Revenue doesn't arrive on its own. It arrives the way a traveller arrives at a hotel, carrying luggage, and the luggage is everything it takes to actually serve that revenue: staff time, materials, delivery cost, admin, customer support, revisions, the working capital tied up along the way, the attention it demands from whoever's running the place. Some customers turn up with an overnight bag. Others arrive with six suitcases that someone has to carry upstairs.
The part that gets missed is what happens when revenue leaves. It doesn't necessarily leave empty-handed either. Some of that luggage, the cost and the workload that came with earning it, can leave right along with it.
Here's what that looks like with real numbers.
A service business does 100 jobs a month. Each job is priced at £100, costs £70 to deliver, and leaves £30 of contribution. That's £10,000 in monthly revenue and £3,000 in monthly contribution.
The business raises its price by 10%, to £110. Delivery cost per job stays at £70, so contribution per job jumps from £30 to £40.
Some customers leave. The business now completes 80 jobs instead of 100.
| Before price rise | After price rises | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | £10,000 | £8,800 |
| Contribution | £3,000 | £3,200 |
| Jobs | 100 | 80 |
Revenue is down 12%. The business is doing 20% less work. And contribution has gone up. Did the price rise fail? Looking at revenue alone would say yes. The £1,200 of lost revenue took some of its own delivery cost and workload with it when it went, and what was left behind was a smaller, more profitable business than the one it started as.
Immediately worth knowing: at 75 jobs, revenue would fall to £8,250 and contribution would land back exactly at the original £3,000. That's the break-even point. The business could lose 17.5% of its revenue after this price rise before it becomes worse off than it was before. Below that line, contribution starts to fall behind where it used to be.
There's a second consequence sitting inside the same numbers. The business used to deliver 100 jobs. It's now delivering 80. That's capacity for 20 jobs that no longer has anywhere to go, and what that capacity is worth depends entirely on what happens to it next. Left alone, it might mean less overtime, shorter waiting times, one avoided hire, or simply room to breathe. Used deliberately, it could mean more time spent selling, or filling those slots with better-paying work at the new price.
Suppose the business does exactly that; refills the 20 spare slots with new work sold at £110. It's back to 100 jobs, but now at the higher economics.
| Before price rise | After price rise+ capacity refilled | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | £10,000 | £11,000 |
| Contribution | £3,000 | £4,000 |
| Jobs | 100 | 100 |
Revenue is up 10%. Contribution is up a third. The same delivery capacity, filled at the new price, now supports a considerably stronger business than the one that started this whole exercise. The journey matters here: from £10,000 revenue and £3,000 contribution, to £8,800 and £3,200 once some customers leave, to £11,000 and £4,000 once the released capacity gets put back to work.
The 17.5% figure and the capacity opportunity are both real, but neither one is the whole answer on its own. What actually decides the outcome is what's inside the luggage that left. Some of the cost tied to those lost jobs genuinely disappears, direct materials, hours that were only being spent on that work. Other costs stay exactly where they were, salaries, premises, software, the overhead that doesn't care how many jobs came through the door. So the real gain depends on an honest look at which costs were actually tied to the lost work and which were simply always going to be there regardless.
The workload side matters just as much. If the customers who left were taking up a disproportionate amount of staff or owner time, the released capacity might be worth more than the accounts alone would ever show. And that capacity isn't automatically valuable the moment it appears; it only becomes worth something once the business decides what to do with it, whether that's easing a bottleneck, improving service for everyone else, or actively going out and filling it with work at the new, better price.
Worth remembering too that not all lost revenue is equal. £1,000 of demanding, high-support, low-margin work disappearing has a very different effect on the business than £1,000 of easy, high-margin, low-touch work disappearing, even though both show up identically on a revenue line. The mix of what's lost matters as much as how much is lost.
For anyone running this calculation on their own numbers, it comes down to a short sequence: what contribution the current revenue generates, what contribution the same work would generate at the new price, what level of revenue at that new price would produce the same total contribution as today, what costs and workload genuinely disappear with any lost work, and what the business is actually prepared to do with whatever capacity that frees up.
None of that turns a price increase into a guarantee. It turns it into a question with an actual boundary, rather than a fear with no edges.
If this feels familiar, start here:
👉 Run the Second Look Decision Diagnostic to see what’s missing before you decide
👉See related business decision
👉 📖 Read more on Second Look blog
You can continue with making the decision afterwwards.