 57.50 per hour; across 60 planned delivery hours it gives R$ 76.67, retaining 4,600 ÷ 60 internally. The difference exposes utilization. Use an allocation to investigate pricing, but do not deduct the allocated costs and the same monthly fixed total again.

Contribution per hour helps compare services when time is scarce. It does not measure quality, demand or perceived value. A high-contribution service may sell rarely; another may fill otherwise unused capacity. Keep those conditions explicit.

Measure how extra work changes capacity

If delivery rises from four to six hours without changing price or monetary variable cost, contribution remains R$ 460 per project. Contribution per hour falls from R$ 115 to R$ 76.67. Only 13 whole projects fit within 80 hours.

The planned 15 projects would require 90 hours. Respecting the 80-hour limit, 13 projects yield 13 × 460 − 4,600 = R$ 1,380, which is R$ 920 below the original R$ 2,300.

The change consumes capacity. Working ten hours beyond availability changes the operating assumption and possibly cost and risk; it does not repair the original estimate. The calculation makes that choice visible without deciding it for you.

To preserve R$ 115 contribution per hour over six hours, a project must contribute 6 × 115 = R$ 690. With R$ 80 variable costs and 10% charges, price = (690 + 80) ÷ 0.90 = R$ 855.555..., rounded upward to R$ 855.56. That is R$ 255.56 above the original price under unchanged assumptions.

This does not establish customer acceptance. Compare keeping the original scope, reducing deliverables, charging for expansion, changing timing or declining. Add extra inputs or support costs when required. Execution errors and poor estimates also cause rework; do not attribute every overrun to the customer.

Calculate the extra sales a discount requires

Promotional price is R$ 27. Charges are 11% × 27 = R$ 2.97, leaving 27 − 11 − 2.97 = R$ 13.03 contribution. At 300 sales: 300 × 13.03 − 3,140 = R$ 769. The result falls R$ 801, approximately 51.02% of the original R$ 1,570.

Preserving total contribution of R$ 4,710 requires 4,710 ÷ 13.03 = 361.47... units, rounded up to 362 kits. Capacity is 360. The promotion cannot recover the original result within those hours.

Full price and kit promotion

At 360 kits, the promotional result is 360 × 13.03 − 3,140 = R$ 1,550.80, still R$ 19.20 below the original. Producing 362 requires 120 hours 40 minutes against 120 available. Any capacity expansion needs its own incremental costs.

For services, a 20% discount lowers price to R$ 480. Contribution is 480 − 48 − 80 = R$ 352, and fifteen projects yield R$ 680 rather than R$ 2,300. A price cut does not establish that additional demand will appear.

Compare no campaign, the campaign and its execution costs. An early-payment discount may improve cash, but weigh that benefit against lost contribution and financing costs avoided. When only some units receive the promotion, calculate full-price and discounted groups separately.

Recalculate for each channel and acquisition cost

Separate marketplace scenario: channel rate 18%, fictional tax rate 6%, seller-paid delivery R$ 5. Monetary variable cost becomes 8 + 2 + 5 = R$ 15. Charges are 24% × 30 = R$ 7.20. Contribution = 30 − 15 − 7.20 = R$ 7.80.

If all 300 sales use those terms, result = 300 × 7.80 − 3,140 = −R$ 800. Preserving R$ 15.70 contribution requires (15 + 15.70) ÷ 0.76 = R$ 40.3947..., or R$ 40.40.

Compare commission, payment fees, subsidized delivery, packaging, returns and acquisition rather than one advertised rate. A price preserving contribution may still be uncompetitive; it shows the condition that would need to hold.

If advertising costs R$ 4 per new order containing one kit, contribution after acquisition falls from R$ 7.80 to R$ 3.80. That cost is excluded from the −R$ 800 monthly scenario and must be added if used. Do not assume future repeat purchases to erase current acquisition costs. With actual repeat data, examine cohort revenue and cost over the observed period.

A fixed advertising-tool subscription differs from variable spending to acquire each order. Put each in the appropriate place and avoid including the same budget in both a per-order average and monthly expenses.

Compare products by their constrained resource

Two fictional products compete for the same production time. P1 contributes R$ 15.70 and takes twenty minutes; P2 contributes R$ 24 and takes forty. Per hour, P1 contributes R$ 47.10 and P2 R$ 36. P2 contributes more per unit, but less per hour of the constrained resource.

