Dynamic pricing to be introduced
Comments
-
I got the impression the poster concerned was questioning the raised prices and the lack of "club" sentiments in the organisation. They maybe well aware of the club operations if they feel things have changed. Luckily voices can be heard on here and hopefully not dismissed or disregarded. I've noticed a lot of new people raising comments on CT which is good, they have a voice and a desire to express themselves.
3 -
In part, we are saying the same thing but not totally.
As to new voices on CT, wouldn't it be nice if they were encouraged to stick around? CAMC could help in that direction by having a bigger presence on CT which is, after all, part of its own website.
2 -
Yes hopefully some will continue to get a sympathetic response on here especially regarding problems with the booking system including "flexible pricing" and questions about the direction of the organisation. As CT is membership based many do get helpful responses from fellow members (and non members too.) Input from the club is missing but there are a lot of useful responses from contributors.
2 -
I think there are quite a few first time and occasional posters who have no interest in becoming a forum regular. We all lead different lives. Club Together is here for all, whether that be a single question or just expressing a view on Club policy. There are also those where CT is obviously part of their daily routine.
David
0 -
It is significant that many of the 'new' posters have come to complain about the various shortcomings of CAMC, adding to some of the disenchantment expressed by a number of the regulars. I never quite understand the rationale that Corners expounds suggesting that CT is 'not' reflective of the membership as a whole. Why should it be different?
It's certainly clear that the overall tenor od posts on here do reflect the somewhat adulatory and sycophantic letters that appear in the magazine. I wonder why that is?
3 -
I never quite understand the rationale that Corners expounds suggesting that CT is 'not' reflective of the membership as a whole
It's very simple, and based on the basics of obtaining a statistical sample to reflect the views of the whole population, otherwise it's pointless and useless. It's all to do with the size of sample and how the makeup of that sample should reflect the overall membership.
Firstly sample size. How many regulars are there on CT, 10, 20, I would say somewhere about 30 to 40? What would you say CY. And what percentage is that of the whole membership? That's the first stumbling block to me.
From what I can gather, the regular posters are mainly retired, second big point, and do not tour with their children, third big point. Male female split, income... The list just goes on. CT is not a fair reflection of the membership, I cannot see how anyone can argue it is?
I wonder why that is?
Easy again two different samples and populations perhaps? And of course the club magazine is an advert for the club so it is not going to publish anything going against that. When you worked in banking did your bank publish negative reviews?
But again at the end of the day it's how many outfits roll onto club sites not posts on here or on the magazine, and that appears to be doing alright?
1 -
The Club re named itself. The next step would be to re name CT as Complain Together.
1 -
I think it's known already as Critics Together in the higher echelons of the club as posted the other week?
0 -
CT contributors probably do reflect the membership there's no way of proving otherwise. Of course it's easy to be critical of contributions just as it might be easy to do the same with CAMC itself. CAMC have provided an outlet for a variety of views, ideas and requests for help and advice etc. Recent threads concerning the New Booking system have been valid, it's irrefutable that there have been errors in it's production hence the need for feedback and help.
This thread is about dynamic pricing, quite an interesting subject which the club have said they are introducing. Reactions to it have been mixed.
5 -
We used to call the magazine “Pedants Monthly” back in the 1980’s, so nothing much has changed. 🤣
Mind, I do think that certain decisions taken this last year or so isn’t driving much in the way of plaudits, although the Sites are still nice on the whole. There are two distinct aspects of the Club nowadays, the Sites (still nice if more expensive) and Club Management and governance (no comment).
1 -
There are appear to be this idea that what is posted about on CT somehow is representative of the membership in general, I think that is just nonsense really.
So why is the Club about to trial electricity meters? Why were deposts introduced? Why can you now select pitch type on booking? These were and are items probably initially and frequently requested on CT over the years. I don't think it is nonsense at all.
peedee
4 -
You're being selective in only looking at certain things requested to justify your view and it has to be said things you approve of. Also you've posted selectivity while missing out all the valid examples given to CY showing why it is not representative.
But what about all the other things 'requested' with as much vigour that have not happened?
Charging for and a limit on dogs, club sites becoming adult only, and what about moving the arrival time back to 12 (lots of posts for that), what about the issues of weekenders blocking longer stayers, what about the removal of deposits since introduction (just as requests as those asking for them in the first place), what about going back to the old booking system, and the greatest discussion point of all one of all why aren't prices going down? Surely by your logic as this is discussed and requested so much there should be a result by now?
All of those I recall have been 'requested' with as many posts as the ones you quoted yet they have not happened.
It is nonsense to say just because things are 'requested' on CT that they happen, in my view
In any case as I posted with numerous examples statistically CT cannot requepreset the membership. Age, sex, working, retired, family, touring with children. How many on CT are below a certain age or with families? it fails on all of these. I'm sorry PD but you cannot argue with maths, it is the ultimate judge. Can you give any reasons (apart from some things being requested and happening) that is it statistically a valid sample of club membership?
