Cost rose. Price didn’t.
A confirmed supplier step-up was absorbed instead of passed through to one customer.
COST +$43.23 · PRICE +$0.00
Pricing audit for wholesale distributors
Your ERP recorded the cost increase. Nobody checked whether the price followed.
Send sales + purchase lines. We cross-check every customer × SKU and return only the exceptions worth touching — conservative annual dollars, the next action, and the rows that prove it.
No ERP login. No integration. No charge for the data-health check. Full pilot audit: $99.
Why this survives
The leak is not hidden in one bad invoice.
It is hidden between histories.
A person can spot an obviously bad sale. What is hard is comparing a year of receipts against every customer’s price history, continuously, across the whole book.
A price froze while the market moved.
A special price stayed flat while your cost or comparable customer prices moved around it.
CUSTOMER $239.87 · PEERS ≈ $263
The invoice is under landed cost.
No model. No peer benchmark. The sell price is simply below the matched acquisition cost.
SELL $7.29 · LANDED COST $9.00
The deliverable
You do not need another dashboard.
You need a Monday-morning list.
The report ranks the relationships worth attention, tells you why each fired, gives a conservative annual figure, and tells you what to check or change next. Then it puts the invoice and receipt rows underneath.
Priority queue · illustrativeANNUAL LOW
01
C-0266 × SKU-1360 · COST NOT PASSED THROUGH
Verify special price → reprice from $459.37 to ≥ $499.93 if no valid exception.
$74,613
02
C-0184 × SKU-1355 · COST NOT PASSED THROUGH
Verify special price → reprice from $546.26 to ≥ $589.14 if no valid exception.
$39,441
03
C-0101 × SKU-1359 · SPECIAL PRICE FROZEN
Expire or re-approve → flat at $239.87 since Jul 2025 while comparable customers pay $262.74–$263.42.
$13,898
13
C-0183 × SKU-1377 · SOLD BELOW COST
Stop-loss → move $7.29 to at least $9.79. Ranked 13th on purpose: high confidence, smaller dollars.
$4,049
Built for skepticism
We do not ask you to trust a big number.
The audit is deliberately harder to exaggerate than a normal “margin opportunity” report.
01High-confidence and review dollars stay separate.
Accounting-backed losses are one pool. Benchmark- or history-based opportunities are another. They are never added together.
02Every finding carries its own receipts.
The calculation, invoice rows, receipt rows, dates, costs and prices sit under the recommendation.
03The headline uses the conservative case.
Targets are capped and recovery is discounted. The report is designed to survive a controller trying to disprove it.
04Nothing changes unless your team changes it.
No ERP access, no write-back, no customer contact. The audit identifies; your team decides.
Three steps
Start without buying anything.
Export two histories.
Sales lines + purchase/receipt lines, ideally 12 months. CSV, Excel or zip. Odd column names are fine.
Get the data-health check free.
What mapped, what cannot be trusted, and how much sales volume has usable cost coverage. No dollar findings yet.
Choose whether to run the $99 audit.
If the files support it, we send a payment link. The full self-contained HTML audit arrives within 10 business days.
Before you send anything
The obvious objections.
Will this need IT or an ERP integration?
No. If you can export sales history and purchase/receipt history, that is the requirement. We never log into or write back to your system.
Our data is messy. Is that a problem?
Messy is expected. The free check exists to identify what mapped, what did not, and which parts cannot support trustworthy dollar findings.
What exactly do you need?
Sales: date, customer, SKU, quantity, price. Purchases: date, SKU, quantity, cost. Extra columns are fine. Landed cost is preferable when available.
Why not just trust our ERP margin report?
This is not a replacement for it. The audit looks across histories for customer×SKU relationships where cost movement, frozen pricing or landed cost creates a specific exception worth reviewing.
What if a price is low for a legitimate contract reason?
Then it stays a review finding. The report cannot see contract terms unless they are represented in the files; that is why benchmark/history findings are separated from high-confidence accounting findings.