Free tool · no login required

Retailer P&L Simulator

Model 7 RGM levers against a single FMCG SKU's retailer P&L, watch the 4 banded retailer sentinels (Front Margin Health, Front/Back Balance, Total Margin Quality, Net Margin Resilience), and find the configurations where both the manufacturer's contribution and the retailer's headline KPIs hold up. The same interactive model the full RGM Academy course uses for P&L Impact Lab Lesson 2, no auth, no paywall.

Updated 27 April 2026Extracted from the P&L Impact Lab module, lesson 2: Retailer P&L Mirror

Loading calculator…

Scenario walkthrough

Tap any section to explore in detail

5.1Scenario setup

The starting SKU, market, and assumptions the model makes.

You are the Key Account Manager at a mainstream FMCG biscuit manufacturer preparing for the spring JBP review with your top-10 retailer. The product is CrunchField Original 300g, regular shelf price $4.99, manufacturer list $4.29, 2 million units annual volume. Trade terms total 17% of list (5% on-invoice, 3.5% off-invoice rebate, 6% promo allowance, 2.5% other). The retailer's operating cost on this category runs 12% of consumer sales, and the elasticity at the shelf is -1.8.

The retailer's current view of this SKU lands at $2.15M front margin (21.5% of shelf), $0.90M back margin (9.0% of consumer sales), $3.04M total gross margin (30.5%), $1.85M net margin (18.5%), with a 70/30 front/back split. Four sentinels read ADEQUATE / BALANCED / ATTRACTIVE / HEALTHY. Now Procurement is signalling 5% COGS inflation upstream, your Commercial Director wants to push a 5% list price increase, and the buyer is asking for 3pp more trade terms in exchange. You need to know which of these moves the retailer can absorb without their Front Margin Health dropping below ADEQUATE or their Net Margin Resilience dropping below HEALTHY, before you walk into the room.

Your objective

Use the simulator to model the retailer P&L outcome of each pricing, trade, and promotional move you are likely to propose, then identify the configuration where both the retailer's headline (front margin) and the retailer's structural health (front/back balance, net margin) stay defensible. The Margin Mirror Principle is the underlying lesson: every manufacturer move has a retailer reflection, but the reflection is asymmetric, and a move that helps the manufacturer's contribution can compress the retailer's most visible KPI.

Key assumptions

The simulator models a single SKU at a single retailer in isolation. No portfolio cannibalisation across pack sizes, no competitor pricing response, no halo across the rest of the manufacturer's range. Cross-SKU effects sit in PPA Lesson 2 Pack Roles and TPO Lesson 2 Source-of-Volume.
Price elasticity is fixed at -1.8 for the default scenario (the working ceiling for mainstream FMCG branded SKUs). Adjust the field in the Retailer Economics panel if your category benchmark differs. The model treats consumer demand as a function of manufacturer list price change, not retailer shelf price change. This is a deliberate simplification: in practice both move the demand curve, but tying volume to one canonical price point keeps the math interpretable.
Pass-through between manufacturer list and retailer shelf is set by the user, not modelled. Drag List Price Change and Retailer Shelf Price Change independently to simulate any pass-through scenario from 0% (retailer fully absorbs) to over 100% (retailer amplifies the manufacturer move). Working FMCG pass-through ranges 60 to 80%; outliers at either end are diagnostically useful but not common.
The four retailer sentinels are calibrated to mainstream FMCG grocery benchmarks. Front Margin Health thresholds (12%, 20%, 30%) come from typical buyer category targets. Front/Back Balance thresholds (40%, 55%, 75%) come from observed front/back splits across mainstream FMCG. Total Margin Quality and Net Margin Resilience use total gross margin and net margin against consumer sales.
Future levers are deltas from the base case, not absolute values. A +5% List Price Change means the new list is 5% above the editable base, not 5% in absolute terms. Trade Terms changes apply proportionally across all four GTN lines (on-invoice, off-invoice, promo allowance, other) preserving their relative shape. The base case itself is editable in the three collapsible panels above the lever sliders.

5.2Controls & toggles

Every input the calculator exposes, its range, and what it changes.

