Alongside my sports-centre role, I analysed booking records to inform a pricing review. The recommendation was to hold most prices and focus any further review on one facility, with operating constraints and demand risks made explicit.
Why it mattered
Empty hours do not all mean weak demand
A facility may be unavailable for public hire, reserved for internal use or booked only alongside another space. Treating every empty hour as capacity to sell could lead to the wrong pricing recommendation.
What I built
An auditable pricing review
I used completed-year booking evidence, historical context and an Excel scenario model to compare prices and sold capacity. I kept the following year separate from recommendation generation and translated the findings into a management presentation.
What changed
Operating context changed the proposal
Management clarified that some low-use spaces were ancillary to the main hall. I removed the independent discount-trial proposal for those spaces rather than interpreting their low recorded use as a pricing opportunity.
Management engagement
Analysis reached the decision-maker
The pricing work was reviewed by the Head of Enterprise and led to an invitation to discuss further analytical work. That is evidence of stakeholder engagement; it does not establish that a price change was implemented.
Evidence and limits
This is an anonymised account of a private workplace analysis. Customer records, internal tariffs, financial totals and the management workbook are not published. Utilisation means sold booking capacity, not verified physical attendance. Revenue sensitivities use explicit demand and replacement-booking assumptions; they are not measured price elasticity, forecasts or realised revenue gains. The analysis informs a decision rather than claiming an implemented outcome.