Is the menu as profitable as the recipe cards say?
- Files
- 3
- Rows
- 68,892
- Checks passed
- 16
Contribution margin
64.5%
Contribution overstated
$78,168
Dishes selling below cost
3
What went in
Jan 1 – Jun 30
- Project
- Product mix and recipe costs: January to June
- Subject
- Money
- Rows
- 68,892
Source files
- product_mix_jan_jun.csv68,412 rows
- recipe_costs.xlsx62 rows
- supplier_price_list.pdf418 rows
The finished example
Demonstration data we built, not a customer's file.
Rendered by the same components that render your own projects.
The menu margin is 64.5%, not the 70.6% the recipe cards give.
The recipe cards were costed fourteen months ago and supplier prices have moved since. Recomputed against the current price list, with modifiers attached to the dishes they belong to and waste counted, contribution over six months is $78,168 lower than reported. Three of the sixty-two dishes sell below what they cost to make, all of them lunch items on a promotional price nobody revisited, and together they lost $2,141. Loaded fries, the second-best seller, contributes $3.10 a plate against $9.85 for the burger beside it.
Every category costs more than its recipe card says
Sides drift furthest: 76.4% reported, 64.1% real
- 01The recipe cards are fourteen months old and overstate margin by 6.1 points.
- 02Three dishes sell for less than they cost to make.
- 0311.4% of revenue is booked to modifier lines attached to no dish.
Filed under
Closest to this one
Ranked by how many subjects they share with this project.
Money · 441 rows
Contractor spend rose $412,000 while headcount spend fell $448,000, leaving only a $4,000 net change.
What actually changed between these budget versions?
Customers · 26,066 rows
The 22.4% rate combined three different events; the unrecovered no-show rate was 11.4%.
Why is our no-show rate 22%?
Have something like this?
Drop it in and see what comes back. You only pay once you like it.
No account needed to start. You only pay when you like what you see.