Problems › Costs Are Rising Faster Than Prices › Manufacturing
A cost squeeze is a contract design problem as much as a pricing one. This page works through it for manufacturers specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a manufacturer.
A cost squeeze is a contract design problem as much as a pricing one. For manufacturers, this shows up in a particular place. The numbers that carry the answer are contribution per machine hour and capacity utilisation, and the complication specific to this industry is that the $45M automation case depends on the very customer that causes the margin problem. The general version of this problem and the one you are actually in have different first moves.
When inputs rise faster than prices, the immediate reflex is cost reduction. It is worth doing and it is finite: you can only remove cost once, while the squeeze continues.
The durable responses are structural. Escalators tied to a published index rather than to negotiation. Shorter price terms. Repricing at renewal rather than annually across the board. Changing what is bundled so the price change lands on something the customer is not comparing.
The other half is mix. In most businesses the squeeze is not uniform — some lines pass costs through easily and some cannot — and moving volume toward the first group is usually faster than winning a price argument in the second.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Gross margin is falling while volumes hold
✓ Price changes require a negotiation every time
✓ Contracts have no escalation mechanism
The move that usually makes it worse. Absorbing input costs to protect volume, which trains customers to expect it and makes the eventual correction larger.
It is for you if you run or finance a manufacturer and gross margin is falling while volumes hold. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a manufacturer. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Kessler Industrial Components, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $310M revenue, three plants.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Customer Value Architecture · sample company profile
The move. Monetise existing tooling and qualification stickiness by selling design-for-manufacturability services to the same OEMs that currently force 3% annual price-downs.
The leak it closes. Closes value leakage to OEMs via contractual price-downs; design authority creates new margin pool that subsidizes existing build-to-print programmes
The assumption it rests on. Customer A engineering manager will sign first paid DFM engagement within 6 months — the engine put the probability at 0.7.
| Investment required | $8-12M tooling CapEx + $4.5-6.0M annual engineering payroll (18-24 FTEs at $250K fully-loaded cost) |
| Expected return | 5.1× — $57-86M incremental EBITDA over 5 years / $12M maximum downside |
| Revenue, year 1 | $0.5-1.0M DFM service revenue |
| Revenue, year 2 | $3.5-5.0M DFM service revenue + $8-12M design-authority production revenue |
| Revenue, year 3 | $7-10M DFM service revenue + $35-50M design-authority production revenue |
| Exit criteria | Abandon this move if first paid DFM engagement is not signed by Month 9, OR if cumulative engineering hires fall below 12 FTEs by Month 18, OR if DFM-to-production conversion value falls below $4M by Month 24 |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Cost & Margin Improvement, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For manufacturers it works through contribution per machine hour, capacity utilisation, customer concentration and scrap, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Tie them to something external and verifiable, and give notice. A rise attributed to a published index is a fact; the same rise attributed to your costs is an invitation to negotiate.
Where a credible index exists, it removes the annual argument and usually pays for itself in the first cycle. The work is choosing an index the customer accepts as neutral.
Then the lever is at renewal, and the interim work is mix and cost to serve. It is also the moment to fix the contract, because the same squeeze will happen again.
Materially, yes. The $45M automation case depends on the very customer that causes the margin problem — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are contribution per machine hour, capacity utilisation, customer concentration, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on contribution per machine hour and capacity utilisation. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.