Dynamic pricing to be introduced

I never quite understand the rationale that Corners expounds suggesting that CT is 'not' reflective of the membership as a whole

It's very simple, and based on the basics of obtaining a statistical sample to reflect the views of the whole population, otherwise it's pointless and useless.  It's all to do with the size of sample and how the makeup of that sample should reflect the overall membership.

Firstly sample size. How many regulars are there on CT, 10, 20, I would say somewhere about 30 to 40? What would you say CY. And what percentage is that of the whole membership?  That's the first stumbling block to me.

From what I can gather, the regular posters are mainly retired, second big point, and do not tour with their children, third big point. Male female split, income... The list just goes on. CT is not a fair reflection of the membership, I cannot see how anyone can argue it is?

I wonder why that is?

Easy again two different samples and populations perhaps? And of course the club magazine is an advert for the club so it is not going to publish anything going against that. When you worked in banking did your bank publish negative reviews?

But again at the end of the day it's how many outfits roll onto club sites not posts on here or on the magazine, and that appears to be doing alright?

The Club re named itself. The next step would be to re name CT as Complain Together. 

I think it's known already as Critics Together in the higher echelons of the club as posted the other week?

CT contributors probably do reflect the membership there's no way of proving otherwise. Of course it's easy to be critical of contributions just as it might be easy to do the same with CAMC itself. CAMC have provided an outlet for a variety of views,  ideas and requests for help and advice etc. Recent threads concerning the New Booking system have been valid, it's irrefutable that there have been errors in it's production hence the need for feedback and help.

This thread is about dynamic pricing, quite an interesting subject which the club have said they are introducing. Reactions to it have been mixed.

We used to call the magazine “Pedants Monthly” back in the 1980’s, so nothing much has changed. 🤣 

Mind, I do think that certain decisions taken this last year or so isn’t driving much in the way of plaudits, although the Sites are still nice on the whole. There are two distinct aspects of the Club nowadays, the Sites (still nice if more expensive) and Club Management and governance (no comment). 

There are appear to be this idea that what is posted about on CT somehow is representative of the membership in general, I think that is just nonsense really.

So why is the Club about to trial electricity meters? Why were deposts introduced? Why can you now select pitch type on booking? These were and are items probably initially and frequently requested on CT over the years. I don't think it is nonsense at all.

peedee

You're being selective in only looking at certain things requested to justify your view and it has to be said things you approve of. Also you've posted selectivity while missing out all the valid examples given to CY showing why it is not representative. 

But what about all the other things 'requested' with as much vigour that have not happened?

Charging for and a limit on dogs, club sites becoming adult only, and what about moving the arrival time back to 12 (lots of posts for that), what about the issues of weekenders blocking longer stayers, what about the removal of deposits since introduction (just as requests as those asking for them in the first place), what about going back to the old booking system, and the greatest discussion point of all one of all why aren't prices going down? Surely by your logic as this is discussed and requested so much there should be a result by now?

All of those I recall have been 'requested' with as many posts as the ones you quoted yet they have not happened.

It is nonsense to say just because things are 'requested' on CT that they happen, in my view

In any case as I posted with numerous examples statistically CT cannot requepreset the membership. Age, sex, working, retired, family, touring with children. How many on CT are below a certain age or with families? it fails on all of these. I'm sorry PD but you cannot argue with maths, it is the ultimate judge. Can you give any reasons (apart from some things being requested and happening) that is it statistically a valid sample of club membership? 

To answer your question I would say they are being introduced because of a few simple principles, operational reasons and/or profit.

PD, I think it’s highly unlikely that any of those measures can be accredited to the posts on CT. Direct representation to CAMC, surveys, AGMs, even Facebook will have much higher regard than us few posters here. The Club Council will have had quite a large say in those matters too but us few, nah.

You are right of course but we have worked it out that with the much cheaper site prices that can be found in most European countries it costs us no more overall. 

The cheaper sites compensate for the ferry cost. Our breakdown is covered by our bank account as is the holiday insurance, which we would have anyway. 

If we were only going for a couple of weeks then it would be different but we go for anything from 6 to 11 weeks. 

The comparison was worked out using CAMC sites. 

I don’t dispute what you say but, apart from discounting the cost of travelling, the poster was drawing a comparison between CAMC site prices and those in Europe which we know is not comparing like with like for numerous operational reasons.