The traditional cost-plus calculation gives way to a more market-oriented, price-minus calculation. The amount customers are willing to pay for a product that fulfills their requirements is determined first. Based on this information, the highest acceptable price is calculated, and the target margin is deducted from that price. The result is the maximum cost allowable for this product. The traditional idea of “How much will the product cost?” is replaced with “How much can the product cost?”
Butscher and Laker (2000)
JUMP had a new basketball sneaker with several advanced features and a modified cushioning technology. The cost of the sneaker was $40. Adding the target margin of 100 percent resulted in a price to the dealer of $80. Adding the dealer’s margin of 50 percent on top of that led to a market price of $120, which put this sneaker in the upper price range with the most expensive models from Adidas, Nike, and Reebok. Expected sales in this price category were thin.
. . . JUMP decided to reevaluate the new shoe using the target-costing approach. It was discovered that the target segments preferred a less elaborate shoe. The maximum acceptable price for such a shoe was determined to be $99, just under the $100 price step, which positioned the JUMP sneaker at a slight price premium to most other basketball sneakers price in the $70-$90 range. The new features the JUMP sneaker had justified this price premium. Deducting the 50% dealer margin led to a price to the dealer of $66. Deducting the 100% target margin from that price resulted in a target cost for the sneaker of $33, which was $7 lower than the current cost. JUMP was able to slash the cost to $33 by slightly redesigning the sneaker to lower the production cost and by optimizing transportation from the Asian production plan to the distribution centers globally. It launched the sneaker nine months after the original target date. (Butscher and Laker, 2000)
It was a success, but not as big as it could have been if it made the target date and could have been promoted at the Dream Team Olympics in Atlanta. That could have happened, had they started with target costing.
There are three different types of costs to analyze for this section of the book:
Let’s look at each type.
Sunk costs are those costs needed to launch a company—or a new product. They include costs such as establishing a new dealer network, researching the new industry, researching new competitors, preparing financial and sales projections, etc.
There are tax implications (the IRS requires some of these costs to be capitalized, not expensed) as to what you classify as sunk costs.
For the purposes of setting prices only, consider sunk costs to be those up to manufacturing and selling costs. In other words, sunk costs are what you spend setting up the company and procedures so you can then either start manufacturing and/or start selling.
Overhead costs are those ongoing costs that will not go away if you change the products or services you are offering. They are divided into two groups and include costs such as:
Direct costs are those that are directly required for manufacture of or provision of specific products or services. Examples include:
The most difficult aspect of calculating your costs is deciding what amount of your sunk costs and/or overhead costs to add in when calculating your total costs for a product.
There are a few methods of calculating your total costs for pricing purposes:
If your price at least covers direct costs, the company is making at least some money that can be applied to overhead.
Let’s look at an example:
Over the long haul, you need to make more than enough to cover your overhead. So if you think this is the total upside for this product and it won’t aid you in other ways to be described below, then no—launching it wouldn’t be smart.
However, it will be contributing $9 per unit sold to overhead. So if you don’t launch it, you lose $9 on each non-sale toward overhead.
You may well wish to launch a product where the price does cover direct costs but doesn’t cover all the indirect (overhead) costs. Here are some valid reasons:
3.12.84.150