Reliability survey where is it?
The story so far
In September 2015 an item on p12 of the magazine stated that nearly 40 000 people had filled in responses to the much vaunted leisure vechicle survey. This item was headed thanks for your help, and promised summary results would be published in subsequent additions of the magazine and online
November 2015 issue nothing.
December 2015 issue a summary report that is so sanitised that it would make a North Korean censor blush. Obviously no names mentioned Further more detailed analysis promised in future Issues.
January 2016 nothing
February 2016
March 2016 magazine nothing,
However I did attend a question time meeting at which the audience were assured that it would be published
April nothing
May nothing
June nothing
July nothing
The August issue of the magazine has just become available online and as far as I can see nothing!
Perhaps I have missed something so please correct me but if I am correct, then the Caravanclub should explain why the survey has not been published.
Apologise to the 40000 people who wasted their time filling in the survey
I realise that breaks "never apologise never explain" which appears to the Caravan clubs guiding principle in dealing with its members, but maybe they should try shining a light in some dark places.
Comments
-
I though I must have missed it. As I haven't I agree they really should explain what is going on, or I certainly won't be filling out any future surveys. By the time it is issued it is not really going to be of much use, other than for historical data,
in any event.0 -
As far as I recall, I was questioned about caravans, or makes of caravans, that I'd never had, nor ever even heard of. I think other members on CT said the same, so, perhaps, the reults were of no use at all
There are of course two theories of history Cock up and conspiracy.
The cock up theory would be covered by you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer.
The conspiracy theory would be that they have gained targeted. Answers from a largely well off demographic. The data is then valuable to sell to the Leisure vechicle industry and thus was the point of the survey all along.
0 -
The insult of the absense of any results does meant that many of that 40,000 can not be expected to be filling in any future survey for the CC - well, not with valid information anyway!!
0 -
I conduct my own surveys:
Find someone with a new van, ask what they think of it. Of course they tell you its great. I then give the some truth serum, or as my wife puts it, I pour a bottle of wine down their throats, then spend the rest of the evening listening to the moans and
groans about dealerships, faults and leaks.0 -
So do I.
Trouble is you get a binary response either yes or no because I am sure bad manufacturers produce good vans by accident sometimes and good manufacturers, produce bad vans from time to time.
Trouble is as long as there a perception that each manufacturer is bad as each other then there is no incentive for them to change. Basically the there will be as many dissatisfied customers of brand A buying brand B next time as there will be owners of
brand B buying brand A next time. You do need a large statistically valid survey to show up the differences.What I suspect is the survey had thrown up outliers with very bad quality and service scores. The caravan club have decided to protect these manufacture(s), rather than protecting the interests of its paying members.
Pure speculation on my part, but nature abhors a vacuum.
0 -
I have to agree the survey seems to have been a complete waste of money given only the vagueist of results have been published. Practical Caravan has carried out three annual surveys and published the results with some pretty bad statistics for some firms. Despite this there seems to be no reduction in their advertising or caravans available to report on so this should not have been a problem.
If you want to know the good, the bad and the average the results from PC look pretty consistent so should be accurate enough.
The clubs continued silence on what must have been an expensive excercise is very bad in my books.
0 -
Firstly thank you to all members who took part in the Leisure Vehicle Survey. The survey gathered a fantastic amount of useful information about our members leisure vehicles. In fact almost 40,000 members responded to the survey covering 30 manufacturers
and over 600 ranges. The results will provide great insight for any member wanting to replace their existing leisure vehicle or any new members about to join The Club. As you can imagine this volume of response (more than 7 million pieces of data) requires
considerable resource to analyse. In addition to the survey the team have been working on a number of other key projects for The Club and we sincerely apologise for not communicating the results of the survey earlier. We are looking to give feedback to members
on the Leisure Vehicle Survey at the end of the summer.0 -
Over a year to publish? Really?
It stinks of the survey not being for the benefit of members but for something else and letting us know the results is just an unwanted hinderance that is continually kicked into the long grass.
Very poor CC
Simon
0 -
Firstly thank you to all members who took part in the Leisure Vehicle Survey. The survey gathered a fantastic amount of useful information about our members leisure vehicles. In fact almost 40,000 members responded to the survey covering 30 manufacturers
and over 600 ranges. The results will provide great insight for any member wanting to replace their existing leisure vehicle or any new members about to join The Club. As you can imagine this volume of response (more than 7 million pieces of data) requires
considerable resource to analyse. In addition to the survey the team have been working on a number of other key projects for The Club and we sincerely apologise for not communicating the results of the survey earlier. We are looking to give feedback to members
on the Leisure Vehicle Survey at the end of the summer.
