Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Business

How to Determine the Markup Percentage for a Retail Business

Published

on

Supermarket executives are being questioned by MPs over why food prices are still rising as some wholesale costs are falling.

Markup percentage confuses a lot of retail business owners when they are starting out. The math itself isn’t that complicated, but applying it to actual business situations gets messy.

Different products need different markups, competition affects what you can charge, and your costs aren’t always what they seem at first.

​Understanding What Markup Actually Means

Markup is how much you add to your cost to get your selling price. If something costs $10 and you sell it for $15 , you added $5. That‘s a 50 percent markup on your cost. Where people get confused is that markup isn’t the same as margin, even though the terms get used interchangeably all the time. Margin measures profit as a percentage of the selling price, and markup measures it based on your costs. Same dollar, different percentages.​ Most retailers think in markup because it’s easier when pricing products. You know what you paid, decide what markup you need, and do it. A makeup percentage calculator speeds this up when you are pricing hundreds of items because doing it manually takes forever. The formula is pretty straightforward – cost times one plus markup percentage. So $10 times 1.5 gives you $15, the 1.5 comes from 100% plus 50% markup.

Single markup percentage across everything rarely works in actual retail. Fast-moving items with competition need lower markups to stay competitive. Slow-moving specialty items can carry higher markups because customers have fewer options. Loss leaders might sell at cost or below just to get people in the door, which means other stuff needs a higher markup to compensate.​ Product categories have different markup structures even in the same store. Electronics might run 15-20 percent because customers price-shop online constantly. Accessories for those electronics might carry a 100 percent markup because someone buying a laptop doesn’t compare shop as hard for a mouse or case. This is where a markup percentage calculator becomes useful; it lets you test scenarios quickly for different product lines without doing manual math over and over.

​Industry Standards Exist, But Your Mileage Varies.

Different retail sectors have typical markup ranges. Grocery stores work on thin markups, like 15-25 percent, because they move tons of volume, and competition is brutal. Jewelry stores might use 100-300 percent markups since overhead is high and they are not exactly selling dozens of rings daily. Clothing sits somewhere around 50-100 percent, depending on whether it’s a discount or a boutique store.​

Advertisement

These benchmarks give you a starting point, but they don’t mean much if your situation is different. A grocery store in a rural area with no competition nearby can charge more than one in a city. With three competitors down the block. Location matters as much as industry sometimes. Your rent might be higher, labor costs vary by region, and utilities cost more in some places than others. High overhead means you need a higher markup just to cover expenses.​

The Cost Of Goods Isn’t Just What You Pay Wholesale.

Determining markup requires knowing actual costs, which gets more complicated than just the invoice price. Wholesale price isn’t your only cost, not by a long shot. Shipping adds to it,  especially if products come from overseas. Storage costs money if you are warehousing inventory instead of drop-shipping. Damaged goods or theft create losses that increase your average cost per unit.

​Some retailers only consider direct product cost when calculating markup, so  they can’t figure out why they’re not profitable despite hitting target percentages. Hidden costs east margins. Credit card fees take 2-3  percent off every sale. Return cate handling costs. Seasonal markdowns to clear old inventory drop your effective markup to almost nothing on those items.​

​Volume And Speed Matter

High-volume low markup can beat low-volume high markup for profitability. Warehouse clubs work despite tiny markups around 10-114 percent because they move massive quantities and keep overhead low. A boutique selling a few items daily needs a higher markup to cover rent and staffing, even if overall sales volume is lower.

Advertisement

​Inventory turnover affects how much markup you need to. Products sitting on shelves for months tie up capital and space, and that storage cost needs to be covered somehow. Fast-turning inventory keeps cash flowing and reduces storage costs. You can afford a lower markup on items that sell quickly and replace themselves.

Adjust Your Markup as Market Conditions Change

Markup isn’t set in stone forever once you pick it. Market conditions shift, costs fluctuate, and competition changes. Retailers who don’t adjust pricing regularly end up struggling. Economic downturns make customers price-sensitive, and might need to cut markup to maintain volume. During boom times or for trending products, you might increase markup because demand supports it.

