Profitability
Weekly Growth review · ISO week undefined · undefined undefined · undefined · Generated undefined
Does the marketplace pay back — what a requirement costs to produce against what it earns, where that revenue comes from, and which resellers make us money?
Fact · Cause · Action
AI-generated — stub. The economics are upside-down — £75 to produce a requirement, £30 back — and the fix is volume and fan-out, not price. Revenue is concentrated in a handful of resellers, and a growing tail of acquired resellers is underwater. The table is the whole story; the sections below let you validate each fact.
| Section | Fact | Cause | Proposed action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Profit per requirement | −£44 per requirement: £75 to produce, £30 back. Return ratio 0.41×, still well below the 1.0 breakeven despite steady improvement. | Fan-out is the bottleneck: each requirement sells just 0.55 leads because there aren't enough requirements for resellers to spread across. | Grow requirement volume and sell-through (more requirements, each sold more times) rather than cutting spend or raising lead price; the ratio fixes on the demand side. |
| Where revenue comes from | 73% of revenue is Mobile voice & data; IoT and Landline are near-zero. AOV is £55 and climbing slowly. | One product category carries the platform; the long tail barely sells because there's no reseller depth behind those requirements. | Treat Mobile as the proven core; decide whether the tail is worth supply investment or should be de-prioritised in acquisition. |
| Reseller profitability | Top 3 resellers are 57% of revenue; 6 of 14 buying resellers are underwater once acquisition and servicing are counted. | Revenue concentration is a churn risk, and we're acquiring resellers faster than they're buying — the tail hasn't paid back. | Protect the top accounts, and either activate or stop acquiring the underwater tail. Retention itself lives in base. |
Profit per requirement
This week. £75 cost against £30 revenue — a £44 loss on every requirement. Revenue per requirement is climbing, but it has a long way to go before it clears the cost line. The gap between these bars is the profit number in the KPI above. · AI stub
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_kpi does not exist!
Did you mean "pg_catalog.pg_attribute"?
LINE 5: from demo.market_profitability_kpi order by week_start
^Margin — list price to operating profit
This week. Operating margin −146% — we bill £605 of leads against £1,490 to produce the requirements behind them, an £885 weekly loss. We discounted £55 (8% of list) to clear what sold. The hole is closing — from −£1,310/wk in April — but purely because revenue is scaling into a flat cost base, not because unit economics have turned. · AI stub
List vs realised. Each week's bar is the full list value of the leads that sold — what revenue would have been. Green is what we banked; amber is what we discounted away to clear them.
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_margin does not exist!
Did you mean "information_schema.constraint_table_usage"?
LINE 3: from demo.market_profitability_margin order by week_start
^Operating profit — the absolute hole, closing. Net lead revenue minus the cost to produce the requirements behind it. The bars are climbing toward the red breakeven line, but they're still £885/wk under water.
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_margin does not exist!
Did you mean "information_schema.constraint_table_usage"?
LINE 3: from demo.market_profitability_margin order by week_start
^Return ratio vs breakeven
This week. 0.41× — improving hard from near-zero in April, but still well under the 1.0 breakeven. For every £1 of demand-acquisition spend we get 41p back in lead sales; the trend is right, the level isn't there yet. · AI stub
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_kpi does not exist!
Did you mean "pg_catalog.pg_attribute"?
LINE 4: from demo.market_profitability_kpi order by week_start
^Where revenue comes from
This week. Revenue £605/wk and climbing, average order value £55. Volume is doing the work — we're selling more leads, at a lead price that's edging up from £45 to £55 as the mix improves. · AI stub
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_kpi does not exist!
Did you mean "pg_catalog.pg_attribute"?
LINE 5: from demo.market_profitability_kpi order by week_start
^Revenue by product. Almost three-quarters of revenue is one category — Mobile voice & data. The long tail (IoT, Landline) barely registers because there's no reseller depth behind those requirements.
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_revenue_source does not exist!
Did you mean "information_schema.constraint_table_usage"?
LINE 4: from demo.market_profitability_revenue_source order by product_o...
^Reseller concentration & profitability
This week. The top 3 resellers are 57% of all revenue, and 6 of 14 buying resellers are underwater once acquisition and servicing are counted. We're acquiring resellers faster than they buy — the tail hasn't paid back yet, and losing one of the top accounts would take a chunk of revenue with it. · AI stub
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_reseller does not exist!
Did you mean "information_schema.constraint_table_usage"?
LINE 4: from demo.market_profitability_reseller order by rev_order
^Profitable vs underwater. Each reseller's lifetime lead spend minus what it cost to acquire and serve them. The green accounts pay for the platform; the red tail is spend we haven't earned back.
Catalog Error: Table with name market_profitability_reseller does not exist!
Did you mean "information_schema.constraint_table_usage"?
LINE 4: from demo.market_profitability_reseller order by rev_order
^