w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 1 CARAVAN MANUFACTURERS MARKET RESEARCH MAY 2013 An industry report carried out by the My Holiday Caravan analytics team
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 2 Contents SECTION PAGE No. Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Objective - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Role of Research - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Approach - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Note On Model Year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Findings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 Overall - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 Findings: Individual Categories - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Caravan Layout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Caravan Build Quality - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 Caravan Décor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Value For Money - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 Analysis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Westbrook s Build Quality and Value Over Design - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Victory s Strong Showing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Caravan Décor: Lowest Average Score - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Value For Money: Generally Low Score - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Appendix - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Comparison Chart - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Cumulative Chart - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Year of Manufacture Frequency: Percentage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Year of Manufacture Frequency: Comparison - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 3 CARAVAN MANUFACTURERS - MARKET RESEARCH MAY 2013 1. Introduction 1.1. Objective Through engagement with their users, the My Holiday Caravan team identified a problem. While the website s service is geared towards offering information and advice on a wide range of static caravan related subjects and issues, the team found that an increasing number of users were seeking information and recommendations on specific makes of caravans. The team scoured the market, and found this to be a wide-ranging problem. No one else was providing this sort of information, or at least not without a considerable commercial bias, which of course makes compromises its reliability. In order to solve this problem and so further improve the information service offered to My Holiday Caravan s users the MHC team decided to survey their extensive user database. The methodology behind this was that no one is better placed to offer a recommendation on a specific caravan than someone who owns and maintains a static caravan holiday home of their very own. After pooling their resources, the team defined a clear objective: to collect enough data to provide a reliable, independently sourced set of recommendations on individual caravan manufacturers. This information would then be passed on to MHC s users in the form of charts, statistics and owner comments, giving them a concise but valuable resource for use during the purchase of a holiday caravan. 1.2. Role of Research The research will provide an extra dimension to www.myholidaycaravan.co.uk. The website s mission statement is to offer independent, reliable and accessible information to buyers of static caravan holiday homes. The existing data on the site answers a wide range of consumer questions; from queries on taxation and legality, to maintenance and winterisation issues. By conducting the survey, and presenting the results of the research alongside the existing content, My Holiday Caravan will be able to expand their service, giving users specific and reliable recommendations on individual manufacturers. This data also has a secondary function. As active participants in the static caravan industry, My Holiday Caravan work closely with caravan manufacturers and industry insiders. This independent research will also provide a valuable resource to these industry figures, helping them gauge the public opinion of their products and their brand, as well as allowing them to collect useful user feedback. In order to make this data as useful as possible to MHC users and industry bodies alike, the My Holiday Caravan team decided to gather information across a number of categories.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 1.3. Approach The MHC team held a series of meetings to structure their approach. It was decided that the survey should be kept as concise as possible, in order to maximise the number of responses. As a result, the survey s questions were specifically targeted so as to gather the most pertinent data possible. The survey questions required the caravan owner to score their caravan out of five (with five being the highest possible score and one being the lowest) in a series of categories. These were: Layout Caravan build quality Caravan décor Value for money Respondents were asked to leave a short review of their caravan, while also clearly stating the make, model and year of the caravan in question. Users were contacted via My Holiday Caravan s extensive mailing list of over 30,000 users, and also via the site s social media channels, including Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The team decided that this was the only way to ensure a total lack of bias in their results, as it gave them full control over the process. This way, the MHC team was able to oversee the processes of gathering, collating and interpreting the results, and so guarantee the impartiality of the findings. In order to make the research as useful as possible to MHC s users, only manufacturers who had received three reviews or more were included in the final standings. The team also decided to publish comments from individual reviewers in order to give the results another dimension. During the meetings held to develop the survey, the MHC team identified these comments as key to the usability of the survey. While quantifiable statistics are vital when deriving the final standings of a survey, individual owner comments are just as valuable to buyers and offer a first-hand report of the ownership experience. The team decided to offer no financial incentive to respondents, ensuring that the survey results retained maximum credibility and impartiality. 1.. Note On Model Year The My Holiday Caravan team decided that the report should be a reflection of customer satisfaction with their caravan purchases, regardless of the age of the unit. Participants in the survey were required to include the year of manufacturer of their caravan when they responded, allowing MHC s analysts to investigate the correlation between the age of a caravan and its performance in any of the four categories. Initially, the team predicted that categories such as Caravan Décor strongly affected by changing trends and tastes would produce a distinct satisfaction curve. This was not the case; the team found instead that a 15 year old caravan was just as likely to score 5/5 in the décor category as a caravan manufactured only two years ago. The team found no correlation between caravan age and performance in any of the four categories.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 5 As a result, the team decided not to break the results down into age categories. They were instead presented together in the form of an overall table. For a detailed breakdown of the ages of the caravans included in our survey, see Appendix sections 5.3. and 5.. on pages 1 and 15 of this report. 2. The Findings 2.1. Overall Overall Rating.5.17.12.15 3.9.1.09.07 3.81 ABI Atlas Bluebird Cosalt Delta Pemberton Swift Victory Westbrook Willerby Appropriately, given their triumphant moniker, it was Victory that ran out as the overall winner. Victory s showing was a consistent one across the board: the East Yorkshire based company finished top in three out of the four categories, only slipping up in the Caravan Build Quality division, where they finished 2 nd. So, if there is a formula or a balance for a top quality caravan at a reasonable price, it appears that Victory have found it. But consistency was not a recurrent theme in the findings; something that will be explored later in this report. The.5 out of 5 scored by Victory was enough to secure overall top spot by a clear margin. However, the manufacturers in 2 nd, 3 rd and th places were rather more difficult to separate, with only 0.05 of a point between ABI, BK Bluebird and Atlas in these respective positions. Swift and Willerby were similarly difficult to separate in 5 th and 6 th, scoring.09 and.07 respectively.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 6 2.2. Findings: Individual Categories 2.2.1. Caravan Layout Caravan Layout.7.32.5.18..67.75 3.67.1 ABI Atlas Bluebird Cosalt Delta Pemberton Swift Victory Westbrook Willerