Steamer Quay Upgrade

The Club aren’t doing anything wrong, just marketing to their strengths, probably re writing strategic reviews, coping strategies for being in what is now a very big, highly competitive selling environment. Evolving like any any other business would do to survive.

In my time it’s gone from something that offered a slightly unwelcoming front to two very young tourers with a less than conventional outfit, to not being at all welcoming to tent campers (we ditched our Membership), to a friendlier, cheap chain of decent priced sites covering UK, (we rejoined) to feeling it needed to make sure everyone knew you could use it with four wheels (name change), to trying to push the “family” holiday aspect (no idea how this was taken up), to embracing more types of holiday accommodation (pods, cabins, Airstreams, yurts, etc…..) and now it’s concentrating on its current core market of affluent (in the main) tour but without the chores or any possible unknown elements of risk or surprise demograph. 

The Club has a large percentage of users who like to stay put on a site, no matter what outfit they are in, more than other site providers. Hence it’s upgrade of Steamer Quay, all the ease of touring, and located close to a walkable nice place. Another YRP or Baltic Wharf, which have long been very popular, and easy for the kind of MH owners who leave their outfits on-site. 

Simplified potted history I grant you, but it has had to change to keep going. It will win or lose customers every time it evolves one way or another. 

makes you wonder why those folk in their very expensive German vans head across the channel rather than spend (another) small fortune on club site fees.

Not really, it’s probably because it’s what they want to do. Similarly we took our, not quite so expensive, MH over there and spent £16 a night. In the same year we toured here, utilising quite a few CAMC sites and spent £35 a night. We did both because it’s what we wanted to do. We use both clubs sites in the UK because we like them and enjoy touring here as much as over there. We intend to do the same this year.

I don’t think the price of an outfit is that relevant. We own an elderly MH, and a very elderly caravan, purely because camping to us is a cheap way of staying in and exploring an area. We went down the buy it, run it yourself route to avoid some of the (to us) irritating pitfalls that come with newer outfits. Plus we have been doing it for decades, and our pension lump sums haven’t gone on one aspect of our retirement as it’s not what we wanted. I simply don’t believe I would enjoy myself any the more if I was in a brand new, £200k outfit. 

All we want is a value for money stopover in a place we have chosen to visit that gives us all our current needs, not too many aspects provided so that the price we have to pay is subsidising other users, is legal, safe and reasonably attractive. We are not the Club’s demograph and accept it.

As regards Totnes specifically, it’s a lovely, different little place, with some interesting places to visit, attractive shops. We have only done it as day visitors, as part of a long holiday up on Dartmoor. We like to get out and about beyond our immediate holidaying location, so I doubt SQ would attract us away from this kind of visiting. 

+1 Steve, so very simple yet so very true. 

It's their outfit and there is no correct manner in which to use it, if they want to 'recreate' and use their MH as a caravan then that's it. Equally use all the freedom as you see fit. Spend as one sees fit. There is no reason that one should take a touring holiday here or there based on anything other than one's personal wishes.

There does appear to be this myth that any outfit has to be used in one particular way in a certain type of site and otherwise sadly it's a reason to mock and use labels.

No one is forced to use any site, club or not. Not forced to pay the membership fee either. But as membership is at an all time high and at the last count there are more MHs than caravans so the club must be doing something exceedingly well to attract them. And no it's not a case of most of them to use CLs, club sites are quite full of motorhomes and often get to 90% on SPs.

Again so very simple, it's because they want to. No other reason is required.

I will reserve judgement as to whether I used SQ not. I expect the price in the low season to be of the order of £30p.n. based on similar pitching at Dornafield or Ramslade. Both are not very competitive compared to where I normally stay. I think I am unlikely to use it at those prices given that if I wanted to visit Totnes for the day, Longmarsh car parking is always an option for day time parking and I would not have to wait to get on site until 1p.m. either.

peedee

Between 1987 and 2016 (29 years) we had many lovely holidays in Europe. I don't think the cheapness of sites was ever taken into account as a reason to cross the Channel. Certainly when we were at work, so time for holidays was limited, despite a fairly generous holiday entitlement, the cost of crossings and insurance tended to cancel out any advantage that cheaper sites may have had. Obviously a bit different in retirement when you are able to spend more time away.  In the early days I don't think sites in Europe were that much different, especially if booked through the Club and before the various discount schemes emerged. This was of course before the Euro when exchange values could vary a lot.  We went abroad to experience the countries we were visiting and we travelled far and wide to most parts of France, extensively in Germany almost right across to the Polish border, extensively in Austria and quite a bit of Italy. What sites did we like best, it was those near to towns and cities where we could hop on a bus or a train to explore, we did this even when we had a car and caravan. This is still our MO in the UK. We like sites where we can use local transport to get into nearby towns and cities which brings us back neatly to Steam Quay and its like. It seems to me a ideal location to explore that area and an easy walk into the town on those days you might not want to travel further afield. So, if Steamer Quay is £10 a night more than some site, even of equal quality, out in the countryside where travel is more restricted is £70 a week going to cause me nightmares, of course not, its not even a reasonable meal out for two in a decent restaurant!

David 

So, if Steamer Quay is £10 a night more than some site, even of equal quality, out in the countryside where travel is more restricted is £70 a week going to cause me nightmares, of course not, its not even a reasonable meal out for two in a decent restaurant!

It wouldn't give me nightmares either David. I am more concerned about paying for services I do not need and the future direction of the Club. To many £70 is a lot, it would easily pay for 3 more nights on the site I use or a meal in their on site restaurant.

peedee

 

So, if Steamer Quay is £10 a night more than some site, even of equal quality, out in the countryside where travel is more restricted is £70 a week going to cause me nightmares, of course not, its not even a reasonable meal out for two in a decent restaurant!

Paying £10 per day for something that I don't need or want is not something I would do any more than I would put a £10 note through a shredder each day.  This year we hope to be away for around 160 days and that equates to £1600 wasted or a good few decent meals out or a host of other things.

However, the other side of the coin is paying £10 more a day for something we do want. Which would  be the case for us if we get around to visiting the revamped SQ. Everyone is different LLM, it’s only a waste if you don’t enjoy it.

The user and all related content has been deleted