| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor
in Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we
produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this
is the reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead
cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is
automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries,
rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up
really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So,
keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a
predetermined operating budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
|
I think ones that used fixed burden accounting, yes, but many companies have
switched to variable burden, or even Activity Based Costing. I believe the cost
that LEGO fears lies elsewhere.
FUT trimmed to just lugnet.dear-lego
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
