Am I too picky about cg's?

[Stclairm]

I rate cg's based on physical condition, amenities and if they actually have them, site size and condition, and bathhouses. It seems quite a few are in a bad need of renovation and don't follow through with what they say they have. There are always excuses for wifi not reaching past their office. After going to a few really nice ones, most of the rest just don't cut it. I guess once you experience a great standard, you judge the others accordingly. I just stayed at an old KOA in Boone and wasn't impressed with the facilities, the site was truly tiny, and the wifi didn't work at all. My site was more suited for a 15ft TT, not my 28ft and truck. I raised the right side tires as high as possible and deflated my left side tires to 10psi and still wasn't close to level. Gravel interior roads makes for an absolute muddy mess when it rains and so it did all weekend. Same is true for Zooland in Asheboro NC. I guess you get what you pay for at $26 a night at one and $35 at the other. I'm guessing due to the economy, a lot of owners just do what they have to to get by. The crazy thing is I haven't been to one that wasn't at least 80% full my last 3 outings.
The cg's that have set the bar for me are: Fancy Gap VA KOA, Daddy Joe's at Tabor City NC, Myrtle Beach Travel Park, Holiday Travel Park Emerald Isle NC (also the most expensive by a lot!), and Mama Gerties in Swannanoa NC.

[sher9570]

Doug33 wrote:
I laugh at these discussions of $40 a night. Those days are long gone here in NJ, especially in the peak season near the shore areas. The CGs are bringing in $60-$80/night, and that is usually only for 2 adults, so kids and visitors cost extra. Then again, most of these CGs have all kinds of programs for kids, which I don't use.

I just booked Jellystone in Delaware for $65/night for a full hookup pull through site. There are a lot of things for kids to do there, but we don't have any kids to take advantage of it. I'm going to start looking into state CGs that provide at least electric. DW will not go without her A/C! 😉

We have stayed there on two of our trips south and again on the way home to NY.
For an overnight it is a ridiculous price to pay but there is very little choice in Delaware or Maryland to stay.
This past year we went down 88 to 81 then on to 95....so many choices just within the $35 to$45 range.
It is a nice CG and I loved going over to the coast but it's too pricey now.

Sher

[ctpres]

Agree with a lot of what has been said - BUT - We frequently find ourselves in an area with no or poor reviews and take a chance. People and management can make a world of difference and in some cases make marginal parks outstanding. For example, if rated only on what you see Glen's Cove UP MI. would be a drive-by, but we went from one night to a week to almost a month and will stay a month or more next time. We often stumble on great finds that others have bypassed or given low ratings. Beauty is in the eyes of the camper.

[westernrvparkow]

monkey44 wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
WRVPO Quote: "Actually, I get no more customers. My old restrooms had very high ratings, but they were dated. We sell out every day in the season."

I think my point is, keep he facilities maintained, you keep customers, let it run down and you'll eventually lose customers. So, the fact that you stay full means you continue upkeep, at least it's a factor.

And regardless of how anyone utilizes the "cost factors", I'd bet you'd rather keep full at a lower rate than have empty sites at a higher rate. Doesn't take many empty sites to drop the revenue below a profit margin, as the overhead stays the same no matter how many sites are full or empty (of course, full sites W/E change it a little, but not a lot).

At $30 per night rate at a $5 margin, if you have one empty site, it takes six full sites to break even for that one empty site. SO keeping sites full is better than raising rates and losing customers, although I'm 'guessing' at the margin here.

I would much rather have empty sites at a higher price. With 100 Sites, 80% occupancy at $50.00 is much more profitable than 100% occupancy at $40.00. Revenue is the same, and expenses are 20% less. When you lower prices, that pricing cut goes against all the sites. If I were to lower the price $5.00 when I have 80% occupancy and 100 sites, I would need to sell $400.00 worth of sites, just to get the revenue back to what it was at the higher rate. Then I would have to sell more sites to generate any additional profit. So you would be looking at a situation where a $5.00 price cut would need to increase occupancy by a minimum of 15% (80 rented sites at higher rate, so a 15% increase in occupancy will be 12 additional customers. It took 10 to get the revenue to break even, now we have the revenue of the two additional sites to cover the costs of 12 additional guests). We MIGHT be at a break even figure now revenue-wise, but I now have 15% more people to check in, a 15% increase in the usage of facilities, 15% more trash, 15% more sites to clean etc. This either means we all work harder, for no extra money, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or we will have to hire additional staff, pushing that revenue and income equation further out of whack.
And if that price increase didn't generate a 15% increase in business, which is the most likely situation, we are losing money. And none of this takes into consideration what might be the most important consideration of all, what changes to our guest's demographics will lower prices create. The fact of the matter is, the low price product attracts the low price consumer. The store sales will suffer, and the client mix may very well go down hill.

