So there’s significant growth in costs. Again, because of the competitive environment. We’ve again successfully navigated that with an 18% reduction year-on-year in custom acquisition costs. That’s led to this demand generation reduction year-on-year of 17%, which is driving the order contribution margin up by 580 basis points as well as, obviously, the strength of the third-party gross margins, as I touched on before. So we’re navigating lots of moving parts out there. The global business, there’s lots to deal with, but Farfetch, I think, is faring up better than most. I think the key number here why I say that is the constant currency revenue growth of 14% year-on-year. That matches very well with other players in the space who, of course, get the benefit of reporting in euros with a stronger dollar.
So the reported number is obviously inflated versus underlying numbers, whereas ours are impacted. So overall, we’re doing well. And again, as José touched on before, on a three-year basis, pre-pandemic to now basically doubled the business and accelerating the growth of that because of a strong Q3 in the last couple of years. So we’re doing very, very well to navigate the moving tied here across the industry.
Abhinav Sinha: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question is from Kunal Madhukar from UBS. Please unmute your audio and ask your question.
Kunal Madhukar: Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. One on the accounting part, especially in terms of the cost reduction. When I add the G&A expense and the stock-based comp expense, I don’t see a downward trend on a Q-o-Q basis. So I must be missing something? That’s one. And then the second thing is on FPS timing. And José, you mentioned FPS, especially Neiman Marcus expect in the second half. So that would mean a transition time of close to maybe a year after the deal was signed, or after the deal was completed. When we think of YNAP, how long do you think that transition time could take? Thank you.
Elliot Jordan: Hi. I’ll take the first one. Good speaking with you, Kunal. The share-based comp is the reason why you’re not seeing the savings quarter-on-quarter when you add the two together. Share-based comp is, obviously, something we’ve spoken about with investors quite a bit over the year-to-date. We, like most other technology players in the industry, have seen a volatile stock price. And that has meant that we’ve had to increase the number of units that we’re issuing to our key talent in terms of the contributed grants for 2022 because of the lower share price. The volatility also in terms of how those options are valued means that there’s a year-on-year increase in terms of the IFRS charge for that share-based compensation that’s obviously non-cash.
And the dilution effect of those shares well-understood by investors in terms of my conversations with them and are very comparable with others in the market, as I see at other tech companies facing the same issues around share price reduction. The burn overall is below 10%. Last couple of years, it’s been circa 5% in line with our target, and we would expect our share-based burn in terms of issued shares to get back down towards 5% and lower over the near-term as most other players are as well. But in terms of adjusted EBITDA, the key focus of what is happening underlying in the business, i.e., the costs that we can control. That is where quarter-on-quarter, we’ve seen these savings of $8 million. Again, as I said, widespread changes across the organization to drive efficiencies, clear accountability of the deliverable results as we move into 2023 and leverage year-on-year across key platforms within the organization.
Kunal Madhukar: Thanks Elliot. And maybe on the timing for FPS