Control	Range	Default	What it changes
List Price Change	-20% to +20% in 0.5% steps	0% (base $4.29)	Manufacturer list price adjustment. Raises the retailer's landed cost (cost of goods on every unit) and, through the elasticity field, drives the volume response. If the retailer does not pass through to shelf, front margin per unit compresses by roughly the full size of the list move. This is the lever the retailer reads as their cost shock.
COGS Change	-10% to +15% in 0.5% steps	0% (base $1.72)	Manufacturer input-cost change (cocoa, packaging, energy). Does not directly affect retailer economics, but drives the manufacturer's willingness to hold price or seek pass-through. Useful when modelling the retailer's exposure to a manufacturer cost shock that may or may not get passed through to list.
Retailer Shelf Price	-15% to +15% in 0.5% steps	0% (base $4.99)	Consumer-facing shelf price change. The lever the retailer controls. The pass-through rate from your list move is decided at this slider. Raising shelf price holds front margin per unit when paired with a list increase; lowering shelf price compresses front margin even if list is unchanged.
Trade Terms Change	-5pp to +5pp in 0.5pp steps	0pp (base 17.0%)	Change in total GTN rate. Applied proportionally across all four trade-term lines (on-invoice, off-invoice rebate, promo allowance, other). Increasing terms boosts retailer back margin (trade income you fund) but shifts Front/Back Balance toward BACK-DEPENDENT, the structural fragility marker.
Promo Depth Change	-15pp to +15pp in 1pp steps	0pp (base 20%)	Discount on promoted volume. Deeper promos lift volume in the short term but compress front margin per unit on deal weeks and train shoppers to wait for deals. When depth runs consistently above 25 to 30%, reference price erosion becomes a structural risk: shoppers begin anchoring the deal price as the expected regular price, which the simulator does not model directly but which sits behind the warning that fires at +5pp absolute depth.
Promo Frequency Change	-20pp to +20pp in 1pp steps	0pp (base 30%)	Share of volume sold on deal. Above 50% (a +20pp shift from base), promo becomes the new baseline price and both sides' economics reset to the promoted state. Combined with depth, drives the cumulative trade-spend on the retailer's back margin line.
Volume Adjustment	-20% to +20% in 1% steps	0%	Non-price volume effects: distribution gains, range expansion, competitive entry or exit, category growth or decline. Captures everything elasticity does not. Multiplies on top of the post-elasticity volume on both sides of the P&L proportionally.

5.3Step-by-step exploration

7-step guided exploration of the scenario.