That makes sense only if you consider gross and not net ... if you divide the overhead (which means mortgage, power, pool maintenance, etc) buy 80% instead of 100%, your making 80 people pay 100% the overhead, so the net per site is less. So, it's not really apples and apples in this case. But unless we know the exact cost per site to operate, we can't really tell.

Sorry, but you are absolutely mistaken. 80 sites at $50.00 brings in $4,000. 100 sites at $40.00 brings in $4,000. That is the money that is available to pay all the bills electricity, water, labor, mortgage and pool included. And $4,000 is $4,000 doesn't matter if it comes from one person or 100. I think we can agree that 100 occupied sites will use more power and water than 80 occupied sites, so the variable costs are increased with the added occupancy. Therefore you make less money with 100 occupied sites than you do with 80. What percentage of the costs of operation are carried by what percentage of campers doesn't mean anything.

[Stclairm]

Our beach CG's are anywhere from $60-120 a night.

[Doug33]

I laugh at these discussions of $40 a night. Those days are long gone here in NJ, especially in the peak season near the shore areas. The CGs are bringing in $60-$80/night, and that is usually only for 2 adults, so kids and visitors cost extra. Then again, most of these CGs have all kinds of programs for kids, which I don't use.

I just booked Jellystone in Delaware for $65/night for a full hookup pull through site. There are a lot of things for kids to do there, but we don't have any kids to take advantage of it. I'm going to start looking into state CGs that provide at least electric. DW will not go without her A/C! 😉

[monkey44]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
WRVPO Quote: "Actually, I get no more customers. My old restrooms had very high ratings, but they were dated. We sell out every day in the season."

I think my point is, keep he facilities maintained, you keep customers, let it run down and you'll eventually lose customers. So, the fact that you stay full means you continue upkeep, at least it's a factor.

And regardless of how anyone utilizes the "cost factors", I'd bet you'd rather keep full at a lower rate than have empty sites at a higher rate. Doesn't take many empty sites to drop the revenue below a profit margin, as the overhead stays the same no matter how many sites are full or empty (of course, full sites W/E change it a little, but not a lot).

At $30 per night rate at a $5 margin, if you have one empty site, it takes six full sites to break even for that one empty site. SO keeping sites full is better than raising rates and losing customers, although I'm 'guessing' at the margin here.

I would much rather have empty sites at a higher price. With 100 Sites, 80% occupancy at $50.00 is much more profitable than 100% occupancy at $40.00. Revenue is the same, and expenses are 20% less. When you lower prices, that pricing cut goes against all the sites. If I were to lower the price $5.00 when I have 80% occupancy and 100 sites, I would need to sell $400.00 worth of sites, just to get the revenue back to what it was at the higher rate. Then I would have to sell more sites to generate any additional profit. So you would be looking at a situation where a $5.00 price cut would need to increase occupancy by a minimum of 15% (80 rented sites at higher rate, so a 15% increase in occupancy will be 12 additional customers. It took 10 to get the revenue to break even, now we have the revenue of the two additional sites to cover the costs of 12 additional guests). We MIGHT be at a break even figure now revenue-wise, but I now have 15% more people to check in, a 15% increase in the usage of facilities, 15% more trash, 15% more sites to clean etc. This either means we all work harder, for no extra money, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or we will have to hire additional staff, pushing that revenue and income equation further out of whack.
And if that price increase didn't generate a 15% increase in business, which is the most likely situation, we are losing money. And none of this takes into consideration what might be the most important consideration of all, what changes to our guest's demographics will lower prices create. The fact of the matter is, the low price product attracts the low price consumer. The store sales will suffer, and the client mix may very well go down hill.

That makes sense only if you consider gross and not net ... if you divide the overhead (which means mortgage, power, pool maintenance, etc) buy 80% instead of 100%, your making 80 people pay 100% the overhead, so the net per site is less. So, it's not really apples and apples in this case. But unless we know the exact cost per site to operate, we can't really tell.

But, I'm not sure whether you get a different class of people based solely on price either. A lot of very classy people go to national parks and state parks and COE too - and it's based on what that campground offers it's customers, not price. I know, private is different, but my opinion, you won't change the class of campers with $40 vs $50, you'll get that kind of change more like $20 vs $40 or $50, because $40 is not all that inexpensive.

