GMV Max — Per-Shop Data Pack (6 TikTok Shops)
Prepared for the GMV Max strategist. Sources: Profit Engine 2026 (economics/margins/ROAS model), Laporan Marketing Arkanza 2026 + ++2025 (realized sales, cross-validated to the June Backbone Scorecard), and the June 2026 monthly report drafts (SKU tiers, affiliate, creative, store health). Margin/fee data does not exist in the Performance_Data folder — it lives only in Profit Engine, and its fee inputs need validation (see flags).
Baseline window: June 2026 (full month, authoritative). A July 1–8 snapshot is noted where it diverges. AOV convention (per Anton): all TikTok AOV figures are the aimed price; realized shown alongside. Sudjiwo: price aim rising to Rp 180–190k (from ~146k realized).
1. Master per-shop table
| Shop | Role (inferred) | Aimed AOV | Realized AOV (Jun) | Gross margin | Platform fee | BEP/True ROAS | KPI target ROAS | Realized ROAS (Jun) | % of omzet target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiktok Arkanza | Main engine | 245–315k (tiered) | Rp 242,012 | 56.7–61.0% | 17.5% | 4.5 | 5.56 | 6.06 | 79% |
| Tiktok Support | Secondary volume | 245–315k | Rp 257,685 | 56.7–61.0% | 21.5% | 5.0 | 6.17 | 5.20 | 67% |
| Tiktok Store | Small / stable | 245–315k | Rp 239,249 | 56.7–61.0% | 17.5% | 5.0 | 6.85 | 4.41 | 98% |
| Tiktok Dananta | Growth sub-brand | 200k (Katun/Poly) | Rp 181,890 | 56.0% K / 67.5% P | 17.5% | 5.0 K / 4.0 P | 6.85 K / 5.48 P | 5.88 | 101% |
| Tiktok Sudjiwo | Small, repricing up | 180–190k (aim) | Rp 146,278 | 56.0% K / 67.5% P | 17.5% | 5.5 | 7.54 | 4.79 | 61% |
| Tiktok Loka | Smallest / weakest | 200k | Rp 166,567 | 56.0% K / 67.5% P | 17.5% | 6.0 | 8.22 | 3.56 | small |
Tiers: Arkanza-family = Premium / Exclusive / Signature (245 / 255 / 315k). Sub-brands = Katun / Poly at 200k list. June realized ROAS matches the scorecard exactly — this table is reconciled, not estimated.
Read: Only Arkanza (6.06 vs 5.56) and Dananta (5.88, 101% of target) are healthy. Store, Support, Sudjiwo, Loka all sit below their KPI ROAS. Loka is furthest off (3.56 vs 8.22) and also has the weakest store rating (3.4). Sub-brand realized AOVs (146–182k) run below the 200k aim — they’re discounting.
July 1–8 note: a short early-July snapshot showed softer ROAS (Dananta 4.31, Sudjiwo 3.56, Loka 2.38). Month-to-date noise vs. a real slide is unresolved — use June as the baseline.
