RV'ers wanted (or should be)

westernrvparkowner wrote:

noe-place wrote:
Did you ever notice when checking online for vacation locations they always lead with available HOTELS in that locale? It's obvious hoteliers hate the rving community and want nothing to do with us. I also think the hotel industry must have a huge lobby in DC while I don't imagine there are any lobbying for rv campers.

Like it or not, Hotels are the economic driver in the tourist industry. They take in 100s of times more revenue than the RV business could ever hope to achieve. The hotel customer spends much more money at the number two economic driver, the food and beverage industry. An RVer can and does eat meals prepared in their RV, often from food they brought with them. Hotel guests eat almost exclusively at restaurants. Hotels don't hate the RV industry, they just don't give it a second thought, because it doesn't effect them one way or another.

Just like rvers don't give the hotels a second thought because we will never need them while they will always need travellers dollars.:R:R

Make a wild guess here, but if an campground or RV company wants to advertise on the state sites anywhere, it would have to be accurate. Many private RV campgrounds 'stretch the truth' quite a bit - WIFI, cable, other activities etc - which often turn out less than as advertised.

I'd think the penalty for false ads on a state site would be stiff. Or, maybe the state investigates before accepting ads. Hard to tell, but it sure seems it would be a good place for camping info for tourists, so would wonder why it doesn't appear often.

Matter of fact, don't know if states have a fee for sitting on the state site, and if so, hotels and restaurants have a larger ad budget than campgrounds, probably.

sch911 wrote:
Michigan spends hundreds of millions of dollars doing just that!

Pure Michigan

Pure Michigan Ad

Wyoming is the only other state that appears RV friendly in their ads!

So let me understand this. First there is the question of not enough advertising cash spent to lure campers. Then complaining the camping or access to said resources is not free.

Pennsyvlania advertises rv'ing daily. In addition, displays many van tow vehicles.

I too get emails and slick paper pamphlets from my neighboring states dept of tourism but virtually all of it is aimed at the car/plane tourist.
Here are some simple facts -- a decent campground is an economic engine for themselves and vendors around them. IF the CG is state-run and can operate at break-even or lose-a-little that just puts more of our $$ into the surrounding area. States should really have an epipahny that their Park system isn't just for school field trips, environmentalist or the retired. The State park campgrounds can attract and hold a large number of us dummies who (sometimes) spend money like drunken sailors. The private CG owner has a vested interest that Interstate fuel centers should be "encouraged" to have areas designed around RV'ers; and restuarants should be "encouraged" to have an area that will fit RV rigs, the list goes on and on -routes that avoid sharp 90 degree turns and are well marked. I'd drive miles more to stay on a route that I knew was designed to handle my needs.
There is even something to be said about our own states working to keep us instate. Georgia gets a little more fuel tax money during Spring Break week but the real money heads south to Florida. Last time I looked Georgia has an ocean coast line,as well. It just has a state park system that is 20 years behind the times and is not interested in keeping me home.
Someone mentioned earlier that we (RV'ers) don't have a lobby firm to take care of us. This is true. However, States, private campground owners and the RV manufacturers should come to realize that they are interdependent, they have a symbiotic relationship - they need each other to survive. If there weren't neat places for me to go RV'ing - I wouldn't own one. No CG's = No RV's = no Good Sams. There is your lobbying force: Private CG owners (smart state park systems)/manufacturers/Marcus(Good Sam).

I think everybody missed it.

There are 2.6% of us in the U.S. with an RV.

That is a pretty small market segment. Add to that the longevity of RV products (how often do you buy a new sewer hose or AC) and you can see why there is a lack of commercials.

Basically, advertising is just not worth it.

I also think the 'cheap' viewpoint is flawed. I know in my case I spend MORE than I would in a hotel room because I am not spending it all on hotel room.

The only party that should dislike RV'ers is competitors for beds.

...and even hotels are starting to put in RV pads.

Disney World has an entire RV park on site!! (didya know that?)

I don't know why you think states don't "go after" RVer's. I'm getting information all the time from Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Michigan.

If you want emails, and junk mail, you need to put yourself on mailing lists. They still won't be knocking on your door, only people doing that are the ones looking for cash handouts.

noe-place wrote:
Did you ever notice when checking online for vacation locations they always lead with available HOTELS in that locale? It's obvious hoteliers hate the rving community and want nothing to do with us. I also think the hotel industry must have a huge lobby in DC while I don't imagine there are any lobbying for rv campers.

Like it or not, Hotels are the economic driver in the tourist industry. They take in 100s of times more revenue than the RV business could ever hope to achieve. The hotel customer spends much more money at the number two economic driver, the food and beverage industry. An RVer can and does eat meals prepared in their RV, often from food they brought with them. Hotel guests eat almost exclusively at restaurants. Hotels don't hate the RV industry, they just don't give it a second thought, because it doesn't effect them one way or another.

DW and I have spent the past several days sketching out our trip to the Pacific Northwest. We are leaving May 19th, and plan on traveling that area until Sept. We have identified 14 National Parks we intend to visit as well as many many State Parks. Surprisingly, what we have discovered is that it is often economically unfeasible to stay in state parks due to the camping fee being compounded with either a "use" fee or a "vehicle" fee. $25 to $30 a night is certainly a reasonable, even very good, price to pay for a site that might not have sewer hookups but does provide water/electric and perhaps a dump station, but then to add another $5 per vehicle per day and suddenly we are paying $40 a night when full hookup commercial sites are available for less. Of course, many of these facilities offer no hookups at all but still maintain the price structure with the added use or vehicle fee making it impossible to justify unless one feels the need to commune with nature. I have no problem with this style of camping and even enjoy my brief stints at boondocking, but I will choose the National Park using my "Geezer" pass and do it for the $8 to $10 rate. I will not be in any one state long enough to justify buying their annual pass, so, they, in effect, lose my business. What the state system loses goes into the local economy so they are happy, and next year the state fees will need to increase because they have too many empty sites and it costs almost as much to maintain an empty campground as a full one.