Three pickup points: one eats what the other two earn

“Three points, eighteen thousand parcels a month, revenue over four hundred thousand. And the profit — two thousand six hundred hryvnia. For two years I believed the network was simply running at its limit” — that is how Maryna Holub, owner of three parcel pickup points in Odesa, opened the conversation.

If you have more than one location, you have already said this to yourself. The shelves are packed to the ceiling, after six in the evening the queue never clears. And the bottom line shows a figure you are ashamed to say out loud.

The reason is always the same. The network hands out parcels in three places, and the report rolls those places into one column — so the profit looks like a thin layer smeared evenly across it.

We break the network down into two units: the point and one parcel handed over. And we get to why two points out of three deliver 90 000 ₴ while the consolidated report shows 2 600 ₴.

Maryna's road: from one room to three points

Maryna started in a space of eighteen square metres: one rack, a printer and herself behind the counter. She kept the maths in a notebook: commission this much, rent that much, the difference is mine.

In four years the points became three and the operators five, and the notebook gave way to the carrier's export file. That is when the feel for the numbers went: the locations tripled, and the money stayed the same.

“When I had one point, I knew everything about it: how many parcels went out in a day, how many boxes nobody collected, when to pay for the electricity. Now there are three points, and I cannot tell you which of them fed me yesterday and which of them ate.”

Why “three points” is not one number but three

A pickup point lives on the commission for one parcel handed over. Everything else — the rent, two operators per shift, the till, the tape — accrues regardless of how many people were given a box that day. So a location has either gathered the flow that covers its month, or it has not.

And these three points stand in three districts with different rent and a different mix of parcels. The report shows one shared figure — and that figure is always a compliment to the worst location at the expense of the best.

The report Maryna used for two years

Here is the very report she based every decision on. Nothing in it lied — and that is exactly what made it dangerous.

Monthly metric	Value
Parcels handed over	18 400
Revenue (commission from the carrier)	422 600 ₴
Average commission per parcel	22.97 ₴
Costs in total	420 000 ₴
Profit	2 600 ₴
Net margin	0.62%

What is correct in this report

Everything. The revenue matches the carrier's export file to the hryvnia, the costs match the bank. 0.62% is not a typo and not a rounding error: less than one percent, exactly so. Per unit that is 0.14 ₴ of profit per parcel on a commission of 22.97 ₴ and a unit cost of 22.83 ₴.

Fourteen kopiykas out of a box is the level where any trifle flips the sign. Maryna called it “we are working at the limit”.

Life before the point became a line

The bookkeeping Maryna lived with for those two years is recognisable to any network that grew out of a single location.

• Revenue was rolled up across the network. The carrier sent one sum for all the points — and onward it travelled that way.
• Rent was seen as one general line. 126 000 ₴ for three spaces — and no way to know which of them had earned its rate.
• Payroll was counted per month, not per parcel. The rota was set by shifts: two people, because that is how it is done.
• The commission was assumed to be the same. “They pay us around twenty-three” — and nobody checked that location by location.
• The weak point was called young. Instead of the amount of the loss there was the formula “it has not picked up yet”.
• Her own salary hung on the network. It belonged to no location — so it showed up nowhere.

Not one of these six items is about logistics: the operators worked fine, the carrier paid on time. The problems were in the bookkeeping — which is why nobody saw them.

The main unit: one parcel handed over

The first thing Maryna did was convert every cost item into hryvnia per one parcel handed over: not per month and not per square metre, but per the unit she is paid for. That figure stands in a line next to the commission, and percentages are no longer needed.

Why an average commission of 22.97 ₴ does not exist in nature

No point receives 22.97 ₴ per parcel. Nobody has seen that number in the export file and nobody influences it: it is born out of a division once the month is already over.

In reality there are three commissions: 24 ₴ in the centre, 23 ₴ in the residential district and 19.5 ₴ in the new development. The gap between the extremes is 4.5 ₴, almost a fifth of the price. While it sits inside the average, the worst location looks like the best.

Three points, broken out one by one

Next Maryna wrote the month out across the three points separately, and put her own salary on a line of its own: it belongs to no location.

