What Would a UK Club Type Aire Look Like
Comments
-
The Club don’t need to provide Aires, legal, safe stopover capabilities are already there. It’s how to offer something that’s not currently available without it impacting too much on what’s already happening, and just tempting travellers to opt for a Club Site stopover, rather than choosing a non Club option. Filling pitches, taking more income.
I don’t recognise Club Sites being quiet. Folks come and go all through the day, so a handful of extra vehicles arriving is just part and parcel of being on a Club Site. They don’t offer a great deal in terms of privacy, relaxation, peacefulness unless they are virtually empty, which isn’t going to sustain them very long.
I’m not aware of how Sites are staffed, but what I do know is that touring isn’t a 9-5 pastime, and the Club acknowledges this via having a system for outfits to arrive up to 8pm. But I have enough operational background of time and space resourcing and management to know that most issues can be discussed, worked through, and systems put in place to make things work. Sites without barriers would be easy, barriered ones need some thought.
0 -
Some good points there.
It has to said and conceded that those asking for this provision, cheaper sites prices, arriving after 6... are not club sites users or use them sparingly and have said so, therefore firstly actual club site users should be surveyed in some way and secondly like you said is there a demand and what is it? Nobody knows I think. There will be start up costs and extra costs.
I keep asking if there is such a demand why isn't someone providing it? Are they? Are the well used? People posting on here (I include myself here) are a very small percentage of actual club site users/members yet apparently this is the way things should happen regarding this type on new provision, and as you allude to, to whose advantage? Those using club sites? The argument is that this will bring in extra funds (enough to make up the start up costs) but an extra what £20 per pitch isn't really going to change much unless there is much take-up? And then we're back to is that demand there. If the club says there is fine, but until some study has been done it's unwise to just make this happen due to a few posts on here, from as I said people who don't use club sites but perhaps appear to want club sites at a cheaper price.
We (myself included) can post what we like but it's the club that has to decide it's a good idea, that is really bringing in some money at no disadvantage to those on site, or currently using club sites. In fact I'm puzzled slightly by these poster who say club sites are like this or that, or what the age range is when they don't use them much in the first place? And like you I don't think the price will come down more than 20%, certainly not the low prices quoted here.
Why does it have to be a club site when others operate at these low prices?
2 -
DK, The club already has flexible arrival times at separate ferry pitches at its sites nearFolkestone and Portsmouth. Prices are not reduced but Members can come and go at all hours, day or night. Wardens hours are adjusted to manage. Relaxation is allowed on other parts of the site.
That sort of flexibility of arrival times could be be introduced at sections of other sites but flexibilty comes very slowly to CAMC.
1 -
I view a "Quickstop" solution as being close to a Aire without actually making such provision independent to a site. As to is there a demand and will it have a postive impact on occupancy and the bottom line, the Club will probably never know unless it implemented a trial preferably across the whole network.
peedee
1 -
Notably though, those ferry pitches are not at reduced prices.
0 -
I don’t think the Club consulted Members before it decided to close 5 sites at the end of the coming season, so again, what we are discussing isn’t likely to go to a Members vote, should any interest at HQ be shown.
As for will it work, Unless it’s trialled we will never know. My own thoughts, despite putting forward a few ideas, is that there won’t be the impetus to do anything at the moment. Status quo will prevail.
Nevertheless, I worked in a background of time and space leisure resourcing, and what was anathema was having time sensitive resources under performing and under sold. As I said earlier, if you don’t get the income in, you won’t manage to keep facilities operational. The Club is currently trying all sorts of special offers to attract and keep Members. Utilising discounted, unbooked pitches is simply another method, and it’s something a section of the Membership might be interested in.
1 -
I’ll just say that we have been Club Members 40 years as well, all our touring done in UK. We have used big sites, little sites, remote sites, city sites, grass sites, hard standing sites, sites owned by the Club, sites leased by the Club, sites affiliated to the Club. Brand new sites, sites so old they are no longer available, sites with lots of staff, sites with two and a dog running them. Sites with volunteers on helping out. We use sites for a single night, we use sites for long stays, we even included two sites for our honeymoon! Sites that that have tents, pods, cottages, cafes, pools, etc…
But we mix it up as well, so know what touring life is like away from Club Sites, what else is attractive and available, and above all value for money for the type of stay we want. The three factors that drive our choice are location, resources we need and then value for money. If we are using Club Sites less, then those three aspects are why.
2 -
It has to said and conceded that those asking for this provision, cheaper sites prices, arriving after 6... are not club sites users or use them sparingly and have said so, therefore firstly actual club site users should be surveyed in some way
You want to exclude those members who may benefit from the introduction of such a service. There I was thinking, obviously mistakenly, that this was an inclusive club.
