Fixed Costs · Variable Costs · Contribution Margin
Fixed Cost, Variable Cost & Contribution Margin
What are fixed costs?
- Reclassify costs by whether they move with revenue
- Contribution margin = Revenue − Variable costs
- Rank products by contribution margin, not revenue
Adopting this split changes how a company talks about its numbers. The income statement divides costs into cost of goods sold and SG&A, but that classification cannot answer “how much more cash goes out if we take one more order?” Redrawing the lines as variable and fixed costs lets you judge “do we come out ahead if we take it?” on the spot, one order, one course, or one branch at a time. The biggest change is that, in the monthly performance review, people first ask “how much was left to cover fixed costs?” instead of “how much did we sell?”
In reality, though, costs don't split neatly into two buckets. Some are semi-variable, like a salesperson's base pay plus commission, or an electricity bill that mixes a base charge with usage. Others are semi-fixed: once output crosses a threshold, they jump in steps, one machine or one instructor at a time. In practice, you plot 12–24 months of revenue and costs on a chart and read the slope as the variable cost ratio and the intercept as fixed costs. At a 30% contribution margin ratio, recovering KRW 300 million (≈ US$224,500) in fixed costs takes KRW 1 billion (≈ US$748,200) in revenue; raise the ratio to 40% and that falls to KRW 750 million (≈ US$561,100). And if you have limited resources, such as classrooms or instructor availability, the right order comes from ranking by contribution margin per unit of the scarce resource, not by absolute amounts.
The most common misconception is “if the contribution margin is positive, we can take it.” That logic holds only when there is idle production capacity and the deal is one-off. Once low-price orders become routine, that price hardens into the market reference, existing customers ask to renegotiate, and the moment higher volume forces you to add equipment or staff, fixed costs jump in steps and the whole calculation flips. The opposite misconception is just as risky. If you allocate salaried labor costs to each course and treat them like variable costs, you end up cutting a perfectly good course on the strength of costs that do not disappear when the course is closed. The result is the worst combination: fixed costs stay, and only revenue goes away.
Jinho DanAccounting instructor who makes financial statements, costing, and tax easy to understand
Eunpyo HongExpert in company analysis, startups, and investment fundraisingIt became a standard concept in the early 20th century, when cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis took shape in management accounting.
Consider a hypothetical case. Company A, an industrial packaging manufacturer with 62 employees and KRW 14 billion (≈ US$10,474,300) in annual revenue, had seen revenue grow for three years while operating profit stayed flat at KRW 100 (≈ US$1)–300 million. The CEO was uneasy about the sales division’s repeated advice to “push the best-selling products harder.” At the first-half workshop, they decided to re-rank all 14 products by contribution margin.
- The head of business planning went back through the cost sheets for all 14 products and redrew the lines: raw materials, outsourced processing, and freight as variable costs; production-staff pay, equipment leases, and the like (KRW 2.6 billion (≈ US$1,945,200) a year) as fixed costs.
- P-3, the top seller at KRW 3.8 billion (≈ US$2,843,000) a year, had a contribution margin ratio of just 11%, while the specialty coating material, with KRW 900 million (≈ US$673,400) in sales, was at 42%. The head of sales conceded, “We had our priorities backwards.”
- Instead of dropping P-3 outright, the CEO ordered a price renegotiation. Over three months, the purchasing team negotiated with the raw-material supplier and cut material cost by KRW 180 (≈ US$1) per kg, while raising the delivery price 4%, lifting the contribution margin ratio to 19%.
- They recalculated the break-even point too. Dividing KRW 2.6 billion (≈ US$1,945,200) in fixed costs by an average contribution margin ratio of 21% gave KRW 12.4 (≈ US$1) billion, and the executives were rattled to see a cushion of only KRW 1.6 billion (≈ US$1,197,100) against KRW 14 billion (≈ US$10,474,300) in revenue.
- For the sales team, they set a rule: “any deal with a contribution margin ratio below 15% needs division head approval,” with an exception only for one-off orders that fill idle lines in the off-season.
- A year later, revenue had fallen from KRW 14 billion (≈ US$10,474,300) to KRW 13.2 (≈ US$1) billion, but operating profit rose from KRW 300 million (≈ US$224,500) to KRW 900 million (≈ US$673,400). The result came from discontinuing two low-margin products and growing specialty coating materials from KRW 900 million (≈ US$673,400) to KRW 2.1 billion (≈ US$1,571,200).