2. Field-by-field answers to the strategist’s list
| Field | Answer | Status |
|---|---|---|
| AOV (Rp) | Aimed + realized per shop in §1. Business blended AOV Jun = Rp 261,673. | ✅ |
| Gross margin % | 56.7–61.0% (Arkanza tiers); 56.0% Katun / 67.5% Poly (sub-brands). Price−COGS. | ✅ (from model) |
| Dynamic Commission Fee % | Not isolated. Profit Engine folds commission into the 17.5%/21.5% platform fee line. The June report explicitly notes fee data is not yet accurate. The 18 May apparel change (5.5%→8.0%, cap Rp40k→650k) is not reflected. | ⚠️ CONFIRM in Seller Center → Finance |
| Platform Commission Fee % | 17.5% all shops; Support 21.5%. Support = Mall; other five = Marketplace (confirmed) — the higher fee fits Mall status. | ✅ |
| Payment processing % | Modeled as flat Rp 4,250/order, not a %. | CONFIRM if folded into commission |
| Logistics / handling (Rp/order) | Not modeled (Operasional = 0). Use default. | Default ~Rp 950 |
| Return rate % | Not a tracked %, but June return counts exist: Arkanza 113, Support 23, Dananta 21 → rough ~1% of units. Root cause: 80% of Arkanza returns are “tidak sesuai deskripsi / salah kirim” (listing/QC, not defect). | Approx from nbfr data |
| Current BEP ROAS + basis | True ROAS in §1 (4.5–6.0). Basis = contribution margin (after platform, affiliate, processing, ad-PPN). But fee inputs predate the 18 May change → likely understated floor. | ✅ given, ⚠️ revalidate fees |
| Standard/KPI ROAS + basis | The ROI actually set = the Promotion-Days (Roas PD) floor (confirmed: “roi set is the same as promotion days”) — the most conservative column, higher than the Target Dashboard. Per shop in §6. Basis = reported ROAS, not incremental. | ✅ |
| Daily budget per campaign | Unlimited / uncapped (confirmed). Pacing is governed only by the ROI target — no budget cap. | ✅ |
| Reported ROI per campaign | Set target = the PD floor (§6), uniform across a shop’s campaigns. Realized shop-level ROAS in §1. With unlimited budget, this floor is the sole governor of spend. | ✅ |
| SKU count + split | Catalog is tracked brand-level, not per shop. Brand: Signature 42% (13,050 u), Reguler 51%, Abib 7%; top-5 = 23%, top-10 = 37% (healthy). Sub-brand: 4,900 u, one motif = 58% (fragile). No lifecycle “new/clearance” tags; no new motifs launched in June. | Partial — brand-level, not per-shop or lifecycle |
| GMV Max spend as % of 30-day GMV | Total ad spend as % of GMV = 1/ROAS: Arkanza 16.5%, Support 19.2%, Store 22.7%, Dananta 17.0%, Sudjiwo 20.9%, Loka 28.1% — all far above the 3% threshold. But this is total spend, not GMV-Max-isolated. | Proxy given; isolate GMV Max spend to confirm |
| Growth Xtra enrolled? Ad account mapped? | Not stated. Documented: Arkanza migrated ad billing USD→IDR mid-June (73% of June spend was pre-switch USD). | CONFIRM |
| Objective per shop | Inferred roles in §1. Not formally documented. | CONFIRM |
3. The two cross-shop asks
Incrementality — the strategist’s concern is confirmed by the data
Affiliate GMV = Rp 2.13bn, ≈25% of business and ≈56% of TikTok omzet (1,318 active creators). Owned organic content is tiny (867 videos → Rp 2.57M / 13 orders in June). So a large share of “ad-attributed” GMV Max sales overlap affiliate + organic you’d get anyway — reported ROI overstates incremental lift, exactly as feared. Experiment 2 found CVR = 0% on the creatives that drove orders → purchases came via view-through attribution, not click. A clean Ads-vs-Non-Ads GMV split (Data Compass) isn’t in the synthesized drafts; the 56% affiliate share is the best proxy until pulled.
Per-shop affiliate GMV / active creators (June):
| Shop | Active creators | Affiliate GMV | Commission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arkanza | 763 | Rp 1,423M | Rp 55M |
| Dananta | 237 | Rp 333M | Rp 14M |
| Support | 180 | Rp 292M | Rp 11M |
| Store | 78 | Rp 55M | Rp 2M |
| Sudjiwo + Loka | 60 (combined) | Rp 26M | Rp 1M |
Creative pipeline — the real scale cap, especially for sub-brands
Owned content: Surya produces ~490 assets/month (100% upload), mostly feedstock for ads, not organic sales. Affiliate creators are whale-concentrated: 119 creators (9%) = 80% of affiliate GMV; LIVE is underused (293 LIVE creators = only ~1.4% of GMV). Sudjiwo + Loka share just ~60 creators between them — a thin pool that caps how far GMV Max can scale them regardless of budget. Arkanza’s 763-creator base is the only deep one.
4. Sub-brand differentiation (answers the strategist’s question)
Dananta, Sudjiwo, Loka are genuinely different and should not share one playbook:
- Dananta — growth engine (+28% MoM, 101% of target, ROAS 5.88). Sells Katun and Poly; Poly carries 67.5% margin vs Katun 56%, so Poly tolerates a lower ROAS floor (True 4.0 vs 5.0). Weakness: CS response time (rating 3.2 on service, 69.7h). Its growth rests on a single motif (Purba Wisesa = 58% of all sub-brand units) — supply-fragile.