Read the default state to anchor the retailer base case
The simulator initialises at all seven levers at zero. Read the right-side outputs. Base Consumer Sales $9.98M, Front Margin $2.15M (21.5% of shelf), Back Margin $0.90M (9.0% of consumer sales), Total Gross Margin $3.04M (30.5%), Net Margin $1.85M (18.5%), Front/Back Split 70/30. The four sentinels: Front Margin Health ADEQUATE (21.5% sits in the 20 to 30% band, just above the buyer's category target), Front/Back Balance BALANCED (70% front share, comfortably above the BACK-LEANING threshold of 55%), Total Margin Quality ATTRACTIVE (30.5% sits squarely in the 25-35% band), Net Margin Resilience HEALTHY (18.5% sits in the 8-25% band). All four in healthy or middle bands. Base case is workable but not exceptional, and it is the configuration the buyer will reference whenever you propose a change.
Expected outcome: Default Consumer Sales **$9.98M**, Front Margin **21.5%**, Net Margin **18.5%**, F/B Split **70/30**. All 4 sentinels at the cyan / amber middle bands. The retailer P&L Comparison table shows base column populated and Future column identical (all deltas zero). The Retailer Waterfall shows Consumer Sales **$9.98M** stepping down through Cost of Goods, then up through Back Margin, then down through Operating Costs, landing at Net Margin **$1.85M**. This is your reference state.
Test the no-pass-through scenario: +5% list, 0% shelf
Drag List Price Change to +5% and leave Retailer Shelf Price at 0%. The manufacturer raised list; the retailer absorbed the entire move into front margin. Read the retailer outputs: Cost of Goods rises (about +5% on every unit before the volume offset); Consumer Sales falls because volume drops on the -1.8 elasticity (about -9%) at unchanged shelf price; Front Margin per unit drops by roughly the size of the list move; Front Margin % falls toward the COMPRESSED threshold. This is the move that gets pushed back hardest in category review, and the structural reason the buyer's bonus structure (paid on front margin %) makes them resistant even when total economics improve.
Expected outcome: Front Margin per unit compresses materially; Front Margin Health degrades from ADEQUATE toward COMPRESSED depending on the magnitude of the list move and the volume response. Net Margin Resilience tightens because Operating Costs scale with consumer sales but the gross margin available to absorb them shrinks. The Front-vs-Back Composition chart shows the front margin bar shrinking while back margin stays roughly proportional. Read the buyer's perspective: **the most visible number on their dashboard just got worse on a move that helps your P&L**. This is the asymmetric mirror at work.
Test the negotiated outcome: +5% list, +5% shelf (full pass-through)
Reset all levers. Drag List Price Change to +5% and Retailer Shelf Price to +5%. Now the retailer passed the full move through to the shelf. Read the outputs: Cost of Goods rises about 5% per unit; Consumer Sales rises about 5% per unit on shelf price but volume drops about 9% on the elasticity response, net Consumer Sales drops a few percent; Front Margin per unit holds approximately flat (the price rose with the cost); Front Margin Health stays in the same band; Net Margin Resilience reads the joint outcome. This is the negotiated scenario that gets approved when the manufacturer brings retailer-economics evidence to the JBP, not just a list-price ask.
Expected outcome: Front Margin per unit holds roughly at base ($1.07/unit), Front Margin Health stays in the **ADEQUATE** band, Total Gross Margin Quality stays close to base, Net Margin Resilience shifts only on the volume response. The Retailer Waterfall shows the Consumer Sales bar shorter than base (volume effect), but the cascade lands on a Net Margin close to base in absolute dollars. **This is what the retailer signs off on**, and it is why pre-JBP modelling of both P&Ls is worth doing.
Test the trade-terms expansion: +3pp trade terms, no other change
Reset all levers. Drag Trade Terms Change to +3pp. New GTN total: 20.0% of list (still in the HEALTHY band on the manufacturer side). Read the retailer outputs: Cost of Goods stays approximately flat (on-invoice rises but is offset by the manufacturer's net price falling at the same gross structure); Back Margin rises because the manufacturer is funding more trade income that flows to the retailer's back-margin line; Total Gross Margin Quality lifts; Front Margin Health stays roughly at base because shelf price did not change and front margin is governed by shelf minus landed cost. The diagnostic shift: Front/Back Balance tilts from BALANCED 70/30 toward 65/35. At +5pp it would push toward 60/40, and beyond that the F/B Balance band crosses into BACK-LEANING and ultimately BACK-DEPENDENT.
Expected outcome: Back Margin rises, Total Gross Margin Quality improves toward PROFIT-GENERATOR. Front/Back Balance tilts toward BACK-LEANING with each additional pp. The Front-vs-Back Composition chart shows the back margin bar growing relative to front. **The structural read**: the retailer's total economics improved on a move that increased their dependency on funded trade income. If you ever renegotiate trade terms back down, their economics collapse harder than they would have at a 70/30 split. This is why front/back balance is the structural fragility marker.
Test the promo escalation scenario: +12pp promo depth, no other change
Reset all levers. Drag Promo Depth Change to +12pp (total promo depth 32%). The 'Shelf price reduction exceeds 5%' warning fires only when shelf is also dropped, but watch the retailer P&L: Consumer Sales dips on the deeper deal-week shelf compression, Back Margin rises modestly (promo allowance flows in as additional trade income), Front Margin per deal-week unit compresses, and Net Margin Resilience tightens. Beyond about +15pp depth, Net Margin Resilience can move toward TIGHT depending on the operating cost base. This is the structural truth of deep promotion: both sides' economics get worse on the same move, but the retailer's deterioration is partially obscured by the back-margin lift.
Expected outcome: Consumer Sales falls modestly (reflects the deeper deal weeks pulling per-unit revenue down), Back Margin rises modestly, Front Margin Health degrades, Net Margin Resilience tightens. The compositions chart shows total margin compressing while back share rises. **The lesson**: deep promotions are often lose-lose in disguise; both P&Ls get worse, but the retailer's loss is masked by the back-margin uplift the manufacturer funded. Cross-reference with **/tools/promo-mechanic-selector** (Tool #11) which shows that visibility-led promo mechanics outperform price-cut depth at every depth above 10%.
Test the joint move: -3% list, -1.5pp trade terms
Reset all levers. Drag List Price Change to -3% (a defensive volume-recovery move) and Trade Terms Change to -1.5pp (offsetting trade pull-back to fund the price action on the manufacturer side). The retailer reads: Cost of Goods drops (lower list, lower trade terms, smaller back-margin support); Consumer Sales rises through the elasticity response (about +5% on the -3% price at -1.8 elasticity, before the volume adjustment); Front Margin per unit holds (shelf unchanged, COGS dropped); Back Margin falls (the trade pull-back hits back margin directly); Net Margin Resilience reads the joint compression. The diagnostic question: did the joint move actually leave the retailer better off, or did the back-margin loss offset the front-margin gain?
Expected outcome: Front Margin per unit holds approximately flat or rises slightly (lower COGS, unchanged shelf). Back Margin falls because trade-terms restructuring directly cuts trade income. Net Margin Resilience may stay roughly flat depending on whether the volume-driven gross margin lift covers the back-margin loss. This is the structural test of joint moves: **the retailer is indifferent only when the gross margin uplift from volume covers the back-margin compression**. Most -3% / -1.5pp combinations land slightly worse for the retailer than base, which is why this trade is hard to land at the JBP table.
Find the JBP-defensible recommendation by reading all four sentinels together
Reset all levers. Now build the actual JBP recommendation. A +3% list with full pass-through (+3% shelf) plus -1pp trade terms (a moderate margin-recovery play) typically lands as: Front Margin per unit holds (shelf rose with cost); Total Gross Margin Quality holds approximately at base (back-margin compression offset by gross margin lift); Front/Back Balance stays BALANCED; Net Margin Resilience stays HEALTHY. This is the defensible JBP package: a moderate price action with full pass-through and a small trade-terms recovery. The key diagnostic read is that all four sentinels stay green or amber, and Front Margin Health does not degrade. Compare to the +5% list / 0% shelf scenario from Step 2: same nominal manufacturer-side ambition (margin recovery), entirely different retailer outcome.
Expected outcome: Front Margin Health stays **ADEQUATE**. Front/Back Balance stays **BALANCED**. Total Gross Margin Quality stays **ATTRACTIVE**. Net Margin Resilience stays **HEALTHY**. The Front-vs-Back Composition chart shows minimal movement from base. **The recommendation to take into the JBP**: 'We are taking a 3% list increase to recover input-cost inflation; we are recommending a 3% shelf-price pass-through which we will support with a one-quarter visibility programme; in exchange we are pulling 1pp of total trade terms back, holding your Front Margin and Net Margin within the same bands as today.' This is the package that survives the buyer's review because it solves the manufacturer's cost problem without breaking the retailer's headline KPIs.

