Price increase at our KOA

[Super_Dave]

Every year at the end of our season we make our reservations for the following year. In that reservation is a listed price. Well, this off season the KOA was sold to new owners and I was notified that the price would go up 25%. Does that seem reasonable that the new owner can not honor a standing reservation? And to add insult to injury, they want to move us to a less desirable site.

[Expyinflight]

Super_Dave wrote:
As for how we have come out of this, the long standing guy in the park with the best site has decided to move down the road to a cheaper campground so I asked if I could have that spot. Psychologically, I'm paying more but have the best site in the park versus paying more and getting moved to a worse site than I had. And as an added bonus, some of the drama has decided to leave so hopefully it will be a drama free summer.

Good for you Super Dave. Certainly nothing wrong with remaining calm, reasonalble, and finding a solution that benefits both parties.

[mdcamping]

Super_Dave wrote:
As for how we have come out of this, the long standing guy in the park with the best site has decided to move down the road to a cheaper campground so I asked if I could have that spot. Psychologically, I'm paying more but have the best site in the park versus paying more and getting moved to a worse site than I had. And as an added bonus, some of the drama has decided to leave so hopefully it will be a drama free summer.

Excellent! Great that everything worked out, enjoy your summer :C

Mike

[Walaby]

Well there ya go. Sounds like a win-win outcome.

Mike

[Super_Dave]

As for how we have come out of this, the long standing guy in the park with the best site has decided to move down the road to a cheaper campground so I asked if I could have that spot. Psychologically, I'm paying more but have the best site in the park versus paying more and getting moved to a worse site than I had. And as an added bonus, some of the drama has decided to leave so hopefully it will be a drama free summer.

[winnietrey]

Similar thing happened at a campground we went to for many years.

But the new owner, I am sure took on a lot of debt, he is the one taking the risk. (and the work)

Bottom line, it is his business he gets to run it anyway he wants. And I hope he succeeds and does well.

I would add, having run my own business for 40 plus years, if you want to go broke, keep your charges low and only cater to those interested in price and not what you have to offer them as a business

[Walaby]

Super_Dave wrote:
The long and the short of it is that all the seasonal folks like ourselves were getting a large discount over the daily rate. The new owners feel like it is too much of a discount. Many of our seasonal friends are leaving due to the price increase which means they can now convert to dailies and an even higher rate.

So, I get that it sucks that this is happening. But, if you look at it from the new owners perspective, it could be that a review of the books when he purchased the business showed that it was not as profitable as it could be. So, he's likely taking steps to improve his bottom line, which is exactly what he should do.

I suspect he is factoring in the fact that there are more potential customers than there are spots in his campground. So, to that end, he probably figures that for every long term guest that leaves because of this policy, there were be two or threefold customers waiting in the wings who are willing to pay full fare.

Sucks for sure. Have you guys reached an amicable agreement at all? Interested in how this turns out.

Mike

[Super_Dave]

The long and the short of it is that all the seasonal folks like ourselves were getting a large discount over the daily rate. The new owners feel like it is too much of a discount. Many of our seasonal friends are leaving due to the price increase which means they can now convert to dailies and an even higher rate.

[wapiticountry]

rlw999 wrote:

MarkTwain wrote:

Lantley wrote:
Everyone keeps mentioning contract there is no contract. The company that made the reservation is out of business. Kaput, gone, no longer exist.
The new owner does not assume liabilities of the old company. The new owner starts with a new company and a clean slate.
Maybe you could take KOA corporate to court but really would it be worth it.

While 1 incident of not honoring reservation may not seem reasonable to legal fight, Future buyers of KOA parks might be more cautious and read the fine print more carefully before they buy a KOA.

I bet that the purchaser *did* read the fine print carefully and determined that they don't need to honor the prices on existing reservations. I suspect that the only liability they have for existing reservations is to allow the reservation holder to cancel without penalty if they don't accept the new rate.

As I posted much earlier in this long thread, some KOA campgrounds have reservations terms that do say "All Rates are subject to change", so it really depends on which campground this is and what the terms were at the time of booking.

I would also be curious as to EXACTLY what was and wasn't in place with the OP's situation. Had they actually paid a deposit and had a firm commitment, in writing, for the exact site and a specific price? Of was it more of a "here is what we are planning for the rate next year and we are going to hold your site for you"? Our normal operating procedure was to tell returning guests that we would try to accommodate them in the same site but that might be subject to change. Same with the rate, we would give people first option on the site but the rate would not be set until a later date at which time we would take a deposit and only then would the commitment be firm.
For all we know, the new owner is going to remodel and change up site configuration and numbering and any commitment for a specific site number would be meaningless.

