Bayfield, Wisconsin: A $24,688 Year With Supply Outrunning Demand
Updated: Aug 27
City of Bayfield, Wisconsin published a typical year of $24,688 across 135 listings for the August 2025 through July 2026 sample, with ADR at $270 and occupancy landing at 36.8 percent. That's the number a host or a buyer should be working from for this market - not a rounder, friendlier estimate borrowed from a neighboring Lake Superior town like La Pointe.
The same sample shows year-over-year revenue down 5.5 percent while supply grew 13.4 percent - more listings splitting a market that isn't currently expanding to match them. That combination matters more to a 2026 decision than the headline dollar figure on its own, and it's worth sitting with before you build a pricing plan around last year's number alone.
This is not legal advice, and it won't stretch the sample into a forecast it can't support. What follows is a full read of what the published year, the occupancy calendar, the stay pattern, and the managed-listing mix actually say about Bayfield right now, plus where the city's own registration facts belong in that same ledger and where a neighboring town's published year is useful only as a labeled comparison, never a substitute.
The Year: $24,688 on 135 Listings
The full picture on this sample: typical revenue $24,688, ADR $270, occupancy 36.8 percent, RevPAR $105. Average stay length runs 2.9 nights with a booking lead time of 89 days, which points to a market where guests plan ahead for a short harbor visit rather than book last-minute for an extended one.
Peak-3 is August, July, and September, with August as the clear peak month. March is the sample's named hole, with February and April sitting in the same low stretch. That's a longer money season than a simple "summer lake town" label suggests, since September holding a peak-3 spot means the season doesn't end the day after Labor Day.
Every other number in this report sits downstream of that one figure. RevPAR at $105 is what ADR and occupancy produce together, not a separate metric to chase on its own - a listing can move RevPAR by improving either half of that equation, and the published sample gives a host a real baseline to measure either change against.
None of these figures are a promise about next year. They're a description of the year that already happened on 135 listings, which is exactly the kind of sample a host should want before setting a first-year rate or a buyer should want before underwriting a purchase, rather than a rounder number pulled from memory or a neighboring town's brochure.
Supply Grew Faster Than Revenue Did
Year-over-year revenue fell 5.5 percent on this sample while new listings arrived at a 13.4 percent clip. That combination usually means existing hosts are splitting a similar pool of nights across more competing units, which puts pressure on ADR for any listing that doesn't differentiate itself on photos, pricing, or guest experience.
This isn't a case for pessimism about Bayfield as a market - it's a case for accurate expectations. A listing added this year is joining a pool that already has more competition and slightly softer per-listing revenue than the prior cycle, so a pricing strategy built entirely on last year's average is likely to overshoot.
The direction of both numbers matters as much as the size. Revenue moving down while supply moves up in the same twelve months is a different story than either number moving alone - a revenue dip with flat supply might just be a soft year, but a revenue dip with double-digit supply growth is a market absorbing more competition than it's currently generating in new demand.
A host underwriting a new listing in this market should treat $24,688 as a ceiling to test against, not a floor to expect automatically. The published figure is an average across 135 listings with a wide range of condition, location, and management quality behind it, and a new entrant is competing against all of them at once, not against the average itself.
September Still Counts as Peak, March Does Not
September's place in the peak-3 alongside August and July is worth calling out on its own, because it's easy to assume a Lake Superior town's season effectively ends after Labor Day. The sample says otherwise for Bayfield specifically - September is a money month here, not a leftover.
March, by contrast, is the named low point, with February and April keeping it company. That's useful information for deciding when to schedule maintenance, block dates for personal use, or run a rate that's honestly discounted for a genuinely slow month instead of pricing March like it's still summer and wondering why the calendar sits empty.
The gap between those two realities - a real third peak month in September and a three-month low stretch spanning February through April - is wider than a single "shoulder season" label can describe. Treating the whole non-summer calendar as one undifferentiated stretch means either overpricing September or underpricing it relative to what the sample already shows guests are willing to pay.
A host who prices September like August is leaving very little on the table, since the sample already counts it as a peak month. A host who prices March like September is the one who ends up with an empty calendar and a rate that never gets tested, because guests looking for a March harbor trip are shopping a different, cheaper set of expectations.
