Define a comparable operating contract
Inputs and assumptions to record
- Same customer cohort, offer, period and tax basis. (not complete)
- Current platform and payment contracts captured with date. (not complete)
- Channel-specific acquisition, refund and support cost. (not complete)
- Direct software, administration, privacy and integration resources. (not complete)
- Migration response, overlap period and reversible exit plan. (not complete)
channel contribution = collected revenue - provider/payment fees - acquisition cost - delivery/support cost - channel operating cost - migration cost for the selected horizon
- provider/payment fees
- Current fixed, percentage, payout and other applicable terms for the channel (CU per horizon) — current provider contract and transaction record
- channel operating cost
- Software, administration, moderation, privacy, support and integration resources (CU per horizon) — supplier, time and business record
- migration cost
- One-off build, content, communication and transition cost assigned to the decision horizon (CU per horizon) — quote, time plan or labelled scenario
Use one currency, indirect-tax basis, attribution rule and time horizon. All numbers below are invented currency units (CU), not forecasts or benchmarks.
Worked example: Platform Fees vs Direct Audience Ownership
Invented six-month comparison at 30,000 CU collected revenue: platform fees/ops 4,800 CU; direct fees/ops 3,200 CU plus 2,400 CU migration.
| Line | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Platform contribution before shared delivery | 30,000 - 4,800 | 25,200 CU |
| Direct contribution in migration horizon | 30,000 - 3,200 - 2,400 | 24,400 CU |
| Direct difference | 24,400 - 25,200 | (800 CU) |
| Recurring direct advantage after migration | 4,800 - 3,200 | 1,600 CU per 6 months |
| Case | Changed input | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20% revenue loss | Direct revenue 24,000; same entered costs | 18,400 CU |
| Same revenue | Base | 24,400 CU |
| Migration cost 1,200 | Same revenue/operating cost | 25,600 CU |
Use the result without hiding uncertainty
- Capture current terms and channel records.
- Align cohort, offer and horizon.
- Build complete platform and direct costs.
- Separate one-off migration from recurring cost.
- Stress audience response and support burden.
- Stage a reversible test and refresh terms before commitment.
- Comparing one platform percentage with one payment fee.
- Calling followers a portable customer list.
- Omitting acquisition, support, privacy and administration.
- Spreading migration cost over an arbitrary long horizon.
- Publishing provider terms without a review date.
Questions before committing
- Does direct mean fee-free?
- No. Payment, software, acquisition, support and compliance resources remain and should be itemised.
- How should changing fees be handled?
- Capture the current contract and access date, use editable inputs and set a refresh trigger rather than hardcoding a benchmark.
- Should every audience be migrated?
- No. Compare hybrid, staged and no-change cases with consent and portability constraints reviewed separately.
Sources and methodology
- Platform Fees vs Direct Audience Ownership: primary calculation methodology — Margin101: Owns editable calculation, units, assumptions and validation boundaries.
- Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers — U.S. Federal Trade Commission: U.S.-specific creator disclosure context; current provider terms and local obligations remain separate.
Model the next decision
- Marketplace Fee Profit Planner
Set a viable listing price after marketplace, payment and fulfilment fees
- Affiliate Commission Profit Planner
Set a sustainable affiliate commission after returns and incrementality
- Customer Acquisition Cost Planner
Measure loaded and marginal customer acquisition cost across aligned channels