5.4Reading the output

Every KPI, the formula behind it, and how to interpret a positive or negative value.

KPI	Formula	How to read it
Front Margin %	(Consumer Sales minus Cost of Goods) / Consumer Sales × 100	The buyer's headline KPI. Most retail buyers are evaluated on front margin %, not total margin. At default 21.5%, the SKU sits in the ADEQUATE band (just above the typical 20% category target). Below 12% is UNVIABLE (delist threat); 12 to 20% is COMPRESSED (renegotiation pressure); 20 to 30% is ADEQUATE (acceptable); 30%+ is ROBUST. Watch this number first when you propose any change. Front margin compression on a manufacturer move is the single biggest cause of category-review pushback.
Front/Back Balance	Front Margin / (Front Margin + Back Margin) × 100	The structural fragility marker. A 70/30 front-back split (BALANCED) means the retailer earns most of their margin from shelf markup with a healthy back-margin supplement. Below 55% front share, the retailer is BACK-LEANING (over-reliant on funded trade income). Below 40% they are BACK-DEPENDENT, which means any future trade-terms restructuring collapses their economics on this SKU. The single biggest mistake in a JBP is to fund a buyer ask with back-margin uplift without checking what it does to the front/back balance. A retailer who looks profitable today on 35% back-share is one trade-terms renegotiation away from a delist conversation.
Total Gross Margin %	(Front Margin + Back Margin) / Consumer Sales × 100	The retailer's true commercial reading on the SKU. At default 30.5%, the SKU is ATTRACTIVE (25-35% band), the cohort that gets normal shelf treatment. PROFIT-GENERATOR (35%+) is preferred-supplier territory. BORDERLINE (15-25%) signals a renegotiation conversation. DILUTIVE (below 15%) means the SKU is dragging the category profit down, and the retailer is actively managing it out of the assortment.
Net Margin %	(Total Gross Margin minus Operating Costs) / Consumer Sales × 100	The bottom-line read. At default 18.5% (with 12% operating cost), the SKU sits in HEALTHY territory (8-25% band). EXCEPTIONAL (25%+) is rare. TIGHT (0-8%) means the operating cost is eating the margin and the SKU only stays on shelf because of category role. LOSS-MAKING (below 0%) means the retailer is delisting it next category review. Watch this when modelling promo escalation, because operating costs scale with consumer sales but the gross margin available to absorb them shrinks under heavy promotion.
Banded Sentinels	4 string-banded composites: Front Margin Health (front margin %), Front/Back Balance (front share), Total Margin Quality (total gross margin %), Net Margin Resilience (net margin %)	Read all four together. The buyer-bonus test: would you accept this scenario if your bonus was paid only on Front Margin Health? If no, the buyer will not accept it either. The structural-fragility test: would you accept this scenario if the manufacturer renegotiated trade terms back down next year? If no, the Front/Back Balance is too back-leaning. The total-economics test: does Total Margin Quality justify the shelf space? If marginal, the SKU is at risk on the next assortment review. The bottom-line test: does Net Margin Resilience stay HEALTHY after operating costs? If TIGHT, the SKU is one promo escalation away from LOSS-MAKING.