What Stay Length and Lead Time Say About This Market
A 2.9-night average stay paired with an 89-day booking lead time describes a specific kind of guest: someone planning a short trip well in advance, not a same-week impulse booking or a month-long stay. That combination should shape both the minimum-night policy and the calendar-management rhythm a host builds around this listing.
A long lead time on a short stay means the booking window opens well before the date itself, which gives a host real time to adjust pricing based on how a given peak weekend is filling in relative to prior patterns - there's no need to guess at the last minute when 89 days is the typical planning horizon guests are already working with.
It also means a host chasing a long-stay or remote-work angle in Bayfield is working against the grain of what this specific sample shows guests actually booking. That doesn't mean a longer stay can never happen here, only that the published pattern is short visits booked well ahead, and marketing or pricing built around a different assumption is marketing built around the wrong guest.
Stay length and lead time together are also a check against overreacting to a single slow week. A market built on short, well-planned visits doesn't fill in at the last minute the way a spontaneous-booking market might, so a quiet week 30 days out on a peak month isn't necessarily a bad sign - it may simply be a booking window that hasn't reached its typical lead time yet.
Who's Actually Running These 135 Listings
Professionally managed listings make up 48.9 percent of this sample - close to half, but still short of a majority. That's a meaningfully more managed market than a small, mostly-independent town, and it changes what a new independent host is actually competing against on the same search results page.
Named managers on this sample include Mollie with 17 listings, Erin with 13, and Windseeker with 11 - three names that between them account for a real share of the 135-listing pool. A host comparing their own single listing against the market average is, in part, comparing against professionally staffed portfolios with pricing tools and review-response systems built for scale.
Sixty listings, or roughly 44 percent of the sample, are set to a thirty-plus night minimum. That's a meaningful chunk of the listing stock positioned for longer stays even though the market's average booked stay is 2.9 nights - which suggests those thirty-plus listings are either not booking at their set minimum very often, or they're a genuinely different product serving a small, separate slice of demand than the short-stay majority.
For an independent host, the practical read is this: roughly half the competitive set has professional management behind it, and a meaningful minority of listings are structured for a stay pattern the broader market data doesn't show much of. Neither fact should be alarming on its own, but both are worth knowing before assuming every other listing on the map is a same-sized, same-strategy competitor.
Reading La Pointe as a Neighbor, Not a Substitute
La Pointe, also on this Lake Superior shoreline, publishes its own year: $18,625 typical revenue, occupancy 33.9 percent, with its own peak-3 of August, July, and June rather than Bayfield's August, July, and September. That's a real, published figure for a real neighboring town - and it's also not Bayfield's number.
The two towns share August as a peak month, which is the coincidence that makes blending them tempting. But La Pointe's third peak month is June, not September, and its hole is January, not March. A packet that averages the two into one "Lake Superior season" is averaging away the exact distinctions a host or buyer needs to price a specific address correctly.
La Pointe's occupancy of 33.9 percent sits a few points under Bayfield's 36.8 percent on this sample, and its typical revenue of $18,625 is meaningfully lower than Bayfield's $24,688. Neither town's number makes the other more or less credible - they're simply two different markets that happen to sit near each other on the same lake.
The right use of a neighbor's published figure is as a labeled comparison, not a substitute input. If a Bayfield packet needs a sanity check, La Pointe's number is a fine one to sit next to it - as long as it stays clearly marked as La Pointe's own year, on La Pointe's own calendar, and never gets quietly folded into a Bayfield average.
What the City's Own Registration Facts Add to This Ledger
A revenue sample is only half of what a host or buyer needs to underwrite a Bayfield listing. The city's own short-term rental permit runs through 34 South Broad, reachable at (715) 779-5712, with a permit fee of $750 that expires June 30 and a seven-day minimum-stay rule that applies in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.
That $750 fee and the June 30 expiration are recurring costs against the $24,688 typical year, not one-time setup costs to forget about after year one - a host modeling returns on this market should treat the permit as an annual line item with a fixed renewal date, the same way property tax or insurance gets modeled.
The seven-day rule in R-1 and R-2 zoning is a separate fact from the occupancy and stay-length data in this report, and it's worth checking against a specific parcel before assuming the 2.9-night average stay pattern applies to every address in the city. A property inside one of those districts is working under a different minimum-stay floor than the market's typical booked length suggests.
