Nickel and Dimed — case study
Takeaway. On sample data it identified $2,190 in modeled annualized price increases, and correctly ignored a 281% bill spike that was only a bigger order.
The problem
At Pop In! I negotiated vendor contracts by hand and cut operating costs about 10% year over year. This is that job, automated: hand it a messy vendor spend export and it finds which vendors quietly raised prices.
What it found (modeled data)
- Party pizza · Tony's Pizza Co. — $34 → $37 (+8.8%), Mar 2024$1,263 modeled annualized · high confidence
- Balloon arch · Party Time Balloons LLC — $43 → $47 (+9.3%), Dec 2023$508 modeled annualized · high confidence
- Whole bean coffee, 5 lb · Roast House Coffee Co. — $50.06 → $58.43 (+16.7%), Sep 2025$419 modeled annualized · medium confidence (two observations)
Annualized impact is the per-unit increase times a year of quantity: what each increase would cost if it held. The increases themselves are modeled, so these figures show what the method finds, not costs or savings anyone realized.
What it didn't flag
A decor supplier's monthly bill rose 281% and raised no alert, correctly: its unit price never changed, the business just ordered more. Telling those two cases apart is the point of the project.
About the data
The dataset is a synthetic reconstruction, not a financial record. The vendor list, unit costs, party volume, and which vendors raised prices come from running Pop In!; the exact dates, amounts, quantities, and size of each increase are modeled, because the original records weren't accessible. Vendor names are anonymized.
Open the live demo →
Read the code →
Link to this project