0 -
Sorry Rowena, I am sure you are only the messenger.
But when exactly did the Caravan club realise that 40 000 respnses would produce a lot of data? Its not as simple as multiplying the number of questions by the number of respondents is it?
Would the other questions that the team have been working on include:
What religion is the Pope
and
Exactly what do bears do in the woods
Easy T's response sums up my reaction, to well err a T
0 -
Doubt that I would see the resulys anyway as I have not opened a Caravan Club mag in more than 2 years I suspect.
0 -
Not really interested in the result. I was asked for my thoughts/opinion on an Airstream, despite only ever seeing one at a show! I am sure most others were asked about vans they knew nothing about as well, so what good will be the resulting data. Where
the questionnaire could have been used as a useful tool, with so many people prepared to talk about their vans and experiences we weren't asked those questions. Won't be doing another one for the CC.0 -
As with Band Girl and DEBSC, all I can recall of the survey is being asked a lot of pointless questions about obscure caravans that I knew nothing about.
The results will therefore be pointless.
Even if the survey had been conducted well (it wasn't) then delaying the results for at least 12 months renders them meaningless. Every manufacturer who gets a negative score (and I'm not at all sure that the CC would even publish such a thing) would simply
say that they have imprved things over the last year.Anyway, when is the end of summer? Are we working to a similar time-scale to the forum up-date here??
0 -
Come now, Ian. You know full well the update is being rolled out at the end of the first quarter of 2016.
0 -
Over a year to publish? Really?
It stinks of the survey not being for the benefit of members but for something else and letting us know the results is just an unwanted hinderance that is continually kicked into the long grass.
Very poor CC
Simon
I am not happy with the delay and had doubts that the results were ever going to be released but your post is way over the top.
0 -
Which? do their car survey every year, and this year they had feedback from almost 60000 car owners. The survey had to be filled in by the end of January this year, and the results have just been published in the August mag. Why is it taking the CC so long?
As others have said the results were probably not what they wanted, so they are busy making it look better for their advertised brands. Allegedly.0 -
Which surveys are every year and they know in advance the level to expect and can arrange things on that basis. This was the first by the club for many years and the numbers were not known. The PC survey gets about 4,000 replies so if the club looked at
that they would expect far less than they got so would not be ready for these numbers.Anyone thinking that the club would fiddle the results is not being realistic. I did wonder if they were going to publish the full results but do not doubt that whatever they do publish will be correct. If a serious underestimate of the numbers was the problem
and possibly too many questions then if we get good figures then we should forgive the delays.0 -
Anyone thinking that the club would fiddle the results is not being realistic. I did wonder if they were going to publish the full results but do not doubt that whatever they do publish will be correct. If a serious underestimate of the numbers was the problem
and possibly too many questions then if we get good figures then we should forgive the delays.Wildwood...would you say that their 'expose' on leisure batteries was 'correct' then?
0 -
Anyone thinking that the club would fiddle the results is not being realistic. I did wonder if they were going to publish the full results but do not doubt that whatever they do publish will be correct. If a serious underestimate of the numbers was the problem
and possibly too many questions then if we get good figures then we should forgive the delays.Wildwood...would you say that their 'expose' on leisure batteries was 'correct' then?
Basically what they published was fact. It should have named names though. Possibly as these were based on opinions as to what leaisure batteries were there was room for problems.
In this case what they are publishing are the replies of thousands of mebers so no room for argument on the statistics. We will just have to see what comes out but as long as they stick to the facts there should be no possibility of them being sued and I
do not believe the figures will be fiddled to produce what they want but it will be interesting to see if the PC reports are similar.0 -
I am as disappointed as anyone and sincerely hope that the survey is actually published in a form that members and the industry can make use of.
I do think that with the online nature of the survey (I don't recall a paper version which would have been a bit silly these days?) responses should have been designed to go straight into a database which could have been easily interrogated by standard software if there were 40, 400, 4000 or 4 million responses.
If I recall correctly, there were some free responses which are much more difficult to analyse automatically but all of that is down to the initial design of the survey.
0
