OBPPC Matrix Builder

Expected outcome: Portfolio profit shows **$677,269**. Seven listings across seven different packs, at 50 percent coverage, and nothing on the screen is shouting at you. Cost to carry reads $290,000, which is seven barcodes at $25,000 plus the seven listings at their own channels' rates, and that is the number the whole review is really about. The panel underneath names two listings the portfolio would be better without, both of them online. Underneath the grid, three of the seven are also selling below the buyer's velocity hurdle. **A range that looks fine is the hard case, and it is the one a real review finds.** A range losing money gets killed by somebody else before you ever see it. This one earns $677,269, which reads as a working business right up until you find out that the same brand, on the same shelves, is capable of $1,829,957. The job is not to spot a disaster. It is to notice a number nobody has held against what it could have been.

Expected outcome: Profit improves by **$399,505**, taking the range from $677,269 to **$1,076,775** on one click. Everyday Snack in the Supermarket was empty, and the Multipack 6x30g you already make for the club listing walks straight into it. You added a listing and no barcode at all, because the pack already exists, so Cost to carry rises by the supermarket's $17,000 and by nothing else. This is the single biggest move available from the starting position. It is also the shape of the whole lesson. The biggest number on the board came from a pack you were already making, in a demand space you were already allowed to be in, and it cost you one listing fee.

Expected outcome: On its own line that listing earns **$142,881**, and it sells 6.5 units per store per week, comfortably clear of the buyer's hurdle of 3. It passes both of the tests a commercial team usually applies. The figure underneath says the range would lose only **$45,749** without it, so about a third of what it collects is genuinely new and the rest would have gone to your supermarket pack anyway. Empty the demand space and you can watch that happen. Profit falls from $677,269 to **$631,520**, and the Family Meal supermarket demand space lifts from **$107,110** to **$203,939** as the shoppers come back. So the listing stays, because $45,749 still beats nothing. **What changes is how you are allowed to talk about it.** Never walk into a range review and defend this listing at $142,881, because two thirds of that number is money you would keep anyway, and the first person who tests it will find that out in front of you. Defend it at $45,749 and you are defending something true. The same warning runs the other way, and it is why a listing is never dropped on its own. Removing one hands its volume back to the packs it was competing with and moves its share of the pack cost onto the others, so every other figure on the board is now different from what it was a moment ago. Drop the worst one, re-read, then decide the next. That habit transfers to any range review.

Expected outcome: With the Multipack you already make, the demand space is worth **$399,505**. With a Standard 200g you do not make, the same demand space is worth **$268,283**. Same shelf, same shopper, same listing fee, and **$131,222** between them. Only **$25,000** of that is the barcode fee. The other **$106,222** is gross profit, and it is worth knowing exactly where it comes from, because the obvious explanation is wrong. It is **margin per kilogram**: the multipack earns **$3.71 a kilogram** in this demand space where the Standard 200g earns **$2.41**, which is $127,248 of advantage on the demand space's own line. ⛔ **And now the part that surprises everybody.** The multipack takes MORE volume off the rest of your range than the new pack does, not less, because it is already selling to these shoppers elsewhere. It costs the rest of the portfolio $142,120 against the Standard 200g's $121,094. So reuse loses the cannibalization argument by about $21,000 and wins the overall one by $131,222, because the margin advantage is about six times the extra self-theft. **Reuse wins on margin, not on being gentler with your own shelf.** Run it on every empty demand space and reuse wins five of the seven. Both exceptions are the same pack, the Gift Tin, in club and online, and they are worth knowing rather than hiding. A genuinely different format, in the two channels where people browse rather than shop a list, can open demand nothing in your range reaches. That is when you invent a pack, and not to fill a gap on a grid. ⛔ Notice what this does NOT say. A new pack is not always a loss. The Standard 200g here is clearly worth having if you have no multipack. It is simply worth $131,222 less than the pack already sitting in your factory.

