Measuring Profitability Across Douyin Livestreams, Creators, and SKUs
This beauty and skincare brand was founded in 2021 and sells mainly through Douyin livestreams. Its model has two parts. First, it works with a large number of mid-tier creators who promote products in livestreams or in short videos with product links. Second, it runs brand-operated livestreams, two to three sessions a day in its own livestream room. The client processes more than 100,000 orders a month at an average order value of about RMB 120, with monthly GMV over RMB 10 million. Because return rates in beauty are generally high, the amount that actually arrives is often only 60% to 70% of gross sales. In the early days the client used an ordinary bookkeeping firm for accounts and tax filing. The firm could record revenue, costs, and expenses from the client's monthly invoices and bank statements, and file the taxes. But livestream e-commerce is far more complex than standard trade. Creator commissions and fixed placement fees are settled after the promotion and routinely cross month-ends. One livestream may promote several SKUs at once, so the fixed placement fee needs a fair way to be allocated across products. Ad spend sits in the Qianchuan dashboard (Douyin's ad platform). Refunds arrive after the order, and the rules on whether commissions and platform commissions are refundable all differ. The income statement the bookkeeping firm produced could not answer the questions that mattered: which creator partnership contributes profit, and which product is worth promoting.
Before the client came to Caigeek, its finance pain points were typical for livestream e-commerce and clustered in four areas. First, the profit or loss of each creator partnership was unknowable. The client worked with dozens of creators every month. Some took a percentage of sales, some charged a fixed placement fee, and some did both. Creator dashboards, sales orders, and commission statements lived in different places, and finance had no capacity to match each order with its commission. The owner could see how much product a creator moved, but not whether the partnership was profitable after commissions, placement fees, refunds, and ad spend. Second, fixed placement fees had no sound allocation basis. Some creators charged tens of thousands of yuan per placement, while the effect of one fee could run across several livestreams or videos. Booking the whole fee in one month materially reduced that month's reported profit; leaving it unallocated overstated later months. With no consistent allocation rule, monthly profit swung widely and could not be compared over time. Third, refunds and commissions were out of step. The client experienced refund rates between 30% and 40%, but many commissions had already been settled on the original sale amount, and platform commissions were sometimes only partly returned on refunds. Unless refunds, clawed-back commissions, and returned platform fees are checked line by line, costs and revenue do not stay aligned. Fourth, brand-operated livestreams and creator partnerships were mixed together. The ad spend, host salaries, and studio costs of brand-operated livestreams are a different expense category from creator commissions. Finance combined everything, so the owner could not judge whether brand-operated livestreams made money, or whether creator partnerships should grow or shrink.
Caigeek designed a finance and accounting model for livestream e-commerce. The goal was to turn complex livestream data into structured, traceable, and reviewable reporting. Step one: align the data. We brought Douyin store orders, the Qianchuan ad dashboard, the creator-partnership ledger, commission statements, refund records, and logistics statements into a single reconciliation system. Every order carries a unique order ID, and that ID ties together the sale amount, platform fee, creator commission, placement-fee allocation, ad spend, logistics cost, and refund amount. Step two: a three-dimensional profit model by creator, session, and SKU. For creator partnerships, we collected revenue and related costs by creator and by campaign session. Fixed placement fees were allocated over the actual GMV delivered or the agreed partnership period. Commissions were matched to actual settlements. Refunds reduced revenue and reversed the commissions already settled. For brand-operated livestreams, we split results by session, assigned ad spend, host costs, and sample costs to each session, and then allocated them across SKUs by share of sales. Step three: reports designed for livestream e-commerce. Every month Caigeek delivers a creator-partnership P&L, a brand-operated livestream P&L, a product margin table, a refund analysis, and a commission and fixed-placement-fee allocation schedule. The reports show which creator partnership contributes profit, which product has an abnormal return rate, and which brand-operated session used ad spend inefficiently. Step four: a weekly review rhythm. Livestream e-commerce moves fast, and monthly reports alone arrive too late for many decisions. A Caigeek consultant holds a weekly data review with the client's operations team to adjust the next week's creator list and brand-operated livestream product lineup.
Three months later, the brand's ability to account for its livestream business had changed fundamentally. First, creator partnerships moved from judging sales to judging contribution profit and return on ad spend. Several creators who looked strong on sales volume contributed very little profit because their commission rates and refund rates were high. Others moved less product but reached a better-matched audience and delivered a stronger contribution margin. The client reshaped its partnership strategy: less budget for low-margin partnerships, more for well-matched ones. Second, the placement-fee and commission allocation rules made monthly profitability more representative. Amortizing fixed placement fees over the partnership period and matching commissions to actual settlements visibly smoothed monthly profit swings. Management could judge the business trend objectively without results being distorted by a single month's placement fees. Third, reconciling refunds against commissions identified unrecovered amounts. We checked six months of refund orders against commission statements one by one and found that some creator commissions had not been returned after refunds. The unrecovered amount added up to more than RMB 100,000. The client re-confirmed settlement rules with the platform and the creators and put a recurring review in place. Finally, finer accounting for brand-operated livestreams paid off. By splitting ad spend and host costs by session, the client found that certain time slots used ad spend far more efficiently than others. It adjusted the livestream schedule and product mix, and the gross margin of brand-operated livestreams rose by about 8 percentage points. The owner now receives Caigeek's livestream weekly report. Creator partnerships, brand-operated livestream sessions, and product contribution profit are visible in one view, improving the speed and quality of operating reviews.
Results are based on client-provided and reconciled operating data for the stated engagement period. Individual outcomes vary by business model, data quality, implementation scope, and management actions.
“Every month the sales numbers looked fine, but the profit did not reconcile. Once Caigeek allocated creator commissions, fixed placement fees, and refunds to each product and livestream, I could see which partnerships were worth continuing and which products needed review.”
Client comment translated and lightly edited for clarity; company name withheld for confidentiality.
Facing similar problems in your business?
A Caigeek consultant can review your reporting needs and recommend a practical starting point.