Problems we solve
Which location is actually making me money?
Multi-site owners can usually rank locations by revenue and almost never by contribution. That single missing view drives staffing, investment and expansion decisions in the wrong direction for years.
Blended numbers hide the location that is being carried.
The problem
Shared overhead, shared labor and shared management time make location comparison feel impossible, so it does not get done.
Why it matters
Expansion built on blended averages multiplies whatever is already broken. The next site inherits the same unmeasured economics.
How to know if you have this
- Overhead is allocated evenly across sites
- One location is 'a little slow' and always has been
- You cannot rank sites by contribution margin
- Managers are compared on revenue only
How Advisory Motion solves it
- 01Build location-level P&Ls with defensible shared-cost allocation
- 02Normalize for size, market and maturity so the comparison is fair
- 03Rank by contribution and by contribution per unit of capacity
- 04Produce a specific action per site — invest, correct, reprice or exit
Illustrative example
24% of revenue, 41% of profit
The newest site was the strongest and one older site was negative. The correction was staffing and pricing, not closure — verified in a 90-day review.
Illustrative composite · not a client identification
Where this connects