Expected outcome: **$1,178,259** at 100 percent coverage, against $677,269 at 50 percent. A fully covered grid built on four packs earns about three quarters more than a half covered one built on seven, which settles the argument that coverage is what you were paying for. Note the cost you did pay. **Taken from yourself climbs to 25.9 percent** from 14.5, and that reading is the share of the volume you win off your own packs rather than off a competitor. It rises because fourteen listings spread over four packs puts several demand spaces in front of the same shopper. That figure sits inside the 20 to 30 percent band published research reports for brands carrying three or more sizes, so it is a real cost rather than a modeling artifact. **Do not read this as the answer, because the next step beats it by $651,698 with the same four barcodes.** Filling every demand space is better than the range you inherited. It is nowhere near the best you can do, and what separates it from the best is which four packs you chose rather than how much of the grid you covered.

Expected outcome: The best portfolio the model finds makes **$1,829,957** from **twelve listings on four packs**. The Single Serve 50g takes On-the-Go convenience, On-the-Go supermarket and Everyday Snack convenience. The Multipack 6x30g takes Family Meal at supermarket, Family Meal online, Everyday Snack at supermarket and Everyday Snack at club. The Variety Pack 500g takes Family Meal at club, Sharing at club and Everyday Snack online. The Gift Tin 350g takes Sharing at supermarket and Sharing online. Five more listings than you inherited, built on four barcodes instead of seven, and it earns **$1,152,687** more. Hold that against the fully covered grid from the last step. Both use four packs. That one covers all fourteen demand spaces and makes $1,178,259; this one covers twelve and makes $1,829,957. Same barcode count, $651,698 apart, and almost none of the difference is the two demand spaces left empty, because those two are worth only $12,534 and $16,299 between them. **The difference is which four packs.** That is the finding, and it has two halves. What costs you is the number of packs you invent, not the number of demand spaces you fill. And once the count is settled, the choice of which packs matters more than either. **And then look at what those four packs actually are, because this is where the tool stops being able to help you.** A 50g single, a 6x30g multipack, a 500g variety box and a $12.99 gift tin. Work out what each one costs per kilogram and compare it with what a routine pack would cost, and that range turns out to have no routine pack in it at all, and nothing playing the value role either. The 500g variety box is priced at the same money per kilogram as the 200g it is meant to be a step up from, so it asks a shopper to take two and a half times as much for no better value per gram. Run the same model but insist on one pack in each of the four roles, and the answer is the 50g single, the 200g standard, the 400g family pack and the 6x30g multipack, filling eleven demand spaces for **$1,518,572**. That still beats the range you inherited by $841,302 and the fully covered grid by $340,313, on four barcodes rather than seven. It gives up **$311,385** against the unconstrained number above. **Now take the four-pack limit off, because that is the number most people get wrong.** The best role-complete range at any size earns **$1,781,793** on six packs, which gives up only **$48,164**. Same discipline, same four jobs covered, about a sixth of the cost. So the $311,385 is not the price of carrying a workhorse. It is the price of carrying a workhorse inside a range capped at four barcodes, and the cap is doing most of the damage. That is the more useful way round, because a range plan rarely arrives as a straight choice between covering the roles and making money. It arrives as a pack count somebody already agreed, and the roles then compete for the slots. When the trade-off looks brutal, test the pack count first: a fifth and sixth barcode at $25,000 each buy back most of what the cap was costing. The model is answering the only question it was asked, which is which twelve listings earn most in the next twelve months. Nobody asked it where next year's regular-size buyers come from, and the answer to that is the small pack it was happy to keep and the workhorse it was happy to drop.

Expected outcome: Five of the seven empty demand spaces name a pack **you already make** as their best route in, and six of the seven would pay. That is the diagnosis: this range is not over-extended into places it should not be, it is ABSENT from the demand spaces that carry the category. Everyday Snack in the Supermarket is worth **$399,505**, Sharing at Supermarket **$237,888**, and four more clear their own listing. The two demand spaces whose best route is a pack you do not make are Sharing in club and Sharing online, both of them the Gift Tin, and both are worth having: $118,199 and $104,049. A browsing shopper will buy a format a shelf shopper walks past, and neither of those channels has a shelf. The one demand space that never pays is Family Meal in convenience. Work through all ten packs and the best of them still loses **$14,777**, because almost nobody assembles a family dinner at a convenience store. So it makes no difference which pack you put there. Leave it empty and say why in the range review. **Empty and unwanted is not the same as empty and wanted**, and a white-space slide that cannot tell them apart will have you paying $23,000 a year to prove it. That is what a real white-space slide looks like: six demand spaces worth entering, four of them on packs you already make, and one decision to do nothing.