Message Forums

I am afraid I would never pay those prices  

Ross Park looks beautiful, but not wild enough for us, I'm afraid.  Less is more in our family... and that includes price.  Crikey, thirty-five quid a night for a family of four?! <:-O)))

FoO

Ross Park appears to be the sort of site that I describe as being too "manicured" for my tastes!  Didn't even bother looking at the prices.

Just did.  Double no-way!

I think it is time we got back to camping as it should be...a cheap holiday for those who can't afford the luxury of hotels and foreign packages, or simply want a holiday with a difference in the countryside.

If they did away with all these awards and issues about conservation etc; etc; etc; and just had campsites with clean and sufficient washing and toilet facilities without going overboard or trying to compete with the campsite down the road we would all be much better off!

Interesting that those not keen on the awards or the campsite chosen seem to be tenters. If the C&CC figures recently published are correct tenters only make up 25% of the pitches booked on C&CC sites. If that followed through to the commercial sector then its pretty obvious that a site like Ross Park would win as the majority voting would be caravanners/morothomers? An ex colleague has a seasonal pitche there and she loves it.

David

I think the fact that fewer tenters than caravanners use C&CC sites speaks for itself. I would suggest it has more to do with the quality of tent pitches on C&CC sites or the fact that more pitches on C&CC sites are provided for wheeled units rather than tents. What the C&CC does or doesn't do has no bearing on general campsites.

The point I am trying to make, Jasmin Park, is that many campsites think that by gaining stars and points and awards they are going to make more money, otherwise what is the point. To gain points, stars, and awards they have to spend money on creating campsites which then become holiday parks...a Butlins with tents. They even call them parks, Jasmin

Whatever it costs them has to be passed down to the camper so the tariffs become more and more expensive. They also feel that having gained awards they are somehow better than all the rest and therefore have no qualms about charging high fees.

Yes you are right. There are plenty of sites that manage to keep their prices down and still have decent facilities. It is also right that there should be choice and if people want to pay high prices they should be free to do so. My annoyance is having to pay high prices on sites which aren't a Butlins with tents because they are striving to keep up with the higher priced sites or become one.

Yes, this does happen in all business. That's why we no longer have corner shops and the big supermarkets have taken over.

Quote: Originally posted by David Klyne on 06/2/2012

---

Interesting that those not keen on the awards or the campsite chosen seem to be tenters. If the C&CC figures recently published are correct tenters only make up 25% of the pitches booked on C&CC sites. If that followed through to the commercial sector then its pretty obvious that a site like Ross Park would win as the majority voting would be caravanners/morothomers? An ex colleague has a seasonal pitche there and she loves it.

David

---

What has the membership of the C&CC got to do with the AA camping awards?

Most campers dont have membership as it caters more for caravan/motorhome owners

So your logic is that if 25% are tenters on C&CC sites, they must also be on all other non C&CC sites?

I think you'll find the more scenic, get away from it all, non ehu, no chemical cesspits and back to nature sites are largely campers

These are the type of site awards that would be of interest.

But in retrospect perhaps not, as advertising resulting in over populating of them in the busy months, leading to price increases would destroy them anyway