Revenue growth is not enough when SKU cost structures are different.

Problem

The operating problem D2 needed to isolate

A useful case study connects the problem to source data and a repeatable decision rule.

• Different SKUs carried different cost structures.
• Ads and platform fees could move faster than margin.
• The team needed a shorter reporting cycle.

Evidence

First-party data used in the analysis

The case is grounded in operating sources that answer different questions. D2 keeps sales-period, settlement and cost evidence separate before reconciling them.

• Orders
• Settlement / Income
• Ads spend
• Product cost master
• Packaging cost

Methodology

How the evidence was turned into a decision framework

The objective is a repeatable and traceable review method rather than a one-off optimization narrative.

• Standardized unit economics across product groups with different cost structures.
• Reviewed revenue, platform fees, Ads, COGS and packaging within one operating view.
• Used short review periods to separate GMV growth from contribution changes.

Action

How the operating loop was reorganized

Execution changes are documented against the data and decision rule they are intended to improve.

• Standardized unit economics by product group.
• Combined revenue, fees, Ads, COGS and packaging in one report.
• Reviewed short periods to separate GMV growth from profit growth.

Outcome

The most important output is better decision quality

D2 only publishes performance figures when the measurement period and reconciliation basis are sufficiently verified.

• Created one repeatable P&L logic.
• Made SKU and cost drivers visible before budget increases.
• Moved reporting from spreadsheet consolidation toward decision support.

Publication standard

What this case does and does not claim

This page is an operating case overview. Detailed performance figures are published only when the period, cost basis and reconciliation scope are confirmed for publication.