Big Wheel

ProHub Comment

This case tests revenue modeling, cost structure analysis, and profitability drivers. The interviewee must move beyond surface-level revenue comparisons to identify that despite Chicago generating higher total revenue ($52M vs $24M), DC is more profitable ($4M vs $2M) due to operational efficiencies in inventory rebalancing. The case then prompts strategic recommendations to improve overall profitability across both markets.

Estimated Time 15 minutes
Difficulty Medium
Source Cornell
50 / 100

Your client is Big Wheel Bike Share and they operate bike sharing services in two major cities, Washington DC and Chicago. Their bike sharing business is self-service, where they have stations across each city with a number of bikes docked and customers simply pay at the station kiosk to rent bikes. They operate as a monopoly in both Washington DC and Chicago. The management believes that their operation in Washington DC is more profitable. Our objective is to determine:

  1. Is the management right that Washington DC is more profitable than Chicago?
  2. If so, why?
  3. How can Big Wheel improve their overall profitability?

Clarifying Information

  1. Annual subscription - $70 / year
  2. Daily rate - $10 / day (unlimited for 24 hours, 1 day pass = 1 ride)
  3. Washington DC: 200K annual subscribers and each person rents 10 rides a year; 1M rides a year from daily rentals
  4. Chicago: 600K annual subscribers and each person rents 5 rides a year; 1M rides a year from daily rentals
  5. Bike Depreciation - Chicago: $13M (26%); Washington DC: $5M (25%)
  6. Rebalancing Inventory - Chicago: $16M (32%); Washington DC: $5M (25%)
  7. Bike Maintenance - Chicago: $8M (16%); Washington DC: $3M (15%)
  8. Station Cost - Chicago: $8M (16%); Washington DC: $4M (20%)
  9. SG&A - Chicago: $10M (10%); Washington DC: $3M (15%)