IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Unit Cost Reductions on Gross Profit: Increasing or Decreasing Returns?

Author

Listed:
  • Dahan, Ely

    (U of California, Los Angeles)

  • Srinivasan, V. Seenu

    (Stanford U)

Abstract

When asked about the impact of unit manufacturing cost reductions on gross profit, many managers and academics assume that returns will be diminishing, i.e., that the first cent of unit cost reduction will generate more incremental gross profit than the last cent of unit cost savings, consistent with the economic intuition about diminishing returns. (The product's appeal to the market is assumed to remain constant.) The present paper shows why gross profits actually increase in a convex fashion under typical demand assumptions, providing increasing returns with each additional cent of reduction in unit manufacturing cost. The intuition is that if q units are sold at the current price, the first cent of unit cost reduction increases the gross profits by q cents (keeping the price at the current level). But further cost reductions bring about greater pricing flexibility so that the optimal price decreases, thereby increasing the quantity to q'. Thus, the last cent of cost reduction produces an incremental profit of q' cents, where q' > q. The convex returns are captured graphically in the "profit saddle," a simple plot of gross profit as a function of unit cost and unit price. Decreasing unit costs produce additional returns from learning curve effects, reduced per unit channel costs, quality improvements, and strategic considerations. Of course, the fixed investment entailed in reducing unit-manufacturing costs must be weighed against the returns from doing so, suggesting some optimal level of unit cost reduction efforts. Cost reduction has traditionally been the purview of the manufacturing function within the firm, and has been emphasized in the later phases of the product-process life cycle. Marketing managers, on the other hand, have focused on generating sales revenues through pricing, product positioning, promotion, and channel placement. The present paper suggests that the traditional view be questioned. The marketing function, and new product planning in particular, may want to consider unit manufacturing cost reduction a potent tool in pricing new products for marketing success.

Suggested Citation

  • Dahan, Ely & Srinivasan, V. Seenu, 2005. "The Impact of Unit Cost Reductions on Gross Profit: Increasing or Decreasing Returns?," Research Papers 1905, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1905.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl T. Ulrich & Scott Pearson, 1998. "Assessing the Importance of Design Through Product Archaeology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(3), pages 352-369, March.
    2. Hau L. Lee, 1996. "Effective Inventory and Service Management Through Product and Process Redesign," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 151-159, February.
    3. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    3. Krishnan S. Anand & Haim Mendelson, 1998. "Postponement and Information in a Supply Chain," Discussion Papers 1222, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    4. Laura J. Kornish & Karl T. Ulrich, 2011. "Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 107-128, January.
    5. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    6. Fay, Scott & Mitra, Deb & Wang, Qiong, 2009. "Ask or infer? Strategic implications of alternative learning approaches in customization," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 136-152.
    7. Souza, Gilvan C. & Wagner, Harvey M. & Whybark, D. Clay, 2001. "Evaluating focused factory benefits with queuing theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 597-610, February.
    8. Philip Auerswald, 2010. "Entry and Schumpeterian profits," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 553-582, August.
    9. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2007. "Valuing R& D Projects in a Portfolio: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1452-1466, September.
    10. Christopher S. Tang, 2017. "OM Forum—Three Simple Approaches for Young Scholars to Identify Relevant and Novel Research Topics in Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 338-346, July.
    11. Çağrı Haksöz & Sridhar Seshadri, 2004. "Monotone Forecasts," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 478-486, June.
    12. Li Chen & Yao Cui & Hau L. Lee, 2021. "Retailing with 3D Printing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 1986-2007, July.
    13. Alptekinoglu, Aydin & Tang, Christopher S., 2005. "A model for analyzing multi-channel distribution systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(3), pages 802-824, June.
    14. Gilbert, Stephen M. & Cvsa, Viswanath, 2003. "Strategic commitment to price to stimulate downstream innovation in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 617-639, November.
    15. Yigal Gerchak & Christian Schmid, 2022. "Principal–agent models where a principal is only affected by extreme performances," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(2), pages 468-477, March.
    16. Marshall Fisher, 2007. "Strengthening the Empirical Base of Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 368-382, December.
    17. Gunasekaran, Angappa & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2009. "Modeling and analysis of build-to-order supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 319-334, June.
    18. Yossi Aviv & Awi Federgruen, 2001. "Design for Postponement: A Comprehensive Characterization of Its Benefits Under Unknown Demand Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 578-598, August.
    19. Hillier, Mark S., 2002. "Using commonality as backup safety stock," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 353-365, January.
    20. Mila Nambiar & David Simchi‐Levi & He Wang, 2021. "Dynamic Inventory Allocation with Demand Learning for Seasonal Goods," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(3), pages 750-765, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1905. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.