Read the right side of the simulator as a stack of four layers. Headline KPIs at the top tell you whether the scenario lifted or compressed each margin line in absolute dollars and basis points. Banded Sentinels tell you whether the move passes the four structural tests (buyer bonus, fragility, total economics, bottom line). Retailer P&L Comparison Table lets you walk every line of the cascade from Consumer Sales to Net Margin, base versus future. Per-Unit Economics Card at the bottom strips away the volume effect and shows the unit-level math the buyer reads on their daily dashboard.

The four charts each surface a different angle. Retailer P&L Waterfall shows the cascade from Consumer Sales through landed cost, front margin, back margin, operating costs, to net margin: the same shape the retailer's category P&L report uses. Front vs Back Margin Composition stacks base and future side by side so you can see whether the move shifted the front/back balance. Front/Back Pie shows the same split as a single-scenario ratio. Shelf-Price Sensitivity sweeps the shelf-price lever from -10% to +10% holding all other levers at the user's current settings, so you can read where the break-even points sit on the retailer's net margin curve.

Use the simulator before you walk into a JBP, an annual joint-business plan review, or a category-review escalation. Anchor every move proposed to a sentinel reading and an absolute-dollar margin delta. The buyer will challenge the assumption (your pass-through intent, your promo support, the operating cost share) far more than the math, which is what the editable base case is for.

5.55 common mistakes to avoid

Diagnostic patterns that catch most misuse of this calculator in practice.

