When the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds holds its annual convention next week, among its featured presentations will be the release of a “highly anticipated” survey of the industry. The “in-depth look at the current state of park operations across the U.S.” will provide “valuable insights into the outdoor hospitality industry” that “will be an important tool for parks looking to gain a competitive advantage,” according to its advance press.
If that’s not enough to get your heart pounding, consider that the 2023 Outdoor Hospitality Industry Benchmarking Report “is not just a collection of statistics but a narrative of the industry’s pulse.” Campground owners consulting the report will find “the hidden potential in regional distinctions,” enabling them to turn those distinctions “into strategic advantages for success.” Or so we’re promised.
Well, maybe not. As in years past, ARVC’s attempt to paint a reliable statistical portrait of its membership suffers from several limitations, not least among them that same membership’s reluctance to share information. (This is not unique to ARVC, as other industry would-be profilers have encountered the same problem.) In this case, although the survey sampled 4,823 campgrounds, only 8% of ARVC’s members responded, as did a mere 4% of non-ARVC campgrounds. That left an acceptable 282 survey responses—enough for the report to claim a 5.6% margin of error at a 95% confidence level, which isn’t bad for the report overall.
Where that confidence breaks down, however, is in the report’s attempts to reach conclusions about various sub-categories, such as campground size or location or type of ownership. The report’s authors acknowledge as much, albeit only in general terms, by noting that “the margin of error for percentages based on smaller sample sizes will be larger.” How much larger? Your guess is as good as any, particularly because virtually all of the survey data is presented as statistics, not as hard numbers that would enable some independent crunching.
Indeed, almost the only hard data that we can calculate from the provided information is the number of respondents in each of four regions of the country: 45 in 12 western states, 51 in 14 northeastern states, 82 in 12 midwestern states and 104 in 12 southern states—or twice as many respondents from the south as from the west. Yet many of the survey’s charts run percentages side-by-side, inevitably prompting misleading apples-to-oranges comparisons between regions, not to mention making a mockery of “the hidden potential in regional distinctions.”
The confusion between statistics and hard numbers afflicts the survey designers themselves. For example, a question about available accommodations asks, “How many sites/units are available at this RV park, campground or glamping park?” Instead of providing a numerical answer, however, the survey lists percentages, such as 89% for full hook up sites or 18% for park model cabins, presumably letting us know what percentage of respondents provide that particular accommodation but not how many such accommodations are available.
Elsewhere, the survey simply throws in the towel—sort of—by acknowledging that it just doesn’t have enough responses for a trustworthy conclusion. This is especially notable in a section on rates, in which several charts leave blank any field that had less than 10 responses; fields with fewer than 30 responses provide the information but are shaded grey, apparently signifying that their numbers are not statistically meaningful. The alternative, it appears, would have been even larger swaths of empty space, attesting to the limits of a relatively small sample size.
There are other problems. One is the survey’s lack of a precise time frame, with responders asked for information about “the past 12 months” instead of a specific period, such as “calendar year 2022.” Not only does “the past 12 months” vary by approximately 15%, depending on when a survey was answered during the nearly two-month window before it was tabulated, but campground owners generally operate on an annual bookkeeping cycle and for many, that’s the information they’re most likely to grab. Moreover, a survey mailed out at the beginning of May means it was reaching its target audience just as that audience was heading into its busiest season—one possible reason the response rate was so anemic.
Then there’s the occasional creative approach to averages. A chart showing changes in nightly/weekly rates concludes that the median increase from 2022 to 2023 was 5%. But it turns out that median was not the midpoint of the increases that were made, but the midpoint for all rates: 29% of the respondents had no change in their rates and 2% actually dropped their rates. An additional 4% did not specify how much of an increase they instituted, but for the survey’s purposes were dumped into the low range of all the responses, further skewing the overall median downward. The actual median increase? Closer to 8% or 9% for those who did increase rates.
But here’s the survey’s biggest red flag: the 282 respondents claimed to have median annual revenues of $3.52 million, despite a median campground size of just 92 rentable units. That works out to more than $38,000 a site, which would require a nightly rate of $105 and 100% occupancy to achieve. Such numbers should tickle even the most insensitive BS detector—but that’s not all. The survey breaks down the $3.52 million as follows: $1.43 million in overnight site fees, $1.02 million in monthly and seasonal fees, $700,000 in camp store income and $0 for amenities/activities fees . Grand total? $2.52 million, or exactly a million dollars less than the headline number. Problems with addition? Maybe. Or maybe just bad data. What is clear is that no one thought to question such an off-the-charts number.
There are a few possibly insightful glimmers in the overall survey results, although without closer examination it’s hard to tell if they’re from iron pyrite or from the real thing. But overall, ARVC convention attendees should be wary of accepting any of this survey’s results at face value. That said, it’s virtually inevitable that various survey “findings” will be trumpeted by ARVC as gospel in the service of one agenda or another. The report is “statistical,” after all. Scientific. Irrefutable proof of whatever point is best served—and besides, no one wants to admit they spent a lot of money on something of such questionable value.
- It’s been fun. Now I’m moving on.
- Feds go after reservation algorithms
- Having wheels no guarantee of safety
- Oregon a hellish RV epicenter
- A handful of updates on past posts
Renting Dirt 
Remember three points;
The first is a quote by George Carlin. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Another is the fact that 74% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Finally, “Numbers don’t lie, but liars use numbers.”
The average person doesn’t understand the difference between “Possibility and Probability.” I use Mean Values often and I always have to explain the definition. The sad truth is that people are persuaded by numbers while they don’t understand their meaning.
LikeLike