Is your sales forecasting leaving money on the table?

Here's a scenario you've probably lived.

Shipments are up 7%. The team celebrates. Three months later, the warehouse is full and nobody knows why.

Your shipment forecast didn't fail. It just had no real connection to the depletion forecast that already saw it coming.

In most BevAlc companies, those two forecasts get built in parallel. Sales puts together a depletion forecast based on what they're seeing in their territories. Supply planning builds a shipment forecast based on what production needs to make. The two numbers influence each other informally, but there's rarely a rigorous method that ties them together. They drift apart, and the gap between them is where the money goes.

‍

Three numbers, one truth

In BevAlc, planners juggle three different demand signals.

Shipments measure what's leaving the winery, the distillery, or the brewery. They're revenue, so they're the number finance watches and the number production plans against.

Depletions are what distributors actually sell through to retailers and accounts. They're the real demand signal, the one that tells you what the market is actually pulling.

Scan data is what makes it to checkout. It's a useful retail-side check, especially in chain accounts.

The three numbers rarely line up. And because shipments show up first, on every invoice, in every revenue report, in every board deck, they're the easiest number to plan against. They're also the most likely to mislead. Strong shipments in a soft market just mean inventory is moving from one storage building to another. Next quarter pays the bill.

Which is why your shipment forecast should be calculated from your depletion forecast, not run as a parallel guess that occasionally checks against it.

‍

The hidden cost of "close enough" forecasting

Most BevAlc companies don't think of forecasting as a money problem. They think of it as an admin problem. "We'll get the spreadsheets in by Friday" sounds like a logistics complaint, not a revenue one.

But every week your two forecasts are drifting apart, a few things are happening at once.

Production is guessing. They're planning runs against a shipment number that already overshot what distributors actually pulled last month. By the time anyone notices, the run is already on the line.

Inventory is drifting. You're over on SKUs that have softened and under on the ones that are moving. The depletion data caught the shift weeks ago, but it didn't reach production in time.

Finance is hedging. They're adding a buffer to your number because they don't trust it, which quietly pulls cash out of the plan.

Sales is frustrated. Reps feel like they're filling out homework that disappears into a void. So they put in less effort, and the depletion forecast gets noisier, and the shipment forecast leans even harder on history.

None of those line items show up as "lost revenue" on a P&L. They show up as margin erosion, emergency freight, expired inventory, and missed targets. Death by a thousand small gaps.

‍

Why spreadsheet chaos lets the wrong signal win

The spreadsheet isn't the villain. The version of it that gets emailed around on the 28th of every month is.

Spreadsheets work fine for one person doing one thing. They struggle when twenty people are doing the same thing at the same time. You end up with three versions of "the" forecast and nobody sure which one is current. You get formulas that break when a rep accidentally types over a cell. And you get a full week of someone's job spent consolidating the file before leadership can even look at it.

By the time the forecast is ready to act on, the depletion data has already moved. The market shifted. The opportunity closed. The money left the table.

‍

Forecasting in the right sequence

Most BevAlc teams don't have a rigorous method connecting their depletion forecast and their shipment forecast. Sales builds one, supply planning builds the other, and the two influence each other informally, if at all. A manager might nudge one based on the other. A number might get copied across. But there's rarely a systematic way to translate the depletion view into a shipment view. So the two forecasts drift, and decisions get made on whichever workbook happened to be opened most recently.

Claret is built around the connection.

Reps and managers build the depletion forecast in Sales Collaboration, at whatever level of detail makes sense for their territory. A rep in Florida can forecast a single distributor. A regional manager can forecast at the state level. A VP can forecast at the division level. The system reconciles those numbers down to the lowest level automatically, weighted by each distributor's historical contribution. That depletion forecast is the demand signal: what the market is actually pulling.

Distributor Planning then calculates the shipment forecast from that depletion forecast. It uses each distributor's current inventory position and supply-chain planning parameters (lead times, safety stock, order minimums) to translate "what the market will pull" into "what we need to ship and when." The shipment number becomes a consequence of the demand signal, not a parallel guess.

The benefits people usually notice first are the obvious ones. Reps spend less time in the tool and more time in the field. Leadership sees the latest forecast in real time, without waiting for the monthly consolidation. Top-down targets and bottom-up rep input live in the same page, so the conversation shifts from "whose number is right?" to "where's the gap, and what do we do about it?"

The deeper benefit is structural. Two numbers that used to drift apart now move together by design.

‍

Three signs you're leaving money on the table right now

Forget the theory. Here's how to tell if your current process is costing you.

1. Your shipments grew last quarter but your depletions didn't follow. The market didn't pull what you sold in. Next quarter's shipments will pay for it.

2. Your shipment forecast and your depletion forecast live in separate workbooks. That gap is where money disappears between sales planning and supply planning.

3. Sales says X, finance says Y, ops is planning against Z. Three teams, three signals, no reconciliation. At least one of them is wrong, and all of them are making decisions on it.

If any of those sound familiar, the money isn't hypothetical. It's already gone. The question is how much more you want to leave behind.

‍

A forecast is a plan, or it's just a guess

The whole point of connecting your depletion forecast to your shipment forecast is that it stops being a number on a spreadsheet and becomes something the business can actually run on. Production plans against it. Finance commits to it. Sales owns it. Leadership sees it in real time.

That's the difference between a number people argue about and a plan people execute.

The "Are you leaving money on the table?" question isn't rhetorical. There's a real dollar figure on the other side of it, and for most BevAlc companies, it's bigger than they think. Most of that figure lives in the gap between the two forecasts that nobody systematically connects.

If you're ready to stop losing it, start a free trial of Claret and see what it looks like when shipments and depletions finally agree.