Less fussy members

"I could be wrong but if the Club were able to open a completely new site with no inbuilt restrictions they would always build as a full facility site as they know the majority of members would prefer that and they could extract the maximum financial return from such a site."

 

I don't think you're wrong at all, David. The noticeable thing about virtually all the newly opened commercial sites, so often praised as superior to club sites, is their stress on large fully serviced HS pitches and excellent facilities ( which, of course, come at a price!)

"...we will only go on a C.L. with NO E.H.U. and pay £6.00 per night max ..."

There must be very few that charge £6 max, surely? 

I was bored before the OH arrived and I bought this month's Caravan magazine, it has details of various sites and gives prices per night.

In the order they are given:

£32, £28.50, £39, £35, ..... these are all classed as 'super sites' but looking at the picture (which can lie) thy don't seem any better than club sites. Some are 'super' expensive too, Ruda Pak Devon is £61, Freshwater Park Dorest is £54 (three nights min) Kiln Park Wales is £82 !!!!

 

 

I don't agree, if you remove choice you are more likely to lose members. It becomes very boring when all sites become the same

peedee

David was talking about a completely new site built from scratch, PD. So there would be no possibility of reducing choice, would there? If the club wants to attract new families as opposed to providing more for the "already converted" it surely has to emulate what so many of those, allegedly, superior commercial sites are doing?

M, even a new site should have a choice of pitches and facilities. Might it not be the thin edge of the wedge to start building or upgrading all sites with hardstandings, no grass, all electric, and full facilities?

peedee

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

Yes a choice of pitches, grass or HS, serviced or not, yes, I can accept the argument for a choice of EHU or not (far easier than metering,  IMHO) but I can't see any way that a new site could be basic, no facility and attract sufficient newcomers to caravanning to be profitable. Otherwise surely the new commercials would be jumping on the bandwagon to provide them. 

...but the difference is that thise sites don't have dogs, EHU, pitch type or awning built into their prices..

for those who dont have dogs/kids, or require EHU, awning or HS the prices can be attactive.

I think the 'choice/flexibility' being referred to (even on any new site with 'full facilities') is that for customers to take and pay for options (dog, awning, EHU, Hs etc) only if they want them.....still a full facilities site but with more customer choice over which options they take up.

when price comparisons are done (as they are with club sites) it always seems like it has to be for someone with 2 kids, a couple of dogs, and awning, a hard standing and EHU...

yes, with the club, it's only the kids that are charged..but other sites can give flexibility over other key choices, like dogs, awnings, EHU, Hs/grass etc.....which obviously makes them attractive to folk who don't have these things....

all these 'extras' must be built in to club prices, perhaps it's because the 'typical' cc member has a dog or two, an awning, doesn't like grass, has to have EHU, that the club goes for a one size fits all price....

we use CCC from time to time (fitting in all these differing providers/locations is hard work) and usually go for a non awning pitch, on grass and no EHU in summer....

this is considerably cheaper than paying for the bits we don't need...

Is it not the case that where the Club have non-electric grass pitches they have to offer them at quite low prices to interest people? If I am correct surely it suggests there is very little demand for that type of pitch. I am pretty sure the Club have shrewd idea of what the majority of its members want and they do their best to provide that. 

David