And at times, I've seen some pretty junky CG's that charge $40, and sometimes get away with it for short-term ... but not for long because ti doesn't build a returning client base, nor does it keep clients for more than a one-night mistake. And based on your earlier post, I'll bet you better have pretty upgraded and clean restrooms for $50 a night. Even if some RV'ers don't use the restrooms and showers (as some have stated), the cleanliness of that facility makes a statement about the entire operation.

Besides, it's not always price that makes a RV or camper choose a CG, it's location, sights, and the adjoining attractions more than price and clean, price and clean are only two of the variables.

[Stclairm]

^ That is definitely true. Cheaper rates brings in issues and ends up costing you in the long run as well. Hard to find that happy medium, but I'm guessing you have.

[westernrvparkow]

monkey44 wrote:
WRVPO Quote: "Actually, I get no more customers. My old restrooms had very high ratings, but they were dated. We sell out every day in the season."

I think my point is, keep he facilities maintained, you keep customers, let it run down and you'll eventually lose customers. So, the fact that you stay full means you continue upkeep, at least it's a factor.

And regardless of how anyone utilizes the "cost factors", I'd bet you'd rather keep full at a lower rate than have empty sites at a higher rate. Doesn't take many empty sites to drop the revenue below a profit margin, as the overhead stays the same no matter how many sites are full or empty (of course, full sites W/E change it a little, but not a lot).

At $30 per night rate at a $5 margin, if you have one empty site, it takes six full sites to break even for that one empty site. SO keeping sites full is better than raising rates and losing customers, although I'm 'guessing' at the margin here.

I would much rather have empty sites at a higher price. With 100 Sites, 80% occupancy at $50.00 is much more profitable than 100% occupancy at $40.00. Revenue is the same, and expenses are 20% less. When you lower prices, that pricing cut goes against all the sites. If I were to lower the price $5.00 when I have 80% occupancy and 100 sites, I would need to sell $400.00 worth of sites, just to get the revenue back to what it was at the higher rate. Then I would have to sell more sites to generate any additional profit. So you would be looking at a situation where a $5.00 price cut would need to increase occupancy by a minimum of 15% (80 rented sites at higher rate, so a 15% increase in occupancy will be 12 additional customers. It took 10 to get the revenue to break even, now we have the revenue of the two additional sites to cover the costs of 12 additional guests). We MIGHT be at a break even figure now revenue-wise, but I now have 15% more people to check in, a 15% increase in the usage of facilities, 15% more trash, 15% more sites to clean etc. This either means we all work harder, for no extra money, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or we will have to hire additional staff, pushing that revenue and income equation further out of whack.
And if that price increase didn't generate a 15% increase in business, which is the most likely situation, we are losing money. And none of this takes into consideration what might be the most important consideration of all, what changes to our guest's demographics will lower prices create. The fact of the matter is, the low price product attracts the low price consumer. The store sales will suffer, and the client mix may very well go down hill.

[monkey44]

WRVPO Quote: "Actually, I get no more customers. My old restrooms had very high ratings, but they were dated. We sell out every day in the season."

I think my point is, keep he facilities maintained, you keep customers, let it run down and you'll eventually lose customers. So, the fact that you stay full means you continue upkeep, at least it's a factor.

And regardless of how anyone utilizes the "cost factors", I'd bet you'd rather keep full at a lower rate than have empty sites at a higher rate. Doesn't take many empty sites to drop the revenue below a profit margin, as the overhead stays the same no matter how many sites are full or empty (of course, full sites W/E change it a little, but not a lot).

At $30 per night rate at a $5 margin, if you have one empty site, it takes six full sites to break even for that one empty site. SO keeping sites full is better than raising rates and losing customers, although I'm 'guessing' at the margin here.

[FunnyCamper]

Stclairm wrote:
I totally agree with most all of your points. I tend to get to cg's right at dusk, it's unbelievable how hard some sites can be to find, much less back in to. I guess I'm lucky to have found several we really like, but they all tend to be 3 plus hours away. We're hoping to move to the NC mountains in the next few years.
The I section at the KOA in Boone is terrible and was where I got stuck. Narrow and no where to park my truck either. But some would say I'm being too picky......

You are not being picky. You are finding the campgrounds you enjoy to your taste. nothing wrong with that. I am the same. I am NC and I have "MY" best cgs. I have the best sites listed in each cg also so when I return I book them.

kinda nasty bathhouse I don't worry about. I use my camper. I am not a bathhouse person. my camper has it all and being self contained, even if no sewer, as long as they have a dump station I use our blue tote.

I was at Boone KOA a very very long time ago. It stunk then 🙂 it wasn't clean with litter around, that 'petting zoo' was a smelly stinking area, scummy duck pond with poop everywhere and our site was lousey also. won't ever go back unless they do a major renovation. I have so many nice parks in my round to rotate that if it is not up to my personal standards I do not return.

the first trip to a cg you book online is the worst. only because it is a crapshoot what it will be like after looking at pics on the website. sometimes you are surprised how nice, others you say, nope not ever returning. chalk this one up to oops, bad call, and move on.

