Booking System Suggestion
Many feel the proposed deposit system is a case of the minority 'overbookers' Tail wagging the majority 'reasonable bookers' Dog, to the latter's disadvantage.
To help spread the booking load away from popular sites, why not have deposits for popular sites only.The club has the data to identify these. 'Deposit Required' could be flagged on the website.
Those members who dislike paying a deposit would then have choice. There are already various categories of main site eg those with reduced midweek pricing.
Of course the Club would lose cashflow advantage , ie for advance annual bookings of 60 nights @ say 30 pn, deposits would be, @20%, 360 pa...quite an advantage!
Has this approach already been discussed and disregarded?
Comments
-
Have you missed the main discussion on this subject here? https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-together/discussions/sites-touring/uk-sites-touring/new-site-booking-system/
In answer to you question, in my view procedures should be kept as simple and as straightforward as possible but you seem to be wanting to complicate it somewhat? I also think we need to see how the new system beds down and I am sure the Club will be monitoring if closely and also looking at member feedback.
David
1 -
So basically you are suggesting a double tier booking system to appease 100's of thousands of members that continue to believe the myth of block bookers taking all of the availability from the current no deposit booking scheme.
I also wonder how you know the *MANY* would wish / want such a pointless confusing complicated change, when clearly the directorship of the club are seeking to make the new booking system with deposits fair & equal for every single member.
As DK as indicated you need to follow his link onto previous discussions on the proposed new booking system laid out in detail with Q&A reference.
1 -
Well, I at least think it is a good idea, and I have read every word of the other thread (sad).
I would market it the other way around though, that all sites at all times require a deposit unless shown otherwise. So some sites could have no deposit requirement for when they were quiet, and perhaps some might end up having no deposit requirement at all.
Just remember that with interest rates being so low it may well cost more to administer deposits than is made from the cash on hand.
2 -
Not very complicated from the users point of view.. see 'Deposit Required' and choose to proceed or not. .. the members choice and still 'fair & equal'.
My 'many' assessment was from looking at previous posts .. some happy to pay, others not and some looking at leaving the Club.
Having a deposit only when site is busy is interesting thought but would probably be a bit too unexpected/annoying.. shades of airline variable pricing!
The main point is that it should encourage bookings away from the popular sites... supportive of Club policy.0 -
It seems from conversations that once the staycationers resume their overseas trips? and the quite a few it seems, that will no longer need to pay £54 to use another organisation that requires deposits ,there will be space at any time on all sites?
0 -
The main point is that it should encourage bookings away from the popular sites... supportive of Club policy.
Currently I favour the CAMC over other providers because of their USP. However, not to the exclusion of booking a site in an area I want to visit because I have to pay a deposit.
We use a site because it’s where we want to be. We wouldn’t go somewhere else just to save paying a deposit. I suspect many others will feel the same. Booking is already encourage away from popular sites as there are enough folk looking for places.0 -
Reducing "staycationer" numbers doesn't look like it will happen any time soon unless the virus decides to go for early retirement..
1 -
The time for suggestions is long gone as it's now a done deal which has been thrashed to death in the main thread.
Whatever, your suggestion doesn't take into account the accountants view of it being good for business to have deposits rolling in. My opinion is that finance is the main driver of this change.
5 -
You can’t turn the block back, David. Things have changed a lot since way back then and not just due to ease of online booking.
"Totally predictable" - Yep, sure is😂😂😂
1 -
At least a "one size fits all" is easy to understand? As TW mentioned up thread the new system is a done deal and it is very unlikely the the Club will want to change anything until it has been up and running for a while. It does seem that the new system appears to be easy to use and easy to understand. I am not sure how you would differentiate between what is a busy site where deposits would be taken or and those sites where no deposit would be needed? Nearly all sites are equally busy at certain times of year, BH, School Holidays etc. I am sure the OP is not suggesting that deposits on some sites would only be taken at certain times of year? In the light of that the list of sites which fit his criterion would in fact be very small?
David
0 -
I did say on the other thread that sooner or later someone would bring up issues (as is their right of course) with the new system but I did rather expect that to happen when it was actually up and running?
1 -
For the record, I'm not totally in favour of club sites. I think they look like manicured car parks and over priced, vans packed tightly at the detriment of your enjoyment of space.I'm a narrow minded, approaching senior age old fart. BUT.
For any system to work it has to be simple. As soon as you add questionable variables such as prime sites [at what times] you are on to a looser.
I cannot figure out what the trouble is with paying a deposit. If you book a holiday with a travel agent you pay one. In the wider world if you order goods specific to you then a deposit is required. With the club you have a get out clause if you change your mind before the date, so it's fair and reasonable.
Colin
3 -
So basically you are suggesting a double tier booking system to appease 100's of thousands of members that continue to believe the myth of block bookers taking all of the availability from the current no deposit booking scheme.
Compass, it is no longer a myth that there are block bookers, it was admitted by Ro that one of the main reason for returning to a deposit system was precisely because of them.
2 -
If I remember correctly at least two members actually worked out the number of cancelled bookings within the 72 hour cut off point in the figures given by the club in the main tread that DK started on the new booking system.
Of those apportioned to be supposedly cancelled by said block bookers the numbers were miniscule to the whole year's total booking figures of the club.
Block booking was accountable for a mere drop in the ocean of total bookings the club takes every year, that was cancelled within the T&Cs laid down by the club itself.
I'm sure if within the new booking T&Cs loopholes are found to facilitate cancellations/alterations of dates , which will benefit the booker with deposits being refunded or constantly moved to other future bookings without penalty, they would be used to that advantage.
We all await the outcome.
1 -
Compass, I'm sure that those at HO will use whatever argument they can put there hands on to validate the 're-introduction of deposits, to appease all those that are opposed to the idea.
1 -
To appease the accountants, Nellie.
1 -
Those members who dislike paying a deposit would then have choice. There are already various categories of main site eg those with reduced midweek pricing.
When deposits are introduced there will still be a choice at these "under used" sites. Just turn up on the day.
peedee
0 -
Where does it say that the new system when it launches will be perfect in every way and will never be changed . . . . ?
I do not see anything different between the (one time) Club having different deposit requirements at different times at different sites since that is exactly the position if one were to look at a similar number of independent commercial sites.
2 -
+1. I really think that is it. Nail on head!
0