Post edited
4 -
I think it didn't need to consult members about clearly failing sites that members hadn't been using, over some years with evidence, while other sites with much better facilities like HS and EHU... have good occupancy rates, what would be the consultation - these sites are losing money, no one uses them so shall we keep them open? Does that sound like good financial sense to you as a member? Even it did go to a vote what do you think the result would have been? Even some of those that have lamented their going posted they hadn't used them? I suppose the club did consult - by how much memory the sites are making. The ultimate consolation.
In any case surveys are different to consultations and votes. I've had a few surveys as I posted, the last one about getting rid of site leaflets. Before money is spent of something that even the proponents of this on here can only say it might be of interest and we'll never know till we try it. Hardly a good way to spend money and cause potential inconvenience.
The club has a good track record of giving the members exactly what they want, tours, glamping, SP... that doesn't just happen by accident, they know what will sell and they must find that out somehow?
0 -
Again I can't follow that, where did I say exclude anyone? I think you've jumped in too quickly?
I posted that it should include present members that currently use club sites, and if you read my post carefully WN, I said firstly. Why jeopardize current high income from these members for something that might work, or might be of interest, may be of benefit. Is that good business sense to you? I never said anything about excluding anyone, only those that use club sites first. I can only assume you missed the firstly?
After that then perhaps a survey as I've just posted, to see if there really is this big demand from members then the club will have to do it's homework to see if it's at all viable, which no one can appear to answer. As I said in my previous post, which pretty well sums it up:
The club has a good track record of giving the members exactly what they want, tours, glamping, SP... that doesn't just happen by accident, they know what will sell and they must find that out somehow?
And once more it is inclusive, once joined and of course actually using club sites everyone has the chance to use whatever is on site, no one is excluded. That's the true definition of inclusive, at least the one I've used in my working life.
1 -
Corners, what you actually said was…..
”those asking for this provision, cheaper sites prices, arriving after 6... are not club sites users or use them sparingly and have said so, therefore firstly actual club site users should be surveyed in some way”
Not quite sure whether you would include the likes of me into any survey, now being an infrequent user, hence why I posted to give an indication of my Club Site background. It does rather sound like you meant only actual users, not all Members should be surveyed.
With a marketing hat on, if you don’t ask all Members, then it’s going to be a skewed result. The reasons why Members don’t use Club Sites are equally as important as those who are perfectly happy. It could be argued that barriers to participation are of greater relevance to moving a business forward, so that every available market can be tapped. Existing customers, and the Club’s future, new/returning customers.
But as I have said. Decisions are made without much Member consultation nowadays.
2 -
I'm not sure how what I posted can be read any other way:
those asking for this provision, cheaper sites prices, arriving after 6... are not club sites users or use them sparingly and have said so, therefore firstly actual club site users should be surveyed in some way”
Why is firstly being omitted? Yes first survey those who use club sites first. They bring the income in, I would not upset that. Then as I posted above others.
0 -
Who is omitting firstly? I didn't and Ttda didn't. So who did it?
The club is inclusive. If they want a survey undertaken then that should include all members.
The question is irrelevant anyway because they won't conduct a survey. They may trial somewhere and then ask participants and members who were already on site what they felt but a general survey would be a first for the club, AFAIK.
1 -
Doesn’t CAMC still do site surveys when people have stayed on sites?
Also, I’m sure we’ve all been invited to take part in surveys from time to time both by email and via CT.
Yes, CAMC is fully inclusive and that means either offering discounts to all or charging them all the going rate. If prices were to be slashed for drop in arrivals after, say 9pm, I can visualise nearby lay-bys emptying and queues forming at the site gate as the witching hour approached.
None of this matters to me personally and whichever way CAMC goes won’t affect me but it saddens me to see so many people striving to save a few £s as if that’s the most important part of their holiday. Sorry if that offends anyone but it truly is the impression created.
2 -
Well you did and Tda, you replied that I was excluding some members, when all I clearly wrote that the club should firstly survey those who use club sites, nothing about excluding anyone else. Just (for the last time) those that use club sites first. If something is done first then something is done second in my book. I'm sorry I think you missed that firstly otherwise what you posted doesn't make sense to me.
Tda posted : It does rather sound like you meant only actual users, not all Members should be surveyed
Again Tda has missed, or omitted to note, the firstly.
And yes it should survey all but firstly, in my view and I'm sticking to it, those that use club sites should be done first for the reasons I gave earlier. I think I alluded to that in another post about the club getting its new projects to be so successful.