County Health, reachable at (715) 373-6109, and an 8 percent room tax round out the compliance side of this picture. None of those figures change the $24,688 typical revenue or the 36.8 percent occupancy - they sit next to those numbers as the cost and compliance side of the same underwriting exercise, and a packet that only carries the revenue half is carrying half the picture.
What 36.8 Percent Occupancy Does and Doesn't Prove
Occupancy at 36.8 percent across a full year is an average, and averages flatten a calendar that this report has already shown is anything but flat. August, the peak month, is booking at a rate well above 36.8 percent, while March, the named hole, is almost certainly booking well below it. The single number is useful for one purpose - comparing Bayfield's overall performance to another market's overall performance - and a poor tool for a second purpose it gets used for anyway, which is predicting any individual week's likely occupancy.
A host who reads 36.8 percent and assumes something close to that figure applies to a random week in July is misreading the number. The same is true in reverse for March - a host expecting close to 36.8 percent occupancy in the sample's named hole is going to be disappointed, because the annual average is being pulled up by three strong months and pulled down by three weak ones, with the middle months landing somewhere between.
RevPAR at $105 has the same flattening effect, since it's built directly from the annual ADR and annual occupancy figures. A more useful way to use RevPAR here is as a single comparison point against a specific listing's own trailing twelve months once that listing has a track record, rather than as a target to hit in any given month on the calendar.
None of this makes the annual figures less valuable - they're still the best available published description of what this market did over a full year. It just means the peak-3, the hole, and the shoulder months in between are where the real pricing decisions happen, and the annual average is the number that tells you whether the whole system, taken together, is healthy.
What Changes If You're Modeling a Specific Address, Not the Sample
Everything in this report describes 135 listings taken together, and no single address is going to match that average exactly. A property with better dock access, a longer season of usable outdoor space, or simply better photos than the market's median listing should expect to outperform $24,688, and a property with real deferred maintenance or a poor location within the city should expect to underperform it.
The seven-day minimum-stay rule in R-1 and R-2 zoning is exactly the kind of address-specific fact that can change how a listing should be modeled against this sample. A property inside one of those districts is not competing for the same 2.9-night average booking that the broader market shows, since its own minimum stay is already more than double that average - which means its realistic occupancy ceiling and its realistic booking pattern both look different from the market-wide number.
The $750 annual permit fee is a fixed cost that applies the same way regardless of whether a specific listing outperforms or underperforms the sample average, which makes it a larger percentage drag on a smaller or newer listing's net return than on an established, higher-performing one. Modeling that fee against a specific listing's own realistic revenue - not the market's $24,688 average - gives a more honest read of margin.
The honest way to use a market report like this one is as the starting frame, then adjust every line for what's actually true about the specific parcel: its zoning district, its condition, its distance from the harbor, and its own booking history once it has one. The published sample tells you what the market did. It doesn't tell you what one particular house will do, and treating the two as the same thing is the most common underwriting mistake this kind of report can accidentally invite.
What This Sample Should Actually Change About a Pricing Calendar
The most direct use of this report is a calendar built around three named peak months, not one long undifferentiated summer. August gets the top rate, July and September both get real peak pricing rather than shoulder discounts, and February through April get honest reductions instead of a rate that quietly assumes summer traffic in a month the sample says otherwise.
The 5.5 percent revenue decline against 13.4 percent supply growth is the number that should temper any pricing plan built purely on last year's average. A new or existing listing competing in a market absorbing that much new supply should expect more competition for the same 36.8 percent occupancy pool, not assume the prior year's dollar figure repeats automatically.
The 89-day lead time is a planning tool as much as a market description - it tells a host roughly how far out a peak-month calendar should already be showing bookings before treating a gap as a pricing problem rather than a normal part of the booking curve. A peak week that looks empty 100 days out is not yet behind schedule on this market's own pattern.
None of this replaces looking at a specific listing's own booking history once it has one. But for a host or buyer without that history yet, $24,688 on 135 listings, 36.8 percent occupancy, a three-month peak, a one-month hole, and a market absorbing new supply faster than it's growing revenue is the honest starting point - not a friendlier number borrowed from the town next door.
Carry all of it together the next time a pricing decision or a purchase decision comes up on this market: the $24,688 typical year, the 5.5 percent revenue dip against 13.4 percent supply growth, the three named peak months and the one named hole, the 2.9-night stay on an 89-day lead, the near-half professionally managed share, and the $750 annual permit tied to a June 30 renewal. Each fact changes the read on its own. Together, they're the difference between a plan built on a published sample and a plan built on a friendlier guess.