Point	Parcels	Commission	Revenue	Rent	Payroll	Other	Costs	Result
A (centre)	9 200	24 ₴	220 800 ₴	58 000 ₴	78 000 ₴	16 000 ₴	152 000 ₴	+68 800 ₴
B (residential)	6 400	23 ₴	147 200 ₴	38 000 ₴	74 000 ₴	14 000 ₴	126 000 ₴	+21 200 ₴
C (new development)	2 800	19.5 ₴	54 600 ₴	30 000 ₴	80 000 ₴	12 000 ₴	122 000 ₴	−67 400 ₴
Total across the points	18 400	—	422 600 ₴	126 000 ₴	232 000 ₴	42 000 ₴	400 000 ₴	+22 600 ₴
Maryna's salary (central costs)	—	—	—	—	20 000 ₴	—	20 000 ₴	−20 000 ₴
Consolidated network profit	18 400	—	422 600 ₴	—	—	—	420 000 ₴	+2 600 ₴

Why 22 600 ₴ and 2 600 ₴ are both correct

This is where everyone stumbles. The table has two totals, and neither of them is wrong. 22 600 ₴ is the sum of the results of the three points: 68 800 plus 21 200 minus 67 400. That is everything the network earned with the locations themselves.

2 600 ₴ is the same thing, but after Maryna's salary. Her 20 000 ₴ belongs to neither A, nor B, nor C: to spread that sum across the points would mean inventing a proportion. Check: 22 600 − 20 000 = 2 600 ₴, exactly the profit that is in the report.

And there is the key. The costs of the points are 400 000 ₴, together with the central ones 420 000 ₴. The twenty thousand of difference belongs to no location, so it is not an argument in a decision about a specific location.

Points A and B: the 90 000 ₴ Maryna never saw

Add the first two lines: 68 800 plus 21 200 — that is 90 000 ₴ a month. Two points out of three bring in ninety thousand, and for two years that money lived in the report as “two six hundred”.

Per unit it is plainer. Point A spends 16.52 ₴ per parcel on a commission of 24 ₴ — 7.48 ₴ and a margin of 31.2% are left. Point B spends 19.69 ₴ on a commission of 23 ₴ — 3.31 ₴ and 14.4% are left. In the centre the commission is higher and the flow is denser too. B is not bad, but three hryvnia out of a box will vanish from a single rent review.

Point C: 2 800 parcels and minus 67 400 ₴

The third line is the one that made the whole network look hopeless. The location in the new development hands over 2 800 parcels, that is 15.2% of the flow, brings in 12.9% of the revenue — and takes 30.5% of the costs of all three locations.

The point's costs are 122 000 ₴, its revenue 54 600 ₴. A loss of 67 400 ₴ a month, or 24.07 ₴ on every parcel handed over there. That is why the 90 000 ₴ of the two points minus the 67 400 ₴ of the third give 22 600 ₴: C eats three quarters of what A and B earn.

“When I first saw that line on its own, I asked for a recount. It seemed to me that a location handing over almost three thousand parcels could not be sixty-seven thousand in the red. It turned out it could — and precisely because there are only three thousand parcels.”

Why point C cannot come out in the black

The usual reaction to a line like that is to give the location more time: “the new development is filling up, the flow will catch up”. So Maryna worked out exactly how much it would have to catch up by.

Point C: what it takes to reach zero	Value
Costs of the point per month	122 000 ₴
Commission on one parcel	19.5 ₴
Break-even in parcels	6 256
Actually hands over	2 800
Achieved of what is needed	44.8%
Commission needed at the current 2 800 parcels	43.57 ₴
Operator payroll per one parcel	28.57 ₴
Payroll minus commission on a parcel	−9.07 ₴
Result for the month	−67 400 ₴

Break-even: 6 256 parcels against 2 800

Divide the costs by the commission: 122 000 by 19.5 — that gives 6 256 parcels. That is how many point C has to hand over to reach zero. It hands over 2 800, that is 44.8% of what is needed.

The gap is 3 456 parcels a month: the flow has to grow by 123%, a little more than double. No new development adds that much in a year, and the rent accrues every month.