To answer your question I would say they are being introduced because of a few simple principles, operational reasons and/or profit.
0 -
PD, I think it’s highly unlikely that any of those measures can be accredited to the posts on CT. Direct representation to CAMC, surveys, AGMs, even Facebook will have much higher regard than us few posters here. The Club Council will have had quite a large say in those matters too but us few, nah.
1 -
You are right of course but we have worked it out that with the much cheaper site prices that can be found in most European countries it costs us no more overall.
The cheaper sites compensate for the ferry cost. Our breakdown is covered by our bank account as is the holiday insurance, which we would have anyway.
If we were only going for a couple of weeks then it would be different but we go for anything from 6 to 11 weeks.
The comparison was worked out using CAMC sites.
1 -
I don’t dispute what you say but, apart from discounting the cost of travelling, the poster was drawing a comparison between CAMC site prices and those in Europe which we know is not comparing like with like for numerous operational reasons.
1 -
Many if not most on line questions at the AGMs came from CT members. Overall I think there are a lot of members who have used CT. A few threads attract regular posters but not all. Over the years there have been lots of contributions from a lot of people. There are regular posters on CAMC fb too, fb posts tend to receive responses from staff. CT has been useful in different ways, it's more open than FB due to it's social set up where members can set agendas for discussion. This can't happen on FB the club sets the agenda on there.
5 -
I have just tried to book Chatsworth Park club site for next Easter and compared to my booking for this Easter for the same number of nights the price has increased by 39%. From £220 to £306. The dynamic system was supposed to encourage booking well in advance !! How far in advance do they want. I realise this is a popular club site and I have used it many times since joining the club in 1990 but to e asked to pay on average £50 per night is ridiculous. No doubt the pitches will still sell but this site is now one for the wealthy. The club no longer seem to be operating as a members organisation.
11 -
Dynamic pricing he certainly been introduced. Looking at the prices for a site yesterday there were 4 different prices over 7 days depending on whether the occupation level showed as being low or not. That can't be right, surely? Isn't DP supposedly come into effect days not weeks before the prospective booking?
1 -
DP is in place all the time, Nellie, and depends on the availability of your chosen dates at the time you place the booking. That’s why if you book 6 months ahead the price might be cheaper than if you were to book 6 days ahead. It’s in a constant state of flux.
0 -
Knitpicking aren't they!! Another good reason to avoid using "club" sites IMO. It used to be oh so simple to find out the price of a pitch anytime in the year and plan accordingly, but not so now!
5 -
I have already been stung by the non refundable deposit. I had to cancel due to bad weather and finding a campsite somewhere else was not an option using the same dates. The other site that I had booked ( not a club site) have just held my deposit until I find a better time to come. Far more civilised.
As for the dynamic pricing, it deters anyone who wants to be spontaneous from choosing a club site.
I am seriously considering cancelling membership for next year.
6 -
Of course you can still be spontaneous - just look at availability and prices a day in advance and book at that point if you are happy. You lost your deposit because you chose to book ahead, Sorry.
1 -
So are we saying that you will lose your deposit, even if the reason for cancelling is a genuine reason, one you have proof for?
There are many reasons that folk might have to cancel, bad weather being one. Easy enough to check that. Surely the deposit could be held over for another booking in those circumstances, most sites, hotels, cottages etc are willing to do that.
4 -
Apparently, each late cancellation (anything inside 21 days) is now subject to individual scrutiny. Someone posted a few weeks ago about not travelling because of snow at home. They challenged the decision, but no idea of outcome.
If you can do it, booking at very short notice means you won’t lose a deposit, but DP might mean you pay more for the pitch. It’s a question of finding out which is the most cost effective in terms of money losses. Some won’t be bothered and just go with either option. Others will look for a more customer friendly approach such as moving dates without penalty with another provider.
It’s early days yet with this new system, but would be good to get some genuine feedback around how folks go on with cancellations inside the 21 days, and see what the Club response is like.0 -
TDA said :- It’s early days yet with this new system, but would be good to get some genuine feedback around how folks go on with cancellations inside the 21 days, and see what the Club response is like.
This is usually the sort of information that comes out in answer to AGM questions, or it may be contained in the Annual Report. Is the Club actively asking members their feelings on the new system? Core data would show how many cancellations there has been within the 21 days but will they be able to tell us how many of those cancellations were due to people just moving a booking or whether there was no corresponding new booking?
David
0 -
I don’t think there will be any admittance that there are major issues with the new system to be honest DK, certainly not beyond the apology that still stands on TP, and the occasional response from staff members. All the HQ staff who might have been involved in any decisions taken don’t seem to have put their heads above the parapet much since mid September 22. Same from Exec Committee members as well. I am sure they all know the degree of issues still to be resolved, and the degree of dissatisfaction expressed via various feedback methods, but whether “you said, we did” applies, who knows🤷♀️
The bottom line will be how well bookings are going. That is the only thing likely to have any impact. Feedback from users around issues will help other users, and help them negotiate the system, cherrypicking what’s best for them.3
