Brakke Consulting framed fuel costs as a pass-through in its October newsletter

Brakke Consulting's October 9 newsletter included a piece by senior consultant Chuck Johnson describing his plan for a California road trip in a diesel Sprinter van and the fuel prices he found: $5.96 per gallon locally, $6.85 in the next state, $8.41 in California.

The piece stated that rising fuel costs "touch everyone" and that "increased energy costs eventually show up in the price of nearly everything we buy through higher production and transportation costs." The newsletter then asked readers whether their company had responded to higher energy costs by passing these additional costs on to customers.

The framing leaves out margin structure

The fuel-price anecdote positions energy cost increases as external and widespread. What it does not address: whether a practice's margin structure, client price sensitivity, or competitive position makes cost pass-through viable, or whether absorbing the cost and finding efficiency elsewhere is the better play.

For a mobile veterinary practice or a rural clinic with long drive distances between farm calls, fuel is a direct variable cost tied to each appointment. For a suburban small-animal practice where the associate drives eight minutes to work and clients drive themselves, diesel prices affect the practice's costs only indirectly, through distributor freight or the cost of goods with energy-intensive manufacturing. The decision to pass through a cost increase depends on which kind of practice you run, what your clients will tolerate, and whether your competitors are making the same move. The newsletter's framing collapses all of that into "fuel costs touch everyone," which is true but not useful.

The poll question asks whether companies have passed costs on to customers. A practice owner reading that question may interpret it as asking whether they have done what others are doing, even if their own margin math says no.

Distributors and manufacturers benefit from the consensus

Distributors, manufacturers, and service providers all benefit when practices accept cost increases as inevitable and pass them through without negotiation. If every practice in a region raises prices in response to the same external shock, no single practice loses competitive position, but if your practice raises fees and the clinic two miles away does not, you've handed them a price advantage and a story to tell new clients. The framing that "everyone is doing it" makes the first move feel safer than it is.

For a consulting firm, the fuel-price story also positions the firm as facing the same pressures its clients face. It is not wrong, but it is not disinterested analysis either.

The numbers do not tell a practice owner what to do

The newsletter gave three diesel prices, $5.96 locally, $6.85 in the next state, $8.41 in California, and one decision: the consultant is making the trip anyway, and will be "a little more strategic" about where he fuels up but will not change his plans. That is the behavior of someone for whom fuel is a real cost but not a binding constraint. It does not tell a practice owner what percentage of their own operating costs are energy-linked, what their clients' price elasticity looks like, or whether their competitors are raising fees.

The poll results from the prior week showed that 20% of respondents had invested in a company using a crowdfunding platform, 60% would consider using a vetted platform, and 20% would invest if they had personal experience in the disease category. The newsletter included the fuel-cost poll question but we do not have the results.

Our read may be attributing intent

We are reading motive into a framing choice. It is possible the newsletter's author simply opened with a timely personal anecdote and chose a poll question that felt relevant, with no intent to steer practice owners toward cost pass-through. The piece does not explicitly recommend raising fees, and a reader could interpret "I'm making the trip anyway" as a decision to absorb the cost rather than cancel.

But the structure, personal story about unavoidable cost increase, statement that costs "eventually show up in the price of nearly everything," poll question about passing costs to customers, reads as a frame, not as neutral reporting. And for a practice owner deciding whether to raise fees in a market where clients are already stretching to afford care, the frame matters.

If you're making pricing decisions in a tight market, subscribe to VeterinaryPracticeNow.

A practice owner should run the numbers first

Before passing through any cost increase, run the numbers for your practice. What percentage of your operating costs are energy-linked, either directly (fuel for mobile calls, heating and cooling) or indirectly (freight, cost of goods)? What is your client base's price sensitivity, are you serving households that can absorb a fee increase, or are you already seeing clients decline recommended care because of cost? What are your competitors doing, and can you afford to be the higher-priced option in your market?

If the cost increase is real and material and your margin cannot absorb it, raising fees may be the right move. But the decision should be based on your own practice's financials and competitive position, not on a poll question about what other companies have done.

← Back to the Newsdesk