Or a commission of 43.57 ₴ instead of 19.5 ₴

The second road to zero is not the flow but the price. Divide those same 122 000 ₴ by the actual 2 800 parcels: you get 43.57 ₴. That is what one handover would have to cost for point C to close its own month.

She is paid 19.5 ₴. Do not mix these numbers up: 19.5 ₴ is a fact in the contract, 43.57 ₴ is what will never be in a contract, because the tariff depends on the type of parcel, not on your rent. Both exits are closed: the point has not “failed to pick up yet” — it cannot become profitable on the flow it has.

The first hidden item: the commission differs at every point

Now for the three items that existed in none of Maryna's reports. The first is that same difference in commission. In the centre they pay 24 ₴ per parcel, in the new development 19.5 ₴: a difference of 4.5 ₴ on 2 800 parcels gives 12 600 ₴ a month that point C does not receive because of the mix of its flow. That is 4.8 times the entire profit of the network.

The carrier does not treat the new development worse — the parcels there are simply different.

• Small items dominate. Clothing, phone cases, cosmetics — boxes at the minimum rate on the scale.
• There is almost no oversized freight. In the centre people collect furniture and appliances, and those 24 ₴ come out of them.
• More refusals and returns. An uncollected parcel is the same shelf work for almost no payment.
• Almost every order is prepaid. No cash on delivery — and no percentage from it either.

The owner does not choose the mix of the flow. But the commission has to be known for every location: it determines how many parcels a location is able to pay for itself on.

The second: payroll per parcel is larger than the commission on it

The second item is the main one, and it looks like an error in the calculation. It is not an error. Point C has two operators per shift, a payroll fund of 80 000 ₴ a month. Divide by 2 800 parcels: you get 28.57 ₴ of payroll per one parcel handed over. And the commission on it is 19.5 ₴.

Read these numbers side by side once more. Payroll alone on every parcel at point C is 9.07 ₴ dearer than the commission on it — and that is before the rent, the tape and the bags. The conclusion is harsh: every parcel handed over at point C increases the loss. It does not bring it closer to zero — it increases it.

Compare with the rest of the network: 8.48 ₴ of payroll per parcel at A, 11.56 ₴ at B, 28.57 ₴ at C. The salaries are close, the difference is only in how many parcels they get spread over.

“I thought payroll was a cost I control: two people, so much money. And it turned out that I control not the sum but how many parcels it gets divided between. Eight hryvnia in the centre, twenty-eight in the new development — and it is one and the same salary.”

Why one operator instead of two will not save it

The first thought after a calculation like that is to cut the shift to one person. The fund drops from 80 000 ₴ to 40 000 ₴, payroll per parcel to 14.29 ₴, already below the commission of 19.5 ₴. The result: 54 600 minus 82 000, that is −27 400 ₴.

The minus became two and a half times smaller but stayed a minus: rent of 30 000 ₴ and 12 000 ₴ of other costs on 2 800 parcels are not covered in any way. And one operator means the location closes for lunch and for sick leave — and loses part of the flow.

The third: the lease is signed for 3 years

The third item is the one because of which Maryna did not touch point C even when she suspected the minus. The lease in the new development is signed for three years, and leaving before term costs three months of rent: 3 × 30 000 = 90 000 ₴ of penalty.

Ninety thousand in a single payment is a sum you move away from. But it has to be compared not with zero but with the alternative. The loss of the point over those same three months is 67 400 × 3 = 202 200 ₴, 2.25 times more. So the penalty is paid back by the loss that will not happen, in forty days.

Why the 90 000 ₴ in this section is a different 90 000 ₴

The same sum appears twice in the article, and that is a coincidence, not a typo. The first 90 000 ₴ is the monthly earnings of points A and B together: 68 800 plus 21 200. That is income, and it repeats every month. The second 90 000 ₴ is the penalty for breaking the lease of point C: three months at 30 000 ₴. That is a cost, and it is one-off. The numbers are the same, their nature is the opposite, there is no connection between them.

Let us separate out one more coincidence. The figure 3 here means three different things: three points in the network, three years of lease term and three months of rent as the size of the penalty. None of the three follows from the others.

