Additional people on pitch
Looking at the booking costs for no-facility sites such as St Agnes or Stover the nightly cost of having a second person on the pitch seems to be about £7.
Given that the only additional cost for a second person would be for the amount of water they might use £7 seems rather a lot.
Or am I missing something ?
Comments
-
I don't think the price the Club charges for the individual elements that make up the nightly fee you pay has any connection to the "real costs" of each guest? It's just the method the Club uses to arrive at an overall site fee. There are other models. Most commercial sites tend to price a pitch to include two adults. However they also tend to have a menu of prices for things like awnings and dogs in addition to the nightly fee, whereas both Clubs don't charge extra for those things. Some of the more basic sites used to have inclusive pricing with a set fee per night, unfortunately most of those sites have closed. I imagine the majority of people staying at a Club site do so as a couple? If that is the case the Club could follow the way commercial sites do it but offer a discount for single occupancy. I think that would be more transparent but would probably require a major rewriting of the Booking System?
David
0 -
This is similar to the £11 for a wife thread and, excepting the facility block side of it, many of the comments will be common to both.
At the end of the day it is what it is and, if the total price is acceptable, simply pay it. If not acceptable, your options are open.
1 -
"I don't think the price the Club charges for the individual elements that make up the nightly fee you pay has any connection to the "real costs" of each guest? It's just the method the Club uses to arrive at an overall site fee."
But isn't that exactly the point that the OP is questioning? Shouldn't the club at least try to make it look like the charge reflects their additional costs, together with some appropriate mark up, rather than just invent a price based on some mysterious "method".
Moreover it is not enough just to say that "if not acceptable, your options are open". That kind of approach inevitably leads to profiteering because, often, the customer's options are limited. I am reminded of the cartoon where a dehydrated, dying man approaches an oasis in the desert on his hands and knees only to see a sign saying "Subject to Dynamic Pricing"!
1 -
"Moreover it is not enough just to say that "if not acceptable, your options are open". That kind of approach inevitably leads to profiteering because, often, the customer's options are limited."
What else would you have me say? I thought it was a polite way of saying something that would otherwise definitely draw fire from all corners!
To say "often, the customer's options are limited" is, frankly, ridiculous as no one needs to go to a particular site or, most times, even to a particular area. Ultimately, we all have the option of staying home if we don’t like what’s available. Therefore, options are most definitely open.
1 -
I think some members would be happier if the price for single visitors was raised to match that for a couple. Or would they moan about that too?
1 -
It's not just water that the second person charge is made. I assume this person doesn't bag and take home their rubbish or might need the assistance of a warden, especially in an emergency, or is able to stay at a relatively secure site or use the facilities for their ablutions or make use of a dog walk if they bring one or just generally contribute to the overheads and maintenance costs of running the site.
With regard to EuroT's comments I think it a great idea that the club offer a reduction of some sort to a single traveller and it doesn't really matter if the club do it by either charging for a second person or offering a £7 (this may differ depending on site) discount for a single person. After all if they stayed at a hotel etc they usually have to pay a premium for being a single occupier.
0 -
It is not ridiculous at all; economics is all about limitations to choice. My analogy, whilst extreme, said it all and if that doesn't make the point for you then nothing will.
I am aware that it is a common response of yours to anyone complaining about prices - namely that they have choices and are not forced into the purchase in question.
I do not believe that to be a valid response.
0 -
Well I've often posted that if you do not like club prices then don't buy and go elsewhere and find places where prices are more to your liking? What is so wrong with that? That's what I do all the time when buying anything. Unless enough people do that then club prices will stay the same as they are.
Profiteering can only happen when something is in short supply and as club sites only account for way less than 10% at the last count of caravan sites then it cannot be.
I do not believe that to be a valid response.
Ok then, what is your valid response?
1 -
You must believe what you will.
A common response of mine? Well, I’m not impressed by the lack of accuracy of your observations. My reply was 100% valid and I stand by it. At least my words were realistic.1