And you're certainly wrong about surveys, I was surveyed about site leaflets being discontinued after staying on a club site recently just last month (I assume because I actually stayed on a site - perhaps they should ask all those that didn't but I can't see the logic in that) and there have been surveys discussed many times on here, they are by email and one was on the deposit system before it was introduced, reliability survey, and another very recently on something I cannot know remember. As I said they are by invite through emails.
0 -
I'm not against anything new, but I do object to money being spent on something that might, may, won't know till we try be of use and to how many, which no one can seem to answer. I keep asking if these types of provision are provided elsewhere and if they are well used, again no answer.
0 -
How would you determine which Member does and doesn’t use Club Sites though? I’m a Member, used four Club Sites in last six months, but circumstance mean we can’t tour at all at the moment. Am I in or out of the first round?
Or would you means test it? X has spent A pounds this. Year, they are in. Z only spent B pounds, so we don’t value their contribution as much. Consigned to the also rans basket
🤷♀️
0 -
Yes, lower priced overnight stops are very, very popular. Aires, Forestry sites, pub stopovers, all legal, all providing different levels of service, different prices. You have to either book, if you can, or turn up early to get a pitch/space
However, they can be limited to only campers and MH’s. Club has the capacity to be unique in offering an overnight stopover for caravans as well, with no extra costs. If it is interested.
1 -
It's not up to me but I'm glad you think I have any input.
Selection for surveys is a fairly precise mathematical procedure so as not to give a skewed result. I'm sure the club will have done it in the past very successfully. Judging by all their previous new projects.
0 -
But it is your belief that those who stay more, pay more should be surveyed first, not the opinion of the Club C, that’s what I find strange.🤷♀️
Academic anyway really, the Club might survey for little things, but they just steam roller decisions for the big changes. Like it, or lump it.☹️
I just suggested something that was open to all Members, regardless of outfit, that wouldn’t cost much to set up, but might catch some of the folks who at the moment drive past Club Sites with empty pitches. With a few T&Cs, some consultation, as easy to administer and manage as possible. The Club gets extra income, Members wanting a short overnight no frills stopover get something in return. Better in the Club coffers for all Members🙂
0 -
As said my beliefs (?) don't come into it. Where did I say pay more P? I'm sure those on the cheaper sites will be included too, or I would hope. I still nold to the view that current site users would be done firstly.
I would also hope, actually having studied survey selection more than hope, that provided you stay on a club site or not you'll be included.
Why should be current users done first? No good having this new provision if it drives away your core customers and that means someone staying one week at an expensive site or ten weeks on a cheaper site.
It's certainly my view you start with your best customers , whatever best means. I'm not changing my view on that.
If the survey or research says it's going to be a big money earner it will happen.
But the club will have the survey or research procedures already well known.
0 -
Wardens hours are adjusted to manage.
The one we used was outside of the barrier controlled part of the site and pitching details were left attached to a notice board. Payment had to be made ahead of time, therefore no need for any warden input. Also as TW states they are not discounted, even if you only spend 12 hours on site.
2 -
How far in advance did you book it Steve?
0 -
I give in, we are debating something that probably will never happen, certainly not in my time with Club, and probably boring many anyway picking over semantics. No medal for me, you win all. 🙂
0 -
I wonder how serviced pitches were introduced? Money, a lot of money was spent in the hope they might, may, won't know till we try and how many. How did the Club know the answer? I never saw a specific survey on the subject. You can say the same about the Freedom Experience.
peedee
1 -
Price? Around £15-20 depending on Site/with or without hook up.
Rather wishful thinking I feel, given the club is currently asking circa £27 for non EHU at Cirencester and circa £32 at Moreton in Marsh. Both prices for 2 adults in September and many of the dates are shown as full or low so they must be selling some.1 -
I tend to agree Steve but there is no way I would pay £27 or £32 for non EHU.
If the Club cannot do a "Quickstop" cheaper than that, they should not even think about offering them. £20 to £25 inclusive of EHU would be more realistic given the price of stopping at places like Cadeside and Stover.
peedee
1 -
I just can’t see it, even over there prices are going up. A lot of the camping car park Aires, without the facility block provided by the CAMC, are now 15€ a night and a few more popular ones 17 or 19€.
Also the inclusivity of what has been proposed bothers me. Whilst these discounted pitches would be open to caravans and motorhomes alike, how many folk towing a large caravan are going to risk waiting until 5 / 6 pm to secure a place for the night. Now with a 7 metre van I might give it a go, when we had a 12.50 metre rig to find somewhere to park up, not a chance.
1 -
Thank you Steve. Such pitches the Club knows it can fill well in advance, so it would be counter productive to discount them.
0