​Supplier cost increases force decisions. Do you maintain the same percentage markup and raise prices proportionally? Or maintain the price and accept lower dollar markup? Depends on your market. Gradual increases often work better than sudden jumps, even if the math says you need the higher markup weight now.​

Common Mistakes That Kill Margins

Using the same markup for everything is probably the biggest mistake. Different products have different dynamics, deserve different treatment. Picking an arbitrary number like 50 percent without analyzing costs and competition usually ends badly one way or another. Getting to account for all costs when calculating markup leaves money on the table or creates losses you don’t see coming. Payment processing, shipping, handling , and returns all cost money that needs to be covered. Markup should contribute to operating expenses and profit, not just cover product cost.​

Advertisement

Start with industry benchmarks, but adjust for your situation. Calculate total operating costs and required profit, and work backward to determine what average markup needs to be across all products. Some will be higher, some lower, but the average needs to hit your target or you are not making money. ​Test different scenarios before committing. A markup percentage calculator lets you model possibilities quickly without getting out the calculator for each one. What happens if markup increases by 5 percent? How many fewer sales can you have and still come out ahead? Sometimes higher markup with lower volume is more profitable because you are spending less on labor and overhead supporting that volume.​

Conclusion

Pay attention to competitor pricing, but don’t obsess over matching them exactly. Your value proposition might support higher prices if service is better or selection is more curated. Or maybe you need pricing lower to compete on value. Either way, make deliberate choices about positioning rather than just skyping whatever competitors charge.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Form 8K Invesco Commercial Real Estate Finance Trust For: 17 March

Published

on


Form 8K Invesco Commercial Real Estate Finance Trust For: 17 March

Continue Reading

Business

Stormrae Hosts Record Breaking Solana-Based AI Challenge With 15,000 Participants

Published

on


Stormrae Hosts Record Breaking Solana-Based AI Challenge With 15,000 Participants

Continue Reading

Business

Has the Stock Selloff Ended? Wall Street Sees Value but Remains Focused on Oil Markets.

Published

on

Has the Stock Selloff Ended? Wall Street Sees Value but Remains Focused on Oil Markets.

Has the Stock Selloff Ended? Wall Street Sees Value but Remains Focused on Oil Markets.

Continue Reading

Business

Taylor Farms introduces protein products

Published

on

Taylor Farms introduces protein products

The items include salads and snack packs. 

Continue Reading

Business

US Stocks: Boeing sees profit for commercial airplane division in 2027, later than expected

Published

on

US Stocks: Boeing sees profit for commercial airplane division in 2027, later than expected
Boeing expects its commercial airplane division to turn a profit in 2027, not this year as previously expected due to higher-than-expected costs of its purchase of parts supplier Spirit AeroSystems, its chief financial ‌officer said ⁠on Tuesday, ⁠in a new setback for the U.S. planemaker.

The commercial airplane division lost $632 million in 2025 and $2.1 billion in 2024.

The company expects to increase production of its popular 737 ​MAX jet from roughly 42 aircraft a month to 47 a month by year’s end and to deliver about 500 of the ​jets this year, Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave ⁠said at ‌the Bank of America Global Industrials Conference in ​London.

The single-aisle ​jet is critical to Boeing’s financial recovery. Planemakers receive ⁠the majority of cash from customers when they deliver new ​aircraft.

Advertisement

Deliveries in the first quarter were slightly hampered ​by damage to wiring on about 25 737s, but fixing the problem only required a few more days of work and will not hurt annual deliveries, Malave said.


Boeing shares were down 1% in early trading, continuing a 13% slide in the past month.
Malave said Boeing ‌does not plan to develop a new jetliner anytime soon.Boeing’s first-quarter 787 Dreamliner deliveries will be down slightly from ​a projected ​20 aircraft to ⁠about 15 of the popular widebody jet, mostly due to delays certifying premium-class seat designs, he said.

“The premium seating has been challenging,” he said. “Those are ​very strict, rigorous types of certifications.”

The planemaker wants to increase 787 production from its current rate of eight Dreamliners per month to 10 by the end of 2026. The company is expanding its 787 assembly plant in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

US stock market crash fears ease even as Middle East war rages on

Published

on

US stock market crash fears ease even as Middle East war rages on
Options traders’ fears of a U.S. stock market crash have pulled back nearly to levels seen before the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that made oil prices soar.

The Nations TailDex Index and ‌the Cboe ⁠Skew Index, ⁠two separate gauges that measure how much traders are paying for crash protection, have retreated to near where they stood before the February 28 strikes on Iran. The S&P 500 is still down 2% from pre-war levels.

“TDEX is signaling that investors are now less worried about a “tail event,” or a really steep drop in equity prices, than at any point since the war started,” said ⁠Scott Nations, ‌president of Nations Indexes, an independent developer of volatility and option strategy index products.

