Client Case Study · Casago network

Casago Long Valley grew owner rent more than three times faster than its market

Owner rent per available night rose 34.0% this summer, against 10.3% across a bedroom-matched market. Total revenue per available night rose 7.2%, also ahead of the market's 6.4%. Owners grew far faster than the business did, because Pacer rebuilt an inherited fee structure that had been absorbing their share of every booking.

102 units · McCall, Long Valley & Boise, Idaho · Guesty · Client since March 2026
RentPAR
+34.0%
$69.07 to $92.59 · market +10.3%
Rent per available night. What owners are paid on. 83-home same-store cohort, May 1 to July 31.
RevPAR
+7.2%
$121.16 to $129.83 · market +6.4%
All revenue per available night. What the business took in. Same cohort and window.
Occupancy
+1.8 pts
41.1% to 43.0% · market +0.2 pts
Eight times the market's gain on identical availability.
Additional rent to owners
+$180K
$2,163 per home
Across three months, on the same 83 homes.

RentPAR and RevPAR are not the same number

RevPAR counts every dollar a guest pays: rent, cleaning, damage waiver, channel markup, tax. RentPAR counts only the rent, which is the line an owner statement is paid from. Most operators track one number and assume it speaks for the other. It does not, and the gap between them is where owner earnings quietly leak.

+34.0%
+10.3%
RentPAR growth
3.3x the market
+7.2%
+6.4%
RevPAR growth
ahead of market
+1.8 pts
+0.2 pts
Occupancy change
8x the market
Casago Long Valley Bedroom-matched market 83-home same-store cohort, May 1 to July 31.
Market from Key Data comp sets matched to each unit's bedroom count.

Read the first two panels together. RevPAR grew 7.2%, so the business took in somewhat more than its market did. RentPAR grew 34.0%, so owners were paid far more. Both are true at once because what the guest was paying for changed: less of it went to fees, more of it went to rent. Growth rates are compared rather than absolute levels, because bedroom count alone does not account for differences in size, location and condition between a portfolio and its comp set.

Why a portfolio can hit its revenue number and still lose owners

Long Valley's revenue was never really the problem. RevPAR tracked its market closely, both before this summer and after. What was out of line was how much of that revenue reached owners, because an inherited fee structure was absorbing an unusually large share of every booking before it ever got to the rent line.

That is the condition that quietly ends relationships. Owners do not see RevPAR. They see the deposit. A portfolio can look healthy on every dashboard an operator watches while the owners inside it are deciding the returns are not good enough. Fixing it is why RentPAR grew more than three times faster than the market this summer while RevPAR grew a little faster, and why the same guest spend produced $2,163 more per home in owner rent.

"The revenue management strategy helped us gain trust with our owners after a somewhat tumultuous transition. We feel confident that Pacer is the best partner to help us achieve our goals."

Alex PedigoOwner, Casago Long Valley & Treasure Valley

Market figures throughout are Key Data comp sets matched to each unit's own bedroom count, then re-weighted to this cohort's exact bedroom mix.

The fee load came down every month after the audit

Pacer presented the fee strategy audit on May 12 and the cleaning rebuild six days later, and Long Valley approved and implemented it in-season. From that point the fee load fell in a straight line, from 77.7% of rent in March to 35.7% in July. The prior year moved the opposite direction across the same months, which is what happens when nobody touches it.

Market fee load, about 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fee audit presented, May 12 cleaning rebuilt to actual cost, damage waiver restructured 78% 80% Mar 64% 84% Apr 56% 83% May 43% 88% Jun 36% 68% Jul 2025 2026 · fees and tax as a share of rent, 83-home same-store cohort

Fees and tax as a percentage of rent, 83-home same-store cohort, night-allocated from PriceLabs. Market reference from the Key Data comp sets used in the May 12 audit. Independently corroborated in Guesty, which puts the summer shift at 73.7% to 42.2%.

How the structure was rebuilt

Not a blanket discount. Cutting fees is easy and usually just moves the loss somewhere else. The work was to rebuild each charge against what it actually costs to deliver, so owners earn more, guests see a cleaner price, and the operator keeps the margin it needs to run the business.

Cleaning rebuilt from actual cost

The guest cleaning fee averaged $172 against a contractor departure rate of $128. Pacer reset the fee to the true cost of the clean, cutting the guest charge 26% while still sitting 28% above the operator's own departure piece rate.

Standardized by bedroom class

A model fee per bedroom class with a 30% band for occupancy and square footage, replacing outliers where a 2-bedroom carried a higher fee than a 3-bedroom in the same town.

Damage waiver restructured

The inherited waiver was charged per night. Combined with housekeeping it added 18.3% on top of nightly rent. Moving it to a per-stay basis was the single largest driver of the reduction.

Channel markups pulled to cost

OTA markups sat above what distribution actually costs. Pacer reset them: VRBO 10% to 8%, Airbnb 20% to 15.5%. Pet and hot tub fees were folded into the nightly rate rather than charged separately.

What this does to an operator's revenue base. Management fees are earned on rent, and rent rose 34%, so the commission line rose with it. The reductions came out of fixed add-on charges, the most fragile revenue a manager carries: capped by what a guest will accept at checkout, flat when the portfolio performs, and the first line owners scrutinize. Commission on rent has none of those limits and compounds with every point of RentPAR. Source: Pacer revenue strategy audit presented 2026-05-12 and cleaning fee rebuild presented 2026-05-18.

Methodology

How these numbers were produced

Both measures are reported so the result cannot be an artifact of the fee restructure it describes.

RentPAR and RevPAR

RentPAR is rent divided by available nights. RevPAR is all guest revenue, including fees and tax, divided by the same available nights. Both are reported against the same market on the same basis.

Same-store cohort

83 homes with booked nights in the May to July window in both 2025 and 2026, so every home was demonstrably active in both summers. Availability is identical across years.

Market comparison

Key Data comp sets matched to each unit's own bedroom count, re-weighted to this cohort's bedroom mix. RentPAR uses adjusted RevPAR and RevPAR uses adjusted total RevPAR, so like is compared to like. Growth rates are compared, not absolute levels: bedroom count does not capture size, location or condition, so a level gap would not be meaningful.

Windows

Pacer went live 2026-03-01. March and April were transition months and are excluded. The performance window is May 1 to July 31 against the identical calendar window in 2025.

Portfolio figures night-allocated from PriceLabs for both years, cancellations excluded, corroborated against the Pacer production database. Figures as of August 21, 2026.

See what Pacer could unlock in your Casago portfolio

Pacer is a preferred revenue management partner to the Casago franchise network. We can benchmark your portfolio against bedroom-matched market performance and identify where revenue may be leaking, before you make any commitment.