Distribution: comparing channels on contribution and control.
Evidence status
What was reproduced, and what it does not prove.
The public CSV and the Python run verify own contribution, transferred margin and incremental contribution of the four illustrative channels. They verify neither new demand, nor real transfers, nor the future economics of a channel.
- Technical specification of the comparable economic account of the channels, specification in French (opens in a new tab)
v1, 31 August 2026 · CC BY 4.0 · specification in French · Method document written by marketing-mix.net. The figures are illustrative: they are not market measurements.
Key distinctions
Three conditions before calculating.
Net price collected
The list price is reduced by discount, commission, promotional contribution, payment fees and returns. Collection calendars and stock financing also change the value of the channel.
Genuinely new demand
An order from the new channel can come from a new customer, from a competitor or from an internal transfer. Only the first two sources create demand for the company; the transfer must be valued with the contribution lost.
Control and option
Access to data, freedom of price, ability to test, customer relationship and dependency on the platform have a value. They are translated into risks or options, without becoming an arbitrary premium that would hide loss-making economics.
Method
Establishing the incremental P&L of a channel
- 01Set the comparable unit
Choose order, customer, unit or account and the same period; reconstruct net price, product cost, picking, delivery, return, payment, service and acquisition.
- 02Break down the origin
Estimate new customers, conquest and transfers from each channel; use geo tests, access codes, surveys, history and cohorts, then publish the interval.
- 03Add capacity and fixed costs
Include integration, team, content, stock, systems, contractual minimum and opportunity cost; model the capacity steps rather than a constant average cost.
- 04Solve the threshold
Compute the orders, new share or basket needed to cover the costs; test returns, commission, cannibalisation and the reaction of the other channels in order to identify the most fragile condition.
The comparable economic account of the channels
Direct, marketplace, retail and partner are assessed on the same basket, with full costs, genuinely new share and incremental contribution.
| Channel | Orders | Own contribution | New share | Incremental | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | 8,000 | €284k | 100% | €284k | reference |
| Marketplace | 10,240 | €238k | 45% | €30k | pilot |
| Retail | 9,100 | €144k | 58% | €17k | review |
| B2B partner | 3,200 | €81k | 72% | €48k | test |
The marketplace sells 28% more but creates €46k less
Out of 10,000 potential orders, direct obtains 8,000 orders at €100 net, €42 of variable costs and €180k of fixed costs. The marketplace obtains 10,240 orders at €82 net, €50 of variable costs and €90k of fixed costs. Among them, 45% are genuinely new and 35% replace direct sales.
Direct contribution: 8,000 × (100 − 42) − 180,000 = €284,000. Marketplace own contribution: 10,240 × (82 − 50) − 90,000 = €237,680. Direct margin lost on 3,584 transferred orders: 3,584 × 58 = €207,872. If the marketplace is added to direct, incremental contribution = 237,680 − 207,872 = €29,808, before competitive effects.
The marketplace brings volume but little incremental value. Opening it stays possible as a pilot if the new share exceeds 51%, if the assortment limits the transfers or if the commission is renegotiated.
Acceptance conditions
What must be true to act.
- 01
Channels are compared on the same unit and the same horizon.
- 02
Transferred orders are valued with the margin of the source channel.
- 03
Fixed costs, returns, stock and capacity steps are included.
- 04
The decision publishes a threshold of new share, basket or volume.
Limits
What this analysis does not prove.
- The origin of the orders is hard to identify without a test.
- The commercial terms of platforms can change quickly.
- Visibility and learning effects can appear after the initial period.
References
Works cited.
- Neslin, S. A. et al. (2006), “Challenges and Opportunities in Multichannel Customer Management”, Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 95–112.
- Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K. & Inman, J. J. (2015), “From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 174–181.
- Coughlan, A. T. et al. (2006), Marketing Channels, 7th ed.