Site Pricing
I find it difficult to understand the rationale for charging a per capita fee when selling a pitch for the night. I can understand that an additional person might have some impact on the shower block but surely the cost of providing all the other facilities
is unlikely to be significant? I’m surprised that the marginal cost per person is as much as it is compared to the base pitch fee. Whilst I’ve merrily paid whatever the bottom line has happened to be, I’m not so sure that it stands up to scrutiny.
Comments
-
Although I agree with your thought, as we caravan as a couple, should I be a solo caravanner I would not be too pleased if the club changed their pricing structure by increasing the first persons charge to compensate for a reduction in the charge for additional
persons.0 -
With regard to charging for individuals, I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be one but that I have difficulty understanding why it is as significant as the pitch fee. Yes, charging less per person would mean that solos would end up paying more but my view
is that most of the direct cost arises from the provision of the pitch, of which there is a limited supply, rather than the ancillary services. If anything, I feel more for the families who are charged so much per person, at a time in their lives when they
are less able to pay.0 -
I take your point BB but the pitch fee has to be the significant cost for any site. Whether a pitch is used by a solo or couple etc, electric consumption to heat the caravan/mh will be the same, as will be the general running of the site. I don't think a
solo can expext the pitch fee to be halved but it seems fair that the per capita rate provides them with a sizeable saving, albeit not half the cost for a couple.0 -
T, i think i was saying (not very well...)that the per capita fee was too high...
if the pitch fee has to be paid to cover off all the infrastructure, services, environment, heating, lighting, security and management costs as in Ro's post....my question is, what does the customer get for the extra per capita fee.....its there because
they can charge it....now, if someone said the pitch fee was cover the infrastructure and evironment (fixed per pitch) and the per capita fee was to cover the heating, hot water and power in the facilities block (variable by per capita) there might be a case for charging in the
way.....but the 'official' reply from the sites team lumped all these cosr into the pitch fee....Write your comments here... Many thanks BB - I see your point and agree.
0 -
Does the per capita fee reflect accurately that portion of the cost? Probably not. As I am part of a couple am I subsidising single travellers as well as children? Probably. Do I care? Not greatly.
id say they were getting worse deal than you.....per head.
a single certainly pays their way.....all of the site fee and all of a per capita fee, whereas a couple pays half a pitch fee each and all of a per capita fee.....
But to make it "fair(er)" wouldn't the club have to increase the per capita charge and reduce the pitch fee - which is exactly the opposite of what rogher was suggesting?
0 -
The largest part of the per capita fee must surely be the premium charged for the enjoyment provided. This is the value that the Club perceives for the location and surroundings. If the majority of their running costs are satisfied by the pitch fee, revenue
from the per capita portion may go towards improvements and expansion of the network; something that we might all be happy to subscribe to.0 -
If you are working out the cost of running the site the major costs are the fixed ones being the rent or interest on money borrowed to buy the site, council taxes, the cost of providing and maintaining facilities and staff and administration. Adding more
people to the pitch adds a bit of electricity, gas, water and waste disposal and a minmal amount of wear and tear.It is the standing costs that are the main cost and on that basis the current system penalises those who arrive with families and gives lone campers an unfair advantage. Given the occupation rate is more predictable than the total numbers of people on site
a higher pitch fee and lower per capita one would make predicting site income easier but the current system is the one the industry prefers. To me it inhibits families who pay too much and may not be good for the future of the club.I know my point would hurt single users but overall it would be more fair.
0 -
on avarage i pay £30 per night thats for 3 adults, compared to a b&b thats a big differance, an example of this is 4 nights over easter weekend £123 which = £30.75 per night which = £10.25 each per night, in a b&b £45 per night which is £135 per night and
£540 for the 4 nights, a saving of £417, singel people always pay more were ever thay go wether it be camping or cruising, its the way it has always been.0 -
on avarage i pay £30 per night thats for 3 adults, compared to a b&b thats a big differance, an example of this is 4 nights over easter weekend £123 which = £30.75 per night which = £10.25 each per night, in a b&b £45 per night which is £135 per night and
£540 for the 4 nights, a saving of £417, singel people always pay more were ever thay go wether it be camping or cruising, its the way it has always been.But you don't need to buy the B&B in order to stay in it
0 -
Wouldn't it be better to included 1 adult (the driver) within the pitch fee and then charge separately for all others, that way solos wouldn't be charged differantly
Yes, I do think that would be the most sensible approach! ...though it would logically disadvantage solos who I think at present get an excellent deal. I am not aware of many other places where solo caravaners pay significantly less than a couple?
0 -
So we have some saying the club pricing structure is unfair to solos and others saying it's unfair to families!
Conclusion - either (a) it must have got a reasonable compromise or (b) you can't please some folk whatever you do!
Anyone want to suggest (c)?
0 -
dont solos pay all the pitch fee and all the per capita fee, whereas a couple pays a pitch fee each but only half a site fee each.
families pay a larger total (usually paid by the parents) but, again, share the pitch fee, making it less per capita....
so, solos pay the most per person charges....
Whether 1 or 6 in a 'van the pich is the same item
0 -
(c) sites are expensive, whoever you are
...I do not find sites in the Uk expensive,its a lifestyle,that is becoming more popular,and with the suggested increase in the m/v fraternity with the far higher mostly, initial costs, it surely must not be a cost problem
0 -
I suppose the club could reduce site fees, or not put them up as much as they have, but this could well reduce investment in new sites, which is something we are all calling out for. An independent operator with one site is only looking at returning a profit
plus covering any required refurbishment. The CC on the other hand is looking at a much bigger picture. Perhaps this might result in us paying a bit more than we would like, so we can all benifit.0 -
An independent operator with one site is only looking at returning a profit plus covering any required refurbishment. The CC on the other hand is looking at a much bigger picture.
I don't really get this argument. Most large well managed companies increase profits due to economies of scale - more financial muscle to achieve cheaper prices from suppliers. Why again is the CC different?
0
