Has the club made the right move?

I have to comment on your last two paragraphs. What does it matter how people spend their time once on site. If people want to use the site as a base and go off to visit the surrounding area during the day they can do as it is their choice. If people want to stay on site and relax outside or in their vans they can do it is their choice. There is no right or wrong way to spend your time at a club site. If people want to use the facilities in their van they can do it as it is their choice, if people want to use the sites facilities they can do as it is their choice. There is no right or wrong way to use the facilities provided by the club. It's great that you have found a way to tour that suits your needs and budget  but I think you have to accept that your way may not be the way that other people want to tour. 

+1

The club offers this, other providers offer something different, in my view mainly to a lower standard, and of course to a higher standard as well. Choose as you like. 

The club even for me is by no means luxury but certainly the standard I want. And nothing to do with remaining on site or not and nothing to do with the on board facilities.    

"Unfortunately the Club seems to have a bit of a history of misreading how members receive new things. The name change was a prime example. The logic was clear to see but the (un) acceptance, in some quarters, was off the scale." - DK

"The alternative would be, at best, that the thoughts and wishes of the membership had been misread or were not properly considered which is I guess at the heart of the OP." - mickysf

Might I suggest that this Club has been no different from a lot of organisations in attempting to bring about change. Changing the processes and technologies are generally easier to do - especially centrally - although I suspect some would question this Club's success with certain "technologies"!!

What a lot of big organisations forget is the third - and most important aspect - people - and here the Club has demonstrated that it is, sadly, no better then many other big organisations - which is a bit sad considering it reckons it's a member's organisation. There is no doubt in my mind that the new booking system has caused a lot of grief for members - and has probably played a part in reduced occupancy. This could have been avoided if more time had been spent communicating with (and listening to) the membership rather than simply concentrating on the mechanics of the process.

I’m not sure they concentrated on the mechanics of the process, R&R. 😕

It doesn’t matter how people spend their time. But the point I think was being made is that it may affect how people see the sites. If it is a destination in its own right you perhaps want more from it than if it is merely a means to an end.

So is it being suggested  that the club offers sites aimed at Caravaners and sites aimed at Motorhomers?. I would not support that at all. I think the club does a good at providing sites that are inclusive for all and long let it stay that way.

I agree with David about the change of name as some Members were vitriolic about it and blamed motorhomers for it, who, as far as I know, knew nothing about it unitl it actually happened and (in my case) didn't want the name change either.

As well as having my M/H for 10 years, I have also, for 20 years, had a share in a narrowboat and I cannot help but think that in many ways the Club seems to be on a par with the former British Waterways, now the Canal and Rivers Trust! 

Instead of asking the people who work for BW and later the CRT and/or the boaters, (the people who actually use the canals and rivers and pay a very hefty licence for the privilage), for their advice and input, they just make decisions which sometimes appear to have been thought up by Basil Fawlty!

I wonder how many Wardens, Assistant Wardens and/or Members the Club were actually asked for their views about speculative booking and what way would be best to try and help curtail it, if they ever were?

Not sure how you gleaned that from Hja's post??🤷🏻‍♂️

irrespective of whether you have a MH or caravan or you go off site or not, the physical set of provided facilities will influence whether the site itself is a 'destination site' which might add to its attraction beyond other attributes like location.

destination sites are popular abroad as they really do have so much more to offer customers while on site...given the choice of two similarly located sites where one has a pool, a bar, a restaurant and the weather to enjoy them, these facilities will influence customers.

the above would be available to all irrespective of 'how' one tours.

the issue (here and abroad) is more likely to be how do customers 'value' sites that have none of these against those that do?

as Kjell says, sites vary in 'destination appeal'....we stay at THS sites purely for location (they have no facilities) but we stay at other sites as they offer far more than some other providers...for the same (or less) money....hence the VFM decision.

With a couple of exceptions I find it hard to believe that people use CAMC sites as their destination for a holiday. Surely it’s the location of the site and surrounding area that attracts people rather than the site itself? They are, after all, touring sites provided by a touring organisation so I can’t see how the term "destination" can apply to sites.