Xcelerate Brands

Two Equal Months, $16.4K and 11.47% More Sales

A price held too long was tested, moved, and paid for itself in volume.

Pet Supplies · December 2025 compared with January 2026, both thirty one days · Published September 2026

Loading Pet Supplies banner

Six unbranded mid value items arranged on pale oak in daylight, with a leafy plant in a speckled pot at the left edge.

The numbers

Total Order Items

2,101

from 1,787

+17.57%

Ordered Product Sales

$159,157.50

from $142,779.75

+11.47%

Units Ordered

2,238

from 1,929

+16.02%

Avg Sales per Order Item

$75.75

from $79.90

-5.19%

Figures come from Amazon Seller Central Sales Dashboard snapshots for 1 to 31 December 2025 and 1 to 31 January 2026 at marketplace total across both fulfilment channels. Both windows are thirty one days, so no per day adjustment is required. The work covered December 2025 compared with January 2026, both thirty one days.

The challenge

December and January both run thirty one days, which removes every excuse. December turned over $142,779.75 ($142.8K) at $79.90 against a price set eighteen months earlier, and the category had moved. Buy Box share was being lost on the core ASINs, but nobody had separated the losses caused by price from those caused by availability or handling, so the whole thing read as one unexplained number. Advertising was being used to buy back traffic a correct price would have held for free, which is the most expensive way to defend a position you already owned. Cutting price across the catalogue would have paid for losses that were never about price.

What we changed

  • Split Buy Box loss by cause across the catalogue before changing any price, because a reduction applied to losses driven by availability or handling time buys nothing and costs margin permanently.
  • Ran price elasticity tests inside a defined band on the highest traffic ASINs, so the reduction was sized on observed response rather than on what competitors appeared to be charging.
  • Applied the change only to the ASINs measurably losing the box on price, leaving the rest untouched, so the concession was paid where it bought something back and nowhere else.
  • Rebuilt repricing around Buy Box win rate rather than matching the lowest offer, which means conceding the box on some listings rather than winning a race downward that ends badly for everyone.
  • Withdrew advertising from the terms the corrected price now won organically and moved that budget onto ASINs still losing the box, so the saving funded the next problem instead of the same one.

The outcome

  • January took 2,101 orders against December's 1,787 and 2,238 units against 1,929, advances of 17.57% and 16.02% on windows of identical length.
  • Revenue reached $159,157.50, $16,377.75 ahead of December, growing at 11.47% and therefore more slowly than volume. That gap is the arithmetic of the trade.
  • Order value fell 5.19% to $75.75. The reduction was the instrument rather than a side effect, and it bought roughly a third more growth in orders than in revenue.
  • Both windows run thirty one days, so the monthly and daily rates are identical at 11.47% and no seasonality adjustment applies.
  • Orders per day moved from 57.6 to 67.8, around ten more orders a day, with no calendar difference accounting for any of it.
Before

More case studies

View All

Want results like this for your brand?

Tell us where you are now and we will tell you what we would change first, before you commit to anything.