Related Reading
More Bayfield reading for hosts underwriting the labeled year without blending La Pointe or Door County figures.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bayfield host year on this market sample?
The City of Bayfield filed about $24,688 typical revenue across 135 listings for the August 2025 through July 2026 window, with ADR near $270 and occupancy near 36.8 percent, working out to RevPAR near $105. That figure is a full-year average, not a peak-week number, so treat it as the underwriting baseline rather than what any single summer weekend will produce on its own.
How should hosts read Bayfield's supply growth against its revenue trend?
On this sample, year-over-year revenue fell about 5.5 percent while supply grew about 13.4 percent, meaning more listings are splitting a similar pool of nights. That pressure lands hardest on listings that don't differentiate on photos, pricing, or guest experience. A new listing entering this market should expect more competition for the same occupancy pool, not the prior year's dollar figure repeating automatically.
Which months lead demand in the Bayfield market?
Peak months are August, July, and September, with August on top; September still counting as peak means the season doesn't end the day after Labor Day. March is the softest month, with February and April in the same low stretch. Pricing the three peak months at real peak rates while giving March an honest discount, rather than a summer rate on an empty calendar, is what this specific sample supports.
What do stay length and lead time show about the typical Bayfield guest?
Average stay length runs about 2.9 nights with a booking lead time near 89 days, pointing to a market of planned short harbor visits booked well in advance rather than last-minute or long-stay bookings. Independent hosts should write photos, minimum-night rules, and calendars for that specific product rather than assuming a longer-stay pattern the sample doesn't actually show.
Should La Pointe's numbers be blended into a Bayfield underwriting packet?
No. La Pointe publishes its own year, about $18,625 typical revenue and 33.9 percent occupancy, with its own peak three of August, July, and June and its own hole in January. It's a fine comparison figure to keep on its own labeled line, but the Bayfield year of about $24,688 on 135 listings, with its own peak three and March hole, is the correct underwriting line for a Bayfield address.
Why does September matter specifically in a Bayfield market report?
September sits in the peak-three with August and July on this sample, meaning hosts shouldn't treat post-Labor Day as automatically leftover shoulder season. Calling September a real money month changes when a host schedules rate changes, blocks, and photo refreshes. Undercharging September because it sounds like shoulder season is one of the more common pricing mistakes this specific dataset can help a host avoid.
How should March pricing relate to this Bayfield sample?
March is the named low point, with February and April nearby, which is useful for scheduling maintenance, personal-use blocks, and honest rate discounts instead of running summer rates on a calendar the sample already shows sits quiet. The 36.8 percent annual occupancy figure already reflects those soft months pulling the yearly average down alongside the strong months pulling it up.
What does the professionally managed share tell hosts about this market?
Professionally managed listings make up about 48.9 percent of this sample, with named managers including Mollie at 17 listings, Erin at 13, and Windseeker at 11. That's close to half the market run by portfolio operators with pricing tools built for scale, which matters when comparing a single independent listing's performance against the broader market average.
What should hosts know about the city's own permit costs?
Bayfield's short-term rental permit runs through the desk at 34 South Broad Street, reachable at (715) 779-5712, with a $750 fee that expires June 30 and a seven-day minimum-stay rule in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. That fee is a recurring annual cost against the $24,688 typical year, and the seven-day rule can matter more than the market's 2.9-night average if a specific parcel sits inside one of those districts.
Does this Bayfield report forecast next year's ADR or occupancy?
No. This report describes the published August 2025 through July 2026 sample, $24,688 typical revenue, 36.8 percent occupancy, 13.4 percent supply growth, and doesn't forecast what next year will do. The published sample is the honest starting frame; once a specific listing has its own booking history, that history is a better guide than the market-wide average alone.
Work with Crest & Cove Creative
A pricing calendar built on last year's average alone is already behind in a market where supply grew faster than revenue. Bayfield's own published year is the number to underwrite from, not a friendlier figure borrowed from a neighboring town.
We help hosts and buyers turn a published market sample into an actual month-by-month pricing calendar instead of one flat rate. Bring your address and we'll show you where it sits against this year's Bayfield numbers.
Reach out at crestcove.co or (256) 998-7502.
Comments