UKC

Am I the only person who finds the wording on both the blog entry and CEO entry a little disengenious.  

Specifically the introduction of a new annual plus option to hide a 26% price rise.

So taking my 11 year old daughter and her climbing friend on a Sunday is no longer included in my annual subscription, I need to pay for them or step up to Annual plus. 

My £475 membership which is mainly about me but also with regular child visits will now be a £599 membership (WTF!) as the £499 annual option is not a direct replacement any more.

Apparently there is concern about children at the castle.

”We have also listened to growing concerns over children in the Centre by ....” raising the price. Mmmmm, that’ll address whatever concerns were raised, not that we know what they are. 

So like I said .... is it just me, or is this pseudo marketing bullshit to cover up an opportunity to sting some of the customers.

PS. 

I am presuming the “growing concerns” is around the sheer quantity of kids on a weekend, many of whom are not very supervised. If that’s true and it wanted addressing they would reduce the number of kids classes (quite a cash cow, check out the pricing), or god forbid, place an absolute limit on the number of supervised novices/kids allowed in. 

The kids are fine.  Some of the parents are not unfortunately.  Letting your children run round under people bouldering while you drink tea isn't on.  

It's not hard to understand.

they get to charge what they like. You get to choose whether to go, whether to set up a competing wall, etc.

more broadly, why do climbers think they should have some sort charitable status? We don't expect it from flights etc.

What difference does it make whether it's an adult or a child climbing? a busy rope is a busy rope. if you're climbing, you should be paying.

If this raise reduces the overcrowding, I fully welcome it

The Castle isn't that good a facility it just has a lack of competition in the area - it certainly is very crowded and extremely expensive.

Yeah and he/she also gets to start a UKC thread complaining about a steep price rise to an already expensive wall.

which makes it the best in the area

they already said that the extra money will contribute to more climbing areas, which should reduce the overcrowding

I can see why you're frustrated by the price rise it imposes on you personally but I don't think it's fair to describe the new pricing structure as an attempt to hide a 26% rise. For most people who don't take their kids, it's a reasonably modest 5% hike in the annual plan. Realistically, you were getting a stonking deal when you could take kids in for free and it doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to charge for that. I think most walls do. Awesome Walls, for example, has a pretty wide array of different passes and memberships but none of them let you take your children for free and the options for including children in the membership are generally not all that much cheaper than adults. I think you're still getting a pretty good deal.

The nearest equivalent in Awesome Walls pricing would be £462 for the year for you and then £393 extra for each child. £600 all in for whatever children you want to take doesn't seem so bad by comparison.

It costs £568 annually to use my local wall which is not in London. That price is just for me, no children, or anybody else. This works out as £10.92 a week, which, if I go twice a week, is £5.46 a visit. I think that is good value, considering I can go whenever I want, usually much more than twice a week over winter, and climb for as long as I want. Well, until my body complains anyway.

I don't think £599 for yourself and with child visits (not sure what that entails), in London, is that expensive. I wasn't aware of the cost of London walls until this thread and actually think that is reasonable value for London, considering what I pay a long way from the capital. Obviously, the value of your membership depends on how often you use the wall.

I've never been to The Castle climbing wall, but, from what I've heard, it's a good wall with constant improvements planned and taking place.

TJB.

Quick reply to topic ..... I think you're all missing the point I'm trying to make.

Yes they can charge what they like. But please don't pretend you are doing anything other than seizing an opportunity to make more money. And don't go fudging your stats so you can declare a paltry 4% rise in three years by changing the definition. Not OK for a government talking about unemployment, even less OK for a business which presents itself as being a different kind of business, good to the community, caring and green, blah blah blah.

Yes the place is crowded. But if you really think that adding £100 to the annual membership fee is somehow going to do anything other than increase revenue you are naive. Demand absolutely outstrips supply and so all those climbing mums/dads like me with kids who come regularly will fork out. Some of the adhoc people may not, but given I see the same faces there again and again I'm not sure how many there are.

I don't generally complain about the price at the Castle. The one off visit cost is rather steep, but the annual membership has always been quite competitive. I'm not even that fussed about the £100 price rise as I am in the fortunate position to be able to just spend it without too much soul searching, What bothers me is the rhetoric around it.

You should be thanking me for giving you an opportunity to post a matey but ultimately vacuous response. 

Regards

He/She

You get bitchy when you've been overcharged, don't you? 

Maybe a little

Cafe Kraft in Stuttgart is €600 for an adult year pass and €300 for kids. This is a high but not unusual price on the German gym scale. 

£12 a week for you going as much as you like + 2 kids once a week is still a tiny amount of money. Have a glance in the reduced aisle at ASDA, I'm sure you'll make up the difference... 

You were able to take 2 people climbing for free, and now have to pay £2.50 a week extra, for the same privilege.