Mountain View Condo
Our client purchased a beautiful 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom condo in Wintergreen, VA—a sought-after ski destination nestled in the scenic Blue Ridge Mountains. With breathtaking views, thoughtful design, and a prime location, the condo offers a highly appealing retreat for travelers.
However, like many property owners in the area, she faces a challenge: as ski season winds down in March, competition for guests increases, and market occupancy rates remain low, making it harder to maintain consistent bookings. To mitigate this we employed a pricing strategy that would allow her property to outperform the competition by 34%. Here is how we did it!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Key Takeaways
Revenue Performance Analysis
-
Client's Property:
-
Total Revenue (March – May): $7,625.56
-
This figure reflects a strong pricing strategy during the slowest season of the year.
-
-
Market Average (Similar Properties):
-
Total Revenue (March – May): $5,699
-
This is the average revenue for similar properties during the same time period, offering a benchmark to compare our property's performance.
-
Monthly Breakdown
March: $2950.69 - Outperforming the market by 79%
-
Market Average Revenue: $1,648 with 29% occupancy
-
Performance Advantage: This property generated 79% more revenue than the market average, and had almost double the occupancy rate (55% vs. 29%).
-
Insight: The high occupancy rate in March demonstrates how a well placed pricing strategy can capture more reservations as peak season is slowing down. Our ability to stay competitive with pricing, particularly on mid-wekk days and shoulder periods, played a critical role in driving results.
April: $2,363.36 - Outperforming the market by 48%
-
Market Average Revenue: $1,598 with 29% occupancy
-
Performance Advantage: Our property generated 77% more revenue than the market average, with a higher occupancy rate (47% vs. 42%).
-
Insight: In April, we maintained strong performance despite lower-than-average market demand. Our revenue of $2,363.36 outperformed the market’s average revenue of $1,598, driven by a higher occupancy rate (47% vs. 29%). This suggests that our pricing strategy was effectively adjusted to capture the available demand in a seasonally slow period. Additionally, the difference in occupancy highlights our ability to attract guests through strategic pricing and perhaps enhanced guest experience offerings, such as premium amenities or added value through discounts..
May: $2,311.51 - Outperforming the market by 17%
-
Market Average Revenue: $1,976 with 35% occupancy
-
Performance Advantage: Our property generated 17% more revenue than the market average, despite a lower occupancy rate (29% vs. 35%).
-
Insight: In May, while our occupancy rate was lower than the market (29% vs. 35%), we still generated higher revenue than the market average by 17% ($2,311.51 vs. $1,976). This shows that our Average Daily Rate (ADR) strategy was highly effective in capturing demand at a higher price point, even when fewer guests booked. This performance suggests that we strategically priced our property to reflect its value, encouraging longer stays or more premium bookings, which offset the lower occupancy. Our pricing model, while slightly more aggressive, allowed us to generate solid revenue despite the slower pace in bookings.
Month | Our Revenue | Our Occupancy | Market Average Revenue | Market Occupancy | Performance Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
March | $2,950.69 | 55% | $1,648 | 29% | 79% higher revenue |
April | $2,363.36 | 47% | $1,598 | 29% | 48% higher revenue |
May | $2,311.51 | 29% | $1,976 | 35% | 17% higher revenue |
.jpg)
.jpg)