“Given the muted response from the S&P 500, this outlook makes ⁠sense, but it’s an important metric to watch,” he said.

Advertisement

On Monday, the TailDex index was at 18.84, just below its closing level of 19.01 on February 27. The Cboe SKEW index finished at 141.49 on Monday, down from 146.67 prior to the air strikes.


Both indexes soared to multi-month highs as soaring oil prices unleashed fear of a sizeable pullback in markets.
The cost of deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts – contracts that ‌would offer protection against a 20% drop in the market over the next three months – stands just slightly higher than it was immediately prior to the strikes, ⁠according to Susquehanna Financial Group strategist Christopher Jacobson. “After hitting multi-year highs at times last week, S&P skew levels have declined incrementally as some of that downside tail bid has faded alongside,” Jacobson said.

While fear of a market crash has faded, market anxiety levels are still higher than they were in early February. Nor are investors rushing to bet on a sharp rebound in stocks past old highs.

“We haven’t really seen that skew shift back towards the upside tail,” Jacobson said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

EV charging VAT ruling could cut public charging costs to 5%

Published

on

Businesses are not required to have a petrol pump on their premises to claim refunds of VAT on fossil fuel expenses, why is it not the same for EV charging?

A landmark tribunal ruling that public electric vehicle (EV) charging should be subject to a reduced 5% VAT rate rather than the standard 20% has sparked renewed debate over fairness in the UK’s charging infrastructure, with potential implications for millions of drivers.

The decision, issued by a First-tier Tribunal, could bring public charging costs into line with those faced by motorists charging at home, addressing what many in the industry have long argued is a structural inequality in the tax system. Currently, drivers with access to off-street parking benefit from the lower VAT rate on domestic electricity, while those reliant on public charging, often urban residents, pay significantly more.

Justin Whitehouse, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal Tax, said the ruling reflects “a win for common sense”, highlighting a disparity that has persisted since EV adoption began to scale.

“To most people, it feels inherently unfair that those with a driveway can charge their vehicles at a reduced VAT rate, while those without off-street parking are left paying the full rate,” he said.

The case has also exposed deeper issues within the UK’s VAT framework, particularly around how electricity is classified depending on where it is consumed. The legislation hinges on the definition of “premises”, distinguishing between residential and commercial supply, a distinction that has proven increasingly difficult to apply in the context of modern EV charging networks.

Advertisement

Whitehouse noted that despite sustained lobbying from the industry, HMRC had not clarified its position, making a legal challenge almost inevitable. “The legislation has always been difficult to apply in practice,” he said, pointing to ambiguity that has left operators and consumers navigating an inconsistent system.

The ruling raises the prospect of refunds for drivers and businesses that may have overpaid VAT on public charging, potentially unlocking significant sums across the sector. However, any immediate impact remains uncertain. As a First-tier Tribunal decision, the ruling does not set a binding precedent and could yet be appealed, prolonging uncertainty for both operators and consumers.

Even if upheld, a key question will be how quickly, and to what extent, any VAT reduction is passed on to drivers. While lower tax rates could reduce charging costs in theory, pricing structures across public networks are influenced by a range of factors, including energy wholesale prices, infrastructure investment and operator margins.

In the short term, the decision is likely to intensify pressure on policymakers to address inconsistencies in EV taxation, particularly as the UK accelerates its transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles. Aligning VAT rates between home and public charging has been a longstanding demand from industry groups, who argue that the current system risks penalising those without access to private driveways — often those in cities where EV adoption is critical to meeting emissions targets.

Advertisement

Over the longer term, the case could act as a catalyst for broader reform of how energy usage is taxed in a decarbonising economy, where traditional distinctions between domestic and commercial consumption are becoming increasingly blurred.

For now, the ruling represents a significant moment in the evolution of the UK’s EV ecosystem, one that highlights both the opportunities and the complexities involved in building a fair, scalable and accessible charging infrastructure for the future.


Amy Ingham

Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

Analysts revise AI hyperscaler debt forecasts after Amazon bond sale

Published

on

Analysts revise AI hyperscaler debt forecasts after Amazon bond sale
Analysts anticipate a higher supply of debt being raised by the Big Five hyperscaler companies this year as they race to build out their data center infrastructure, following Amazon’s near-record bond sale last week of roughly $54 billion in investment-grade bonds.