“For two years I kept that ninety-thousand penalty in my head as the reason to do nothing. And when I put it next to two hundred thousand of loss over the same term, it turned out that doing nothing was what came expensive.”

What two years without a breakdown cost

Without point C the network would have 90 000 ₴ earned by the locations minus 20 000 ₴ of Maryna's salary — 70 000 ₴ a month instead of 2 600 ₴. That is 26.9 times more, a margin of 19.0% instead of 0.62%. The difference between 70 000 ₴ and 2 600 ₴ is exactly 67 400 ₴, the loss of one point.

And now over the two years she lived with that report: 67 400 × 24 — that is 1 617 600 ₴ against 62 400 ₴ of profit over the same term. A million and a half burned by one line that was not in the report.

“What hit me was not that I am poorer than I thought. It was that for two years I considered the whole network to be the problem — I looked for where to raise, where to save. And the problem was a single one, and it had an address.”

What changed when the point became a line

The technical changes turned out to be three. The revenue from the carrier started being split across the points. Every cost got an address: A, B, C or “central”. And the salaries were converted into hryvnia per parcel.

• Point C was closed without taking the lease to term. A penalty of 90 000 ₴ once against 67 400 ₴ of loss every month — the decision paid back in forty days. The network's profit became 70 000 ₴ instead of 2 600 ₴.
• The commission became a line at every point separately. 24 ₴, 23 ₴ and 19.5 ₴ — three numbers that lived for two years as one average of 22.97 ₴.
• Break-even in parcels was calculated for all three. For C that is 6 256 parcels against the actual 2 800 — and when a number like that appears before the lease is signed, some locations never open.

Neither a new space nor negotiations with the carrier were needed. What was needed was to see the point as a line with a result of its own.

The takeaway for business owners. If you have more than one address, the average margin of the network describes nothing: it covers the strong location and the one living at its expense equally well. Break every location down into its own revenue and its own costs, work out break-even in units of goods and put payroll per unit next to the price of that unit. Where payroll has exceeded the price, growth in volume will no longer help: every further operation will only increase the minus. This works the same way in a chain of coffee shops, pharmacies, workshops and in any business with several addresses under one sign.

Advice to close with

• Give every location its own line of revenue and costs. The carrier sends one sum for the network, so splitting it will be down to you.
• Keep central costs separate. The 20 000 ₴ of your own salary belongs to no point: it is because of that line that 22 600 ₴ across the locations becomes 2 600 ₴ in the report.
• Work out break-even in parcels, not in hryvnia. 122 000 ₴ divided by 19.5 ₴ is 6 256 parcels: a number the facts can be compared with.
• Derive payroll per unit of goods. 8.48 ₴ in the centre and 28.57 ₴ in the new development — the same salary on a different flow.
• Check whether the price of a unit is higher than the payroll on it. If it is not, the location is not “picking up”: every operation adds to the loss.
• Do not trust the average price. A commission of 22.97 ₴ exists at no point in the network — each one has its own.
• Compare the exit penalty with the loss over the same term, not with zero. 90 000 ₴ once against 202 200 ₴ over three months — and the decision is no longer hard.

Money does not disappear — you simply do not see it

A network of pickup points is easy to imagine as a business where everything is decided by the addresses and the carrier's tariff. In reality that is the condition of entry. The money is decided by something else — how many parcels a location is able to divide its rent and its shift between.

A hole like that does not close by itself and will not show up in a consolidated report: the report adds the network up, while the minus lives at a single address. But as soon as the point becomes a line, the main thing is visible — 0.62% of margin describes none of Maryna's three locations. It is merely a proportion in which a business that works and a business that does not got mixed together.

How to see this in your own network

Everything described above rests on a single table: every location is a line showing its revenue, its rent, its payroll and its result. While the report is added up as one figure for the whole network, the average mixes a location that works with one that does not, and both look the same. When the same data is collected automatically, you see not the average but every location on its own — which is exactly why small and medium business owners use Finmap: to see the financial picture instead of guessing at it.

Read also

• Equipment rental: why utilisation beats the day rate
• Bookkeeping firm: the 468 hours nobody pays for

Topic foundation: Management Accounting Explained: What It Is and Why Owners Need It