This comparison matters only when that shared hour is the constraint. If oven space, a machine, scarce material or delivery capacity is the bottleneck, use that resource's unit.

With 120 hours, P1 alone permits 360 units and R$ 5,652 contribution; P2 alone permits 180 units and R$ 4,320. These are capacity ceilings under unlimited demand, not forecasts. If only 250 P1 units can sell, remaining time may support P2, other work or a deliberate reserve.

A mix of 180 P1 and 90 P2 units uses 60 + 60 = 120 hours. Contribution is 180 × 15.70 + 90 × 24 = R$ 4,986. Do not calculate aggregate margin by averaging percentages; divide total contribution by corresponding revenue at actual prices.

Consider demand limits, minimum batches, changeovers, existing commitments and complementary purchases before prioritizing. The indicator organizes the comparison but does not capture every relationship. Products using different resources may not share the same bottleneck.

Reconcile operating result with cash movement

Return to 300 kit sales: revenue R$ 9,000 and operating result R$ 1,570. Assume only 60% of revenue arrives this month: R$ 5,400 collected and R$ 3,600 receivable. Assume all R$ 4,290 variable costs and R$ 2,900 cash fixed costs are paid now.

Cash movement = 5,400 − 4,290 − 2,900 = −R$ 1,790. Starting with R$ 2,000 leaves R$ 210. The positive result has not entirely become available cash.

Operating result to cash bridge

Reconcile from the result: R$ 1,570 + R$ 240 noncash depreciation − R$ 3,600 increase in receivables = −R$ 1,790. This example has no equipment purchase, debt, inventory change or other adjustment. Costs and charges are assumed paid this month despite partial collection; use actual dates in your operation.

A positive closing balance does not establish that cash stayed positive throughout the month. Supplier payments preceding collections can create an interim deficit. Put receipts and payments in date order to find the lowest projected balance.

More sales on credit can increase upfront cash needs. Supplier terms, customer deposits and smaller batches change timing; price and cost change contribution. Compare both views so an improvement in one does not silently worsen the other.

Identify the cash needed before collection

A 50% deposit on the R$ 600 service is R$ 300. It can help fund R$ 80 variable costs and the operating structure during delivery. The deposit is not profit: work, costs, applicable taxes and collection of the balance remain.

Build one line per expected event date: opening balance, receipt, payment and resulting balance. Funding need appears at the lowest balance, not in total sales alone.

Independent example: R$ 100 opening cash, R$ 250 supplier payment on day five, R$ 400 customer collection on day twenty. Cash falls to −R$ 150 before closing at R$ 250. Net cash inflow is positive R$ 150, but the R$ 150 interim gap still needs addressing.

Compare earlier customer payment, later supplier payment, a smaller batch or reserved owner funds. If considering credit, include interest and charges. Loan principal increases cash and debt, not sales revenue; repaying principal reduces cash and debt rather than operating merchandise cost.

These examples neither model financing contracts nor recommend a borrowing product. Identify the amount and duration of the gap before accepting more commitments. You can choose how to manage cash and timing without course notifications or required daily actions.

Record the decision and its supporting conditions

Product conclusion: ‘At R$ 30, each kit contributes R$ 15.70. With 300 sales, operating result is R$ 1,570 and production uses 100 of 120 hours. A 10% discount reduces the result to R$ 769; preserving the original result requires 362 kits, above capacity. I will compare a different scope or cost structure before using that promotion.’

Service conclusion: ‘R$ 600 covers the defined four-hour package and contributes R$ 460 per project. Fifteen projects yield R$ 2,300. At six hours each, only thirteen fit; scope, price or timing needs reconsidering before accepting the expansion.’

The decision need not be a price increase. It may be reducing waste, changing channel, changing the package, limiting a promotion, charging for extra scope or discontinuing an unsustainable offer. Numbers explain the choice; actual market response and operating conditions still need observation.

Record unconfirmed rates, estimated time, replacement cost, plausible demand or collection timing. State the event that would justify recalculation: a new packaging price, a changed channel fee or revisions exceeding the agreed scope.

You may mark this knowledge as understood without operating a business or sending a quote. It remains available for later consultation. The outcome is an explainable decision, not a reporting requirement imposed by the course.

References

• OpenStax — contribution, costs and break-even
• Sebrae — service pricing (Portuguese)
• Sebrae — markup and margin (Portuguese)
• Business.gov.au — choose a pricing strategy