Hyperscalers, which operate vast data centers and other infrastructure to facilitate AI training and deployment, have been raising debt to finance data centers needed to fuel the boom in AI.

“There continues to be an expectation of a lot ‌of capital to ⁠be raised ⁠in this sector,” said John Servidea, co-head of investment-grade debt capital markets at JPMorgan, which led the Amazon deal.

“Whether it’s the companies’ publicly stated capex budgets, or whether it’s various banks’ estimates of the amount of hyperscaler issuance, if you look at all of those, a realistic expectation would be that at some point there’s more,” Servidea added.

Advertisement

Analysts at BofA Global Research on Friday raised their forecast for the hyperscalers’ new debt in 2026 to $175 billion from $140 billion. In early February, Barclays analysts said that U.S. investment-grade corporate bond issuance could be ⁠greater than $2 ‌trillion in 2026, which they said “would exceed even the post‑COVID record levels seen in 2020.”


The five major AI hyperscalers – Amazon, Alphabet’s Google, Meta, Microsoft and Oracle – issued $121 billion in U.S. corporate ⁠bonds last year, versus an average $28 billion per year between 2020 and 2024, according to a January report by BofA Securities. Microsoft and Oracle declined to comment, while the other companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Hyperscalers made up four of the five biggest U.S. high-grade bond deals in 2025, according to a December report by MUFG analysts. Most of those took place in the second half of the year. Oracle sold $18 billion in bonds in September. This was followed in October by Meta’s $30 billion deal and November deals ‍from Alphabet ($17.5 billion) and Amazon ($15 billion).

This year saw a $31.51 billion ‌global bond raise by Alphabet in February, which included a rare 100-year “century” bond as part of the deal.

Most recently, Amazon raised about $37 billion across 11 tranches in the U.S. bond market on March 10. This was followed the ⁠next day by a 14.5 billion euro-denominated ($16.8 billion) bond raise by the company.

The overwhelming demand – nearly four times the total amount sold – for Amazon’s bond sale underlines investor appetite for debt from the major hyperscalers.

Advertisement

Market participants believe the actual and expected debt raise by hyperscalers will keep forecasts for potential record-breaking overall U.S. corporate debt issuance on track, despite quiet days in the primary market preceding and following the escalation of conflict on February 28 between Iran and U.S.-Israeli forces.

“It’s fertile ground right now in capital markets, and you’re also in the first half of the year,” said George Catrambone, head of fixed income, Americas, at asset manager DWS.

Continue Reading

Business

Past The Ides Of March

Published

on

S&P Global Dividend 100 Index: Where High Yield Meets Quality

Past The Ides Of March

Continue Reading

Business

Fortive Corporation (FTV) Presents at JPMorgan Industrials Conference 2026 Transcript

Published

on

OneWater Marine Inc. (ONEW) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Fortive Corporation (FTV) JPMorgan Industrials Conference 2026 March 17, 2026 12:20 PM EDT

Company Participants

Mark Okerstrom – Senior VP & CFO

Conference Call Participants

Advertisement

C. Stephen Tusa – JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Presentation

C. Stephen Tusa
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Advertisement

All right. We’re moving along with Mark Okerstrom from CFO of Fortive. Thank you so much for joining us here in lovely Washington, D.C.

Mark Okerstrom
Senior VP & CFO

Yes, thanks. Great to be here.

Advertisement

Question-and-Answer Session

C. Stephen Tusa
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Advertisement

Yes. Just wanted to start off with a basic kind of background on what’s happening out in the world today, I kind of have to ask the question about exposures and anything that’s going on in the world that is a concern or impact for Fortive. Middle East wise?

Mark Okerstrom
Senior VP & CFO

Yes. Listen, I’d say we’re on track on the Fortive accelerated strategy, on track in terms of our strategic initiatives. The Middle East for us is a small portion of our revenue. It’s low single digits percentage of our revenue. We are seeing strong demand for products into the Middle East.

Advertisement

So Fluke Industrial Scientific that does gas sensors, again, seen strong demand, some challenges getting shipments into the Middle East. But again, generally, it’s a pretty small portion, and it’s — for better, for worse, it seems like it’s an opportunity as opposed to a risk for us.

C. Stephen Tusa
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division

And how are you guys putting the Middle East and what’s happening over there aside. How are things kind of trending over the course of the quarter, kind of quarter-to-date, point-of-sale trends, software sales, anything like that?

Advertisement

Mark Okerstrom
Senior VP & CFO

Well, I would

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025