Mistake 1Treating retailer pass-through as automatic at 100%
Symptom: The annual plan promised a 5% list price increase and assumed the retailer would pass it through 1:1 to shelf. In practice the retailer absorbed 60% of the move into shelf and 40% into front margin compression for two quarters before fully passing through. Volume tracked the shelf price (modest decline), but the buyer escalated front margin compression in the second category review and demanded 2pp of trade terms in exchange for closing the gap.
Fix: **Always model the pass-through scenario you actually expect**, not the 1:1 outcome that almost never happens. Working FMCG pass-through ranges 60 to 80% in mainstream categories. Drag List Price Change and Retailer Shelf Price Change to the actual ratio you expect (5% list with 3% shelf is a 60% pass-through scenario; 5% list with 5% shelf is full pass-through). The **/concepts/price-pass-through-rate** page covers the mechanics. Bring the modelled pass-through scenario to the JBP as part of the recommendation: 'We are taking 5% list, recommending 4% shelf (80% pass-through), and supporting the residual 1% with a one-quarter visibility programme to protect your front margin.'
Mistake 2Funding a buyer ask with trade terms without checking front/back balance
Symptom: The retailer asked for 3pp more trade terms to keep the brand on shelf for another year. The plan agreed, the buyer signed, and Total Gross Margin Quality lifted to PROFIT-GENERATOR. Two years later the company restructured trade terms across all customers (a -2pp move). On this customer the retailer's Net Margin Resilience collapsed from HEALTHY to TIGHT in one quarter, and the category-review meeting opened with a delist threat.
Fix: **Read Front/Back Balance every time you fund a buyer ask with back-margin uplift.** The simulator's Front/Back Balance tile is the structural fragility marker. Above 60% front share is BALANCED and resilient to any trade-terms move; below 55% is BACK-LEANING and exposed; below 40% is BACK-DEPENDENT and one renegotiation away from collapse. If a buyer ask pushes the balance below 55%, either restructure the ask (move some to on-invoice, which goes through front margin) or lock the trade terms in a multi-year agreement that the next CFO cannot quietly walk back.
Mistake 3Reading Total Gross Margin without reading Front Margin separately
Symptom: The plan landed Total Gross Margin Quality in the ATTRACTIVE band and the team called it a successful JBP. Three months later the buyer flagged Front Margin Health was in the COMPRESSED band on three of the top SKUs because the trade-term funding flowed entirely to back margin while shelf price was held flat. The buyer's bonus was paid on front margin %; the Total Gross Margin lift was invisible to the person sitting across the table.
Fix: **Front margin is the buyer's headline. Total margin is the retailer's accounting truth. Both matter, but the buyer reacts to front margin first.** Always read Front Margin Health and Total Margin Quality together. A scenario that lifts Total Margin Quality while compressing Front Margin Health will get pushed back at the buyer level even when corporate would approve it. The fix is to structure trade-term funding through on-invoice (which flows to front margin) rather than off-invoice or promo allowance (which flow to back margin) when front margin compression is the binding constraint.
Mistake 4Modelling promo depth and frequency separately when they compound
Symptom: The promo plan deepened a key TPR by 5pp (from 20% to 25% off) and increased frequency by 10pp (from 30% to 40% of volume). Each move was modelled separately and looked manageable. The combined plan landed retailer Net Margin Resilience in the TIGHT band because the deeper depth on the more frequent weeks compressed front margin per deal-unit while operating costs held flat against shrunken Consumer Sales.
Fix: **Always model promo depth and frequency together as a single combined scenario.** The simulator handles this if you drag both sliders. A +5pp depth alone gives one read; a +10pp frequency alone gives another; the combination compounds because deeper deals on more weeks both lower per-unit revenue AND raise total promo cost as a share of consumer sales. Reference-price erosion is the longer-run risk that the simulator does not model directly: shoppers in heavily promoted categories begin to anchor on the deal price, which is why the warning fires at +5pp absolute depth and why modelling both sliders jointly before the JBP is more useful than modelling each in isolation.
Mistake 5Forgetting that operating costs scale with Consumer Sales, not Volume
Symptom: The simulator showed a -10% volume scenario (sharp competitive activity) with consumer sales down only -4% (because the elasticity-driven volume loss was partially offset by mix premium). The team assumed operating costs would also drop -4% in line with Consumer Sales. In reality the retailer's operating cost % was held flat as a category target, not as a per-unit absolute, and the buyer's category P&L showed Net Margin compression that the simulator's per-unit cost view had hidden.
Fix: **The operating cost field is a percentage of Consumer Sales, not an absolute cost per unit.** A 12% Operating Cost on $9.98M Consumer Sales is $1.20M; on $8.5M it is $1.02M. But the retailer's actual operating cost is largely fixed in the medium term (rent, labour, shrinkage, energy), so a Consumer Sales drop without a proportional Operating Cost % adjustment understates the real Net Margin compression. When modelling sharp volume scenarios, manually raise the Operating Cost % field in the Retailer Economics panel to reflect the temporary deleverage. A 10% Consumer Sales drop usually translates to a 1 to 2pp temporary lift in Operating Cost %.

Related concepts

Go deeper on the theory

Continue with the lessons

Go further inside P&L Impact Lab

This calculator is the sandbox slice of Lesson 2: Retailer P&L Mirror. Each of the other 3 P&L Impact Lab lessons teaches a complementary concept that sharpens how you read the output above.

See Retailer P&L Simulator inside the full lesson

RGM Academy lets you pull every commercial lever yourself inside a senior-practitioner simulator, with the AI RGM Strategist coaching every decision you make.

Claim 50% off — unlock the full lesson

Or sign up free — 12 lessons included