Site Lock Guarantee

[Boat Bum]

Yes you did, and I agree.

 

[Kevin D Pem]

When the lobbies in flagstaff az stopped overnight parking, I boycotted Flagstaff businesses, and let them know I would spend my money elsewhere. I took a trip to Phoenix to buy my boat. It is against my grain to not support local business, but I needed them to fight the lobbies that worked against us!!! I had standing because it effected me personally. I also encouraged others to do the same! You can fight it now or bend over later!!!

 

[Neal]

You know, I thought of that afterwards. I usually get a confirmation email with my full payment and it typically has the site number, that to me is a contract for a specific site.

I am not the litigious type, but I may reference this contract as legal and binding and see where that goes but at some point I will just walk away as I have little patience dealing with such things.

This is not something that would come to surprise you at check-in, campgrounds that do this clearly disclose it during the checkout process so there is no grounds for litigation and that would cost far more than your stay of course, and your health from high BP, on and on. If the campground tries to get you to pay by offering this during checkout this is your sign to maybe look for another CG or accept the risk.

 

[Boat Bum]

Everything is contestable, like I said, I would react with my exit.

 

[MemoriesByTheMile]

I think these extra fees are getting onerous and not just campgrounds.
This concept for campgrounds might be better received if it were flipped on its head - base price includes the lock and you can opt for a discount if you are flexible on the exact site.
Or - instead of being presented sites, you are just presented a type of site; back-in, pull through, etc

 

[Jim]

This concept for campgrounds might be better received if it were flipped on its head - base price includes the lock and you can opt for a discount if you are flexible on the exact site.

When I originally started this thread, I felt the Site Lock was just another way to dig a little deeper into the guests pocket. But for the most part, I have since changed my feelings on that.

Many parks like to be able to assign a space when you walk in to register. If they don't have to assign you a specific spot in advance, then they can move their guest around in such a manner as to keep empty sites full, and that's good for the bottom line.

In our case, you book the site you want, for the nights you want, and that's it. By default, you have a price lock. And this is great for the guest, but not so much for the park. Problem is, we end up with orphaned nights when someone books a site for the 1st - 5th, and then someone else books the same site from the 9th - 15th, which leaves the 6th - 8th empty. As we require a 3-night minimum stay, these orphaned sites are now empty and without some special intervention, they can't be booked.

If we were able to move guests around at arrival, we would be able to fill those empty days. At the end of the year, we easily end up with a hundred or more unbooked nights. And we only have 8 sites! Imagine what happens at a park with hundreds of sites!

But each of our sites is unique, and many of our guests are repeat visitors who have a "favorite" site. So while these empty sites are not good for our bottom line, for a park like ours they simply become a cost of doing business.

 

[MFJ]

When I originally started this thread, I felt the Site Lock was just another way to dig a little deeper into the guests pocket. But for the most part, I have since changed my feelings on that.

Many parks like to be able to assign a space when you walk in to register. If they don't have to assign you a specific spot in advance, then they can move their guest around in such a manner as to keep empty sites full, and that's good for the bottom line.

In our case, you book the site you want, for the nights you want, and that's it. By default, you have a price lock. And this is great for the guest, but not so much for the park. Problem is, we end up with orphaned nights when someone books a site for the 1st - 5th, and then someone else books the same site from the 9th - 15th, which leaves the 6th - 8th empty. As we require a 3-night minimum stay, these orphaned sites are now empty and without some special intervention, they can't be booked.

If we were able to move guests around at arrival, we would be able to fill those empty days. At the end of the year, we easily end up with a hundred or more unbooked nights. And we only have 8 sites! Imagine what happens at a park with hundreds of sites!

But each of our sites is unique, and many of our guests are repeat visitors who have a "favorite" site. So while these empty sites are not good for our bottom line, for a park like ours they simply become a cost of doing business.

Maybe I’m missing some obvious answer, but why not just let people stay for a night or two if there’s availability? Like for reservations less than three night must call for availability? I can see not wanting busy periods interrupted by scattered single night stays and blocking longer reservations, but that may be a way to fill the gaps and make a little extra in the process?

 

[Jim]

Maybe I’m missing some obvious answer, but why not just let people stay for a night or two if there’s availability? Like for reservations less than three night must call for availability? I can see not wanting busy periods interrupted by scattered single night stays and blocking longer reservations, but that may be a way to fill the gaps and make a little extra in the process?

Three night stay keeps visitors from taking the prime days, like Friday and Saturday. Not a lot of people come in on Sunday.

I would love to be able to configure our software to allow less than the minimum stay when dates are orphaned like that. But alas, it won't. I've asked the developer of the plugin to make a setting that would change the minimum stay to 2 days when there are nights that can't be rented unless the minimum is changed. It's an easy enough change, but they don't see it as important enough.

I sometimes use the dates as perks for visitors, giving them an extra day or two for free, seeing as how they're not going to be rented anyway. And sometimes I offer "specials" on them, but manually handling all that generally not worth the effort.

 

[Tjdave]

I don't like it. I have always checked site availability for the time frame I will be visiting. See the open sites, pick one, and book it.
This year, on a couple reservations, I had the opportunity to "lock" my site for a fee. I THOUGHT I JUST DID! I opted out. We'll see how it turns out. If I get the shaft, I'll never be back.

 

[J&JD]

@Jim ,
Isn’t it possible to make a note on your site that even though you have a 3 night minimum there are times, if you call, when 1-2 day stays are possible when there are dates between the reserved dates? Or do you not want to be bothered by the phone traffic? Just curious…..