A finished BUS-635 Topic 2 dynamic ticket pricing analysis example, pricing fixtures by demand, protecting the season-ticket base with a floor and defending the model against two rejected alternatives. Searches like "bus 635 topic 2 assignment example", "bus635 topic 2 sample" and "bus-635 topic 2 example" land here.
What a finished BUS-635 Topic 2 dynamic ticket pricing analysis looks like
The completed analysis begins from the schedule, not from a price. Home fixtures are grouped by the demand drivers the property can observe in advance: opponent, day and time, point in the season and any rivalry or promotional draw. Resale prices from the previous season sit beside face value for each group, since a seat reselling well above its printed price is a seat the club underpriced, with a broker capturing the difference. Illustrative prices are labeled as such throughout. The analysis then treats premium seating and hospitality as a separate product with its own buyers, usually corporate, and its own sensitivity to price. A floor keeps any single-game price above what a season-ticket holder effectively paid per game. The perceived-fairness problem is taken up directly rather than waved away as a matter of public relations.
How a BUS-635 Topic 2 example is structured
The analysis proceeds from demand to price to defense. Fixtures are first sorted into demand groups with the evidence for each grouping stated. The resale comparison follows, showing where last season's face values left money on the table and where they overshot, since empty seats at a weak fixture are also a pricing signal. Three models are then specified: uniform pricing, tiered variable pricing set before the season, and fully dynamic pricing adjusted as each fixture approaches. Each is tested against revenue, attendance, season-ticket retention and fan perception, with the fairness test drawing on the finding of Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler that buyers judge demand-driven price rises as unfair. Premium inventory is priced separately. The recommendation, tiers with a dynamic layer on high-demand fixtures only, is defended against both rejected models in turn.
Fixtures grouped by observable demand
Opponent, day, timing and rivalry sort the home schedule into groups, since pricing every fixture identically ignores differences the club can see months ahead.
Resale prices read as a signal
A seat reselling far above face value marks revenue the club handed to a broker, and an empty seat at a weak fixture marks a price set too high.
A floor under season-ticket value
No single-game price is allowed below what a season-ticket holder paid per game, because undercutting the committed base invites lost renewals the following year.
Premium seating priced as its own product
Suites and hospitality packages serve mostly corporate buyers with different sensitivities, so they are priced on separate evidence rather than as expensive general admission.
Fairness treated as a real constraint
Buyers who read a price jump as exploiting demand punish the seller, so the analysis limits how far the dynamic layer may move.
Two rejected models, answered separately
Uniform pricing loses to the resale evidence and full dynamic pricing loses to season-ticket retention, and each rejection is argued on its own terms.
Where marks go in BUS-635 Topic 2
The most common deduction goes to a single price applied across every home fixture. A rivalry game and a Tuesday-night fixture against a struggling opponent do not face the same demand, and pricing them identically either empties one or hands the other's margin to resellers. Analyses adopting fully dynamic pricing because it sounds modern, with no attention to what it does to season-ticket holders who see cheaper seats beside them, miss the retention risk. Premium inventory folded into general pricing loses the distinct buyer behind it. Fairness dismissed as a public-relations issue ignores evidence that buyers penalize prices they read as opportunistic. At graduate level, a recommendation defended only on revenue, with no rejected alternative tested on attendance and renewal, reads as incomplete.
Get a BUS-635 Topic 2 example written to your instructions
Send the BUS-635 Topic 2 instructions and the rubric from your classroom, with the property, schedule or pricing data your section supplied. We write a custom example to those criteria, with fixtures grouped by demand, resale read as a signal, a season-ticket floor set and the chosen model defended against two alternatives, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
BUS-635 Topic 2 questions, answered
Is dynamic pricing the same as variable pricing?
No. Variable pricing sets different prices for different fixtures before the season, based on expected demand. Dynamic pricing keeps adjusting as the date approaches and as sales and resale data arrive. Many properties combine the two, using fixed tiers for most of the schedule and letting prices move only for the highest-demand games, which is the kind of hybrid a strong paper defends.
Why does the resale market matter to the club?
Because it shows what buyers were actually willing to pay. When seats consistently resell well above face value, the difference went to resellers and brokers rather than the organization. When they resell below face or go unsold, the price was too high. Either way the secondary market is the cleanest demand evidence most properties can see.
How do I avoid angering season-ticket holders?
Protect the value of what they bought. A price floor that keeps single-game tickets from dropping below their per-game cost, early access to high-demand fixtures and exchange options all help. Season-ticket holders are the most dependable revenue in the gate line, so a model that fills a few seats on a weak night and costs renewals has priced badly.