[Stclairm]

I can tell you that if I visit a CG and the bathrooms are run down and nasty, I won't be back and I know many who feel the same. You might not think it makes a difference because your park is usually full, but I can't help but think it keeps people coming back. I guess you can't actually quantify your return on that expense and that makes it hard to justify. The other thing would have to be if your park nets you enough to spend that money.

[SDcampowneroper]

WestRVPO has hit the nail on the head, it is a continuing part of our business to keep existing facilities updated and fresh. To renovate does not increase value in property. Its maintenance. The best we get is a tax deduction assuming profit was made to deduct from.
Maintaining the property facilities to a decent continuing level of guest service and satisfaction does not increase property value, rather it is a factored in cost of continuing service.
Adding and maintaining amenity above basic needs is a factor we camp owners struggle with every day. Do our guests want CATV? An olympic size pool or lake side property? just a quiet easy spot to hook up for a night?
We each struggle with whats of value to our guests, what sets us apart from the the next camp a little bit down the road that has another focus, that is hopefully their success story.
In your own business, whether owner or employee ,balance issues like these daily or be subject to them.

[westernrvparkow]

monkey44 wrote:
WRVPO says: "Does anyone have an idea of how much it costs to do a good renovation? Two years ago I did a complete redo of a bathhouse. $125,000 later, I have the best facility there is, period. But that $125,000 I spend earns me not one penny more in revenue unless I raise prices."

Agree with most of what you said in your post, except this part. What you get in return is MORE customers BECAUSE you updated your bathhouse.

Although you've also stated that you have higher prices SO YOU CAN upgrade. which is kinda a contradiction. Higher prices so you can upgrade, then you upgrade and raise the prices. It seems one or the other would make more business sense. IF you raise prices every time you do maintenance or upgrades, seems you'd price yourself out of customers eventually.

Reasonable prices for reasonable campsites / campgrounds should allow both happy and repeat customers, and allow for upgrades that keeps your people coming back.


Far as the WIFI comments, if a CG advertises it, then it should have it, if not, then not. But, to advertise it in order to compete with CGs that do have it means your 'cheating' in a sense. Don't say you have it if you don't. T state it's too expensive, then, it's too expensive - but to deceive a customer is not fair to the customer. If WIFI is only in the game room, say that, and be truthful. Most folks only want to email and search a few things for dining, or other travels. Those that want to stream all night should know better - and quit complaining.

Actually, I get no more customers. My old restrooms had very high ratings, but they were dated. We sell out every day in the season. There are no new customers because of the bathrooms. When we upgrade facilities, prices go up as well, since that is the only way to recoup the money. Does it raise the park's value? Not really. Parks sell as an investment. 90+% of what a park will sell for is based on income, period. If the old bath houses needed replacing, yes you can justify some added value in a new facility. But in my case, that bath house was serviceable. That $125K might return me $50,000, at best. More likely, nothing since the sale is going to hinge on income valuations, not how nice the shower stalls are. The value of those renovations are only realized after the prices are raised and the new income figures reflect that price increase.
As for Wifi, I don't know of any way to guarantee that every user, everywhere in the park will be able to access the wifi network. There are just too many variables. Last night a guy called and complained the wifi wasn't working. I checked and there were 114 connections. Asked him to bring down his machine. He reluctantly trudged down. After I turned on his disabled wireless, it worked fine. If he had called ten minutes later, we would have been closed and most likely there would be a guy running around telling people how terrible were are, since we advertise wifi and there were no connections even visible. I take every report of bad wifi with a serious grain of salt. My experience tells me it might be a bit overblown.

[wbwood]

The question is: do you spend the $125k and maintain customers or attract new and more customers? Is the ROI there? How long to recuperate that money? Will you recuperate it before having to upgrade again? Is it a never ending process? Do RVers really care if you spend that much on the upgrade or are they gonna care more about not having to send the money?

As Doug mentioned, we bought our TT and now motor home to not have to use the facilities. But occasionally we will. Sometime out of convienance and sometimes to just be able to take a longer and hotter shower without having to dump as much. But it does depend on the facilities. When we decide to stay somewhere, the price never ever depends on the bath house. We go in assuming we aren't going to use it.

Stclairm.....your not being too picky and I understood what you were talking about the sites there in the I row. I experienced it myself as well. But I did take note that the majority of the rest of the park was not like that and used that to my advantage on the next time going there.