- Sudjiwo — small (Rp 55M), repricing up to 180–190k from ~146k realized. Higher KPI floor (7.54) but running under (4.79). Treat as a margin-first repositioning, not a volume scale.
- Loka — smallest and weakest (ROAS 3.56, store rating 3.4, product + service both weak). Efficiency-fix before any scale; its 8.22 KPI target is aspirational for a shop at 3.56.
Arkanza-family (Arkanza/Support/Store) sits at a higher price tier (242–258k realized) and higher margins — different floors from the sub-brands.
5. What’s still locked or needs you
Locked in xlsx (I can parse if the Performance_Data folder is granted shell access, or copy the files to the workspace):
- Per-campaign daily budget and reported ROI → the
Iklan/Creativeexports per shop. - Exact per-shop AOV/CVR from
June_2026_Backbone_Scorecard.xlsx(I derived AOV from the Google Sheets instead — matches). - Clean Ads-vs-Non-Ads GMV (incrementality) → Growth Report / Data Compass.
Only you / Seller Center can still answer:
- Actual dynamic commission % post-18 May, and whether processing is folded in (the one input that moves the floors).
- Growth Xtra enrollment per shop (Support is Mall; the other five are Marketplace — confirmed).
One thing to fix before the strategist builds floors: the BEP/target ROAS in Profit Engine is contribution-based, but its fee inputs predate the 18 May apparel commission increase (5.5%→8.0%). If real commission is now ~8%, every shop’s true break-even ROAS is higher than the model shows — the floors are currently too low. Revalidate fees first, then the floors.
6. Decisions (my calls — accept or override)
You said “decide for me,” so these are made, not asked. Override any you disagree with.
A. Operative floor = the Promotion-Days (Roas PD) value, per shop. This is what you already set, and with unlimited budget the ROI floor is the only thing controlling spend, so it’s the single most important number here.
| Shop | Set floor (Roas PD) | Realized ROAS (Jun) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tiktok Arkanza | 6.17 | 6.06 | At floor — only scale candidate |
| Tiktok Support (Mall) | 6.86 | 5.20 | Below — hold, fix efficiency |
| Tiktok Store | 7.61 | 4.41 | Well below — do not scale |
| Tiktok Dananta | 7.61 K / 6.09 P | 5.88 | Below — Poly closer; scale Poly only |
| Tiktok Sudjiwo | 8.37 | 4.79 | Well below — margin-first, no scale |
| Tiktok Loka | 9.14 | 3.56 | Far below — freeze scale, fix first |
B. Every shop except Arkanza is running under its own set floor. With unlimited budget that means the target ROI isn’t binding in practice — the system is spending past your profit line. Decision: only Arkanza gets scale budget now. The other five get an efficiency pass (creative + targeting) to reach floor before any spend increase. This is the honest reading of “don’t cross standard profit ROAS.”
C. Incrementality haircut applies on top. Because ~56% of TikTok GMV is affiliate and order-creatives convert view-through, reported ROAS overstates real lift. So treat even Arkanza’s “at floor” as thinner than it looks — scale it in small steps and watch marginal, not blended, ROAS. Do not trust the dashboard’s green.
D. Per-shop objective (decided):
- Arkanza — scale volume (deep 763-creator pool, at floor). Primary growth engine.
- Dananta — controlled scale on Poly only (higher margin, closer to floor); de-risk the single-motif dependency (Purba Wisesa = 58%) and fix CS response (69.7h) first.
- Support — efficiency/margin protect (Mall = highest fee). Hold spend, lift ROAS to 6.86.
- Store — maintain, no scale until it clears floor.
- Sudjiwo — margin-first reprice to 180–190k; hold spend, re-baseline after the price move.
- Loka — fix-before-scale. Freeze scale budget; address rating (3.4) and efficiency.
E. Keep the shop split as-is for now. Support is genuinely different (Mall, separate fee/tax) so it stays separate. Store and the sub-brands are separate for catalog reasons. Revisit consolidation only if a shop stays sub-scale and below floor for another month — not now.
F. On my earlier a/b question — decided. Budget is unlimited, so per-campaign budget parsing is moot and I’m dropping option (a). The higher-value pull is the Ads-vs-Non-Ads incrementality split (option b) from the Growth Report — that’s the next thing worth doing when you want it.