Help shape future facilities at UK Club campsites

The Club does have a problem. But it’s not one that Members will naturally relate towards. It needs to shed its perceived stuffy, snobbish image and do what a lot of other big players in the holiday business are doing and relate more to encompassing younger people, all ethnicities and all budgets.

Long term Members don’t need to be convinced it offers decent value for money. But looking in from the outside, to quote family members “it’s not for us. Too staid, too full of folks with lots of money, not very exciting, too many rules” or “they don’t welcome our kind of outfits” or “people don’t seem very friendly”. All regular comments about the Club, and to be found on a lot of review platforms. (I don’t include CLs here, just the Club Sites)

Any kind of change can be perceived as “revolutionary” by a minority of existing Members, so it’s going to be interesting to see what might eventually occur. But it does need to change and move forwards if it wants to survive. 

We ponder on our Membership renewal every year now. Club Sites are of little interest outside of the Winter periods, not vfm enough for us now. There are lots of other options with a MH. The CLs are almost solely the reason we keep our Membership up. Hundreds like us.

I think you define the situation very well. I wonder if that perception problem was offered to the ‘consultants’ as part of their brief or if many prefer it just the way it is? When you’ve reached the stage where members stop using club sites because they’re too expensive, I’d say that’s a problem worth looking at specifically. 

I am glad you picked up on the “perception” comment SB. Most long term Members, like us, know that things have changed greatly down the years, and most Club Sites are friendly places on the whole. Most of the rules are there to keep things safe and friendly, but they have evolved into high security, regimented, under staffed, high priced, micro managed places with an overall tendency towards expensive new outfits and occupants of a certain age. Some of these aspects have been a necessity outside the control really of the Club, (traveller incursions and thefts need security).

Its the pricing policy that hits us the hardest. We originally got into camping and caravanning because it was cheap, spending higher amounts on overseas holidays, cottages and specialist breaks. But the Club are eroding our Club Site choices. The no facility Sites are going, we have to pay big money for a pitch with EHU, despite being off Site with our outfit unplugged during most days, and older outfits like ours don’t use as much electric anyway, with or without a solar panel. We aren’t folks who sit in our outfit all day, heating on, feet up watching TV. (Nothing wrong with that, it’s a choice) But it’s either pay up, or end up in some tiny eco pitch not fit for any other purpose, usually grass, so you risk sinking into the mire! This is where choice would come in, full EHU, metered EHU, or at the very least a decent non EHU pitch.

It’s not as though Members haven’t been indicating to the Club that change is needed, particularly as MHs and campers are booming. A change of name didn’t cut the mustard, it requires more, a lot more.

I asked a question some time ago, about the loss of the non facility Sites. Basically, the reply was to use CLs. Therein lies our frustration around Club Sites. 

Discovery Research is a qualitative and quantitative market research consultancy”.

That could mean that is a company that you consult when you want to do market research, and nothing to do at all with this company being consultants about caravanning/MH/club related matters in the way you posted on page 5, the club is asking them only how to get data.

A  sensible move by the club in my view if they want to get data they can actually work with and be useful to move forward with and get the views of it's members/users.

You were there were you Corners? While consultants/surveys were probably not the sole reason for their downfall, it didn't do them any good so was a waste of money.

peedee

It would indeed Brue, but would those who post on here be a true representative sample of the users of club sites? For one thing this sample size is just too small. One quick example to show this is pick a few club site and look at the reviews of club sites and often it's names that just do not post on CT?

I've just picked three that I've used recently and there are names that never post on CT and I haven't yet found 'one of us'.

No I wasn't and never said I was, hence the who knows part of my post. But you were so maybe 'you' didn't take any of their advice or perhaps the advice kept the company going for a while or that whatever it was selling was just not viable? Were you there when it closed? 

But like I said who knows, and all I was just pointing your misleading post that linked one with another.

But that is OT. You said you haven't taken part so really it could be said you can't complain when things don't improve or when things happen on club sites in the future that you don't agree with.  

It's bit like when sixth formers used to complain about the government and then when they had the chance to vote didn't.

Nowadays you could exchange the word "consultant" for "executive" (as in the Discovery Research blurb) it's not really relevant. This is an information gathering exercise from club members and it may not be the present members who can really take the club forward. My personal thoughts are that members elect other members to run the club and I woud hope that this quite large group of people both executive and non-executive can look to the future on our behalf. I don't know whether I'm correct but I think some of the core membership who influence decisions may come from local centres and rally groups rather than site users and I wonder if there is an experience gap betwen regular site users and regular rally goers and a conflict of interest which also involves costs? Just my thoughts. I hope there is a good cross section of users represented in this "research." 

No, it’s not relevant as is the phrase ‘trusted partner’. All that’s necessary in a healthy organisation is for the senior management team to understand its core business, have vision and make it their business to maintain regular contact with customers & staff via mechanisms built into the day-to-day running of the organisation. It obviously helps if you respond and communicate effectively when issues become apparent.