Enterprise runs 1.7 million vehicles in nearly 100 countries.
But traditional rental is saturating, and the market leaves little room to differentiate.
Meanwhile, 14 million UK renters are giving up on car ownership altogether.
One partnership gives Enterprise a concentrated, pre-qualified user base with no direct customer-acquisition cost, while landlords gain an amenity that justifies higher rents and stronger retention.
A quantitative survey of 55 young urban renters: adoption intent, usage patterns, and willingness-to-pay across three pricing dimensions.
“How likely would you be to use this service?” (n = 55). Hover a bar for exact values.
Three pricing dimensions from the same survey. Switch views, then hover for respondent counts.
Regression and chi-square analysis found no statistically significant differences in adoption or willingness-to-pay across income or car-ownership segments (all p > 0.05; ownership × adoption χ² = 0.79). Car owners were about as interested as non-owners, 76% vs 77% positive. With very low R² values (0.01 to 0.04), this is an absence of evidence for segment effects rather than proof that demand is uniform: it supports positioning the service as a broad amenity, with segment behaviour validated in a real pilot.
An important caveat: the sample skews to students (51%) and under-£20k earners (49%), while the target market is working professionals in Build-to-Rent. A pilot with matched residents is the true test of these patterns.
Eighteen findings from the 44-page report, searchable and filterable by theme.
An illustrative model built on my survey data. Push the price above the £32.05 mean willingness-to-pay and watch the addressable segment shrink.
Survey mean WTP: £32.05 · report recommends a £25–£30 base tier.
The report recommends piloting 3–5 Build-to-Rent sites in inner London.
Site criterion from the report: at least 100 units per building.
Report KPI: 15–20% of residents converting to subscribers.
*Illustrative model built on my n=55 survey data, not on Enterprise financials. Fleet assumed at 3–4 vehicles per site (3.5 used). Demand response: the base conversion rate is scaled by the share of surveyed renters whose stated monthly WTP band (Appendix B, Table B8) covers the chosen price, normalised to £30. Typical usage revenue follows the report’s worked example of three ~3-hour trips per month at £8.50/hour. The utilisation proxy is anchored so the report’s central assumptions (150 residents, 17.5% conversion, 3.5 vehicles) map to its ≥40% utilisation target; below 30%, the report prescribes a pricing review.
A phased strategy with a hard go/no-go gate at month twelve.
0–12 months
12–24 months
24–60 months
Key slides from the client presentation, and the full 44-page report.
This project took me from a blank brief to a client-ready strategy: I designed and ran the primary research, a 55-respondent survey capturing adoption intent, usage patterns and willingness-to-pay across three pricing dimensions.
The pricing analysis (descriptive statistics, regression and chi-square testing) turned raw survey bands into a defensible two-tier model, and the phased pilot plan gave Enterprise a concrete, measurable path from four London postcodes to a national rollout.
It also taught me where to be careful: the sample skews younger and lower-income than the Build-to-Rent professionals the service targets, so if I ran the study again I would pilot and validate the survey instrument first, recruit a sample closer to the target market, and interpret weak regression fits more cautiously.
Delivering it to a real client, on a real brief, was the closest my degree came to consulting for a living, and the part I enjoyed most.
More of my work at carlodaneloni.
Questions about the research, the model, or working together? This opens a pre-filled email; nothing is stored.