The basic formula
Cost per use = total cost of ownership / number of times you actually use it.
Total cost of ownership includes purchase price, maintenance, repair, and disposal. Number of uses is what you'll really use it, not what you might use it.
Worked examples
| Item | Price | Real uses | Cost/use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheap shoes, replaced every year | 800 TL | ~150 days | 5.3 TL |
| Good shoes, lasting 4 years | 4,000 TL | ~1,000 days | 4.0 TL |
| Bread maker, used twice | 2,000 TL | 2 | 1,000 TL |
| Coffee machine, used daily for 3 years | 3,500 TL | ~1,000 | 3.5 TL |
| Treadmill, used 8 times then dusted | 15,000 TL | 8 | 1,875 TL |
The shoe example is the classic case. The treadmill is the cautionary tale.
When cost-per-use is the right frame
- Items used regularly over many years (clothing you wear often, durable goods, kitchen items used weekly).
- Items where quality genuinely correlates with longevity. Sometimes it doesn't — a designer T-shirt isn't 5× more durable than a generic one.
- Decisions between a 1-tier and 2-tier price difference. Beyond that, you're paying for brand and aesthetics, not durability.
When cost-per-use lies to you
1. Honest use count, not optimistic
The treadmill almost always loses on cost-per-use. The frame requires honesty about real usage, not aspirational usage. Be brutal: ask "in the past 6 months, how many times have I done this activity?" If the answer is 4, your future use count is probably 4 per 6 months, not 60.
2. Sunk-cost laundering
Cost-per-use is sometimes used to justify a purchase that's already made and underused ("I've used the treadmill 8 times so cost-per-use is going down!"). This is sunk cost reasoning dressed up as analysis. The treadmill cost is gone; the question is whether to keep storing it or sell it.
3. Ignoring opportunity cost
If two items have similar cost-per-use but one costs 5× more upfront, the cheaper option leaves capital free for other uses. Cost-per-use ignores this. For high-ticket items, also compare the upfront capital cost.
4. Quality doesn't always scale linearly
Going from 200 TL → 800 TL often buys real durability. Going from 800 → 4,000 often buys less than 5× more life. Diminishing returns set in fast.
The decision algorithm
- Estimate honest usage from past behavior, not aspiration.
- Compute cost-per-use for each candidate at your honest usage level.
- If the higher-quality option has lower or comparable cost-per-use, take it — but only if the upfront cost doesn't strain you.
- If the cheaper option wins on cost-per-use, take it. Often the case for low-usage or fashion-driven items.
- If usage is genuinely uncertain, lean cheap. Cheaper item + replacement option is lower risk than expensive item that might not get used.
Related frames worth knowing
- Rent / share / borrow. For items used <5 times a year, renting beats buying on cost-per-use almost always.
- Buy used. For durable items where condition is verifiable, used cuts cost-per-use dramatically.
- End-of-life resale value. Quality items often retain 20–40% of value, reducing real cost-per-use. Cheap items go to zero.