The group average is true of no single location you operate.

Two locations twenty miles apart can face different competitors, different price expectations and a different local search landscape.

A channel that produces the cheapest new guest at one can be the most expensive at another, and a blended report will never show it because the average sits between them.

Splitting revenue by centre turns one ambiguous number into a set of local decisions, which is how a group actually allocates.

It also identifies the locations where a channel is carrying the group average, which is usually two or three of them.

Those are the sites where a change in spend has an effect, and the rest is noise being managed as though it were signal.

A guest on a monthly membership is recurring revenue with a predictable life, quite unlike one who books a treatment when a promotion runs.

Counted as a single sale, a membership looks small; counted across its life it is often the most valuable outcome a channel can produce.

The report sums by guest across the window and keeps memberships identifiable where the export allows, so the two outcomes are not averaged together.

Channels differ sharply in how often their guests convert to membership, and that difference is usually larger than the difference in first-visit value.

For a group, shifting spend toward the channels that produce members is the single highest-leverage finding this report produces.

Introductory pricing is close to universal in this category, so the first sale measures the offer rather than the guest.

Every source looks similar at that point, which is why cost per new guest is such a stable and such a useless ranking.

Six to twelve months of sales shows which guests returned at full price, and the ordering is frequently the reverse of the acquisition-cost ordering.

It also shows which offers produce returning guests, which is a creative decision rather than a channel one and is often the cheaper fix. Changing an introductory offer costs a morning; replacing a channel costs a quarter, and the file usually shows the first is what was needed.

A package bought once and redeemed over months, or a gift card bought by one person and used by another, both break a naive match on the treatment date.

Attributing on redemption spreads one decision across a season and credits whatever ran each time; attributing on purchase keeps it with the campaign that produced it.

The report sums by guest and uses the purchase date, and flags guests whose spend is dominated by a single prepaid event rather than a habit.

A gift card's redeemer is a new relationship of their own, and the report treats them as such rather than crediting the original purchase's channel. Crediting both to one campaign would double-count a guest the group acquired once, which is the sort of quiet inflation that makes a report impossible to defend.