I've always used the generic version of the word 'profit' to mean revenues minus all expenses (basically net profit), i thought everyone did this, oh well.
I recognize that as a common definition of profit, but it's one I don't agree with. That definition is why Star Wars never made a profit. Titanic never made a profit. Almost all movies don't make a "profit."
But, would you say that Titanic was profitable? Sure. But it didn't make a profit. If someone started a company out with $1000, and kept a reserve of $20k in the bank... Let's say 20 years later, that company outright owned a fleet of construction equipment, 1000's of acres of prime land for real estate, multiple buildings, garages, millions of dollars in equipment, but after these 20 years only had a reserve of $19k in the bank,.. As a rule, they reinvested 100% of what was leftover beyond that 20k reserve in equipment for the company, and even dipped into it by about $50 each year.
Could you say that company never made a profit? In fact, would you say that the company operated at a loss over those 20 years??
Personally though, I do prefer your definition. Because, it seems that it's the definition that the IRS likes when I pay taxes. I, sadly, don't make much of a "profit" because I keep reinvesting "revenues" to the extent that on paper, it works out to a loss. I like losing money. My net worth increases and I pay less in taxes. Since I pay less in taxes, I end up with more money in addition to my "loss."
edit: I'm not saying that there aren't other necessary fixed costs that reduce the amount of realized profit. i.e. storage space, heating, electric at the office, office supplies, etc.