[rlw999]

MarkTwain wrote:

Lantley wrote:
Everyone keeps mentioning contract there is no contract. The company that made the reservation is out of business. Kaput, gone, no longer exist.
The new owner does not assume liabilities of the old company. The new owner starts with a new company and a clean slate.
Maybe you could take KOA corporate to court but really would it be worth it.

While 1 incident of not honoring reservation may not seem reasonable to legal fight, Future buyers of KOA parks might be more cautious and read the fine print more carefully before they buy a KOA.

I bet that the purchaser *did* read the fine print carefully and determined that they don't need to honor the prices on existing reservations. I suspect that the only liability they have for existing reservations is to allow the reservation holder to cancel without penalty if they don't accept the new rate.

As I posted much earlier in this long thread, some KOA campgrounds have reservations terms that do say "All Rates are subject to change", so it really depends on which campground this is and what the terms were at the time of booking.

[MarkTwain]

Lantley wrote:
Everyone keeps mentioning contract there is no contract. The company that made the reservation is out of business. Kaput, gone, no longer exist.
The new owner does not assume liabilities of the old company. The new owner starts with a new company and a clean slate.
Maybe you could take KOA corporate to court but really would it be worth it.

While 1 incident of not honoring reservation may not seem reasonable to legal fight, Future buyers of KOA parks might be more cautious and read the fine print more carefully before they buy a KOA.

[wapiticountry]

Matt_Colie wrote:
Dave,

I am back again and caught up.
I successfully ran a business that went very well until the 2008 depression ended it.

There are some obvious issues here:
The new owner does not value good clients.
He does not know that one unhappy client will tell 10 others.
He does not understand that RVs all have wheels and they can vote with those wheels.

If this is the best he can do, it is a valid assumption that this is the best he will ever do. If you don't like being treated like that, vote with the wheels.

I have done this on more than a few occasions.

Remember to fill up in with the final outcome.

Matt

It could very well be the plan of the new owners to not cater to the previous clientele. That was my marketing plan in several parks I have owned. The parks were run down and catering to guests interested in low prices. I renovated and rebuilt the parks and quickly transitioned to a different client base. I had no need for the old clients telling me the way I was doing things were wrong, my prices were too high and that the old owner allowed them to do things I no longer allowed (things like hanging laundry from clotheslines, allowing dogs to be tethered outside unattended, kids running without supervision, storing items outside of the rv in totes etc.) I loved it when I got reviews that said there were too many rules, that we hated children and the like. It made the transition easier, not harder.

[coolmom42]

Super_Dave wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
There must be some corporate standards, possibly not about contracts and customer relations, but I see a number of ex-KOAs around the country and they got the boot for something. Customer complaints may start their slide on the way out.

If they are still a campground, what might be happening is after a few years the owner is tired of KOA corporate dipping into their pocket and dictating how things are run. They can use the KOA advertising and eventually separate themselves from the corporate chain.

I've stayed at several former KOAs where this was exactly the situation.

[Matt_Colie]

Dave,

I am back again and caught up.
I successfully ran a business that went very well until the 2008 depression ended it.

There are some obvious issues here:
The new owner does not value good clients.
He does not know that one unhappy client will tell 10 others.
He does not understand that RVs all have wheels and they can vote with those wheels.

If this is the best he can do, it is a valid assumption that this is the best he will ever do. If you don't like being treated like that, vote with the wheels.

I have done this on more than a few occasions.

Remember to fill up in with the final outcome.

Matt

[Lantley]

afidel wrote:

Lantley wrote:
Everyone keeps mentioning contract there is no contract. The company that made the reservation is out of business. Kaput, gone, no longer exist.
The new owner does not assume liabilities of the old company. The new owner starts with a new company and a clean slate.
Maybe you could take KOA corporate to court but really would it be worth it.

Now there's a jump to conclusion, how do you know how the new owner acquired the park? They could have very easily just purchased the existing company, would certainly make utilities and vendor contracts simpler that way, also the relationship with KOA.

It's basic business. The old owner wants out. The old owner does not want someone (the new owner) running a company that he as any liability or attachment to. The old owner wants to walk away free and clear.
Likewise the new honor wants a fresh start. He wants no attachment to the prior company. The new owner wants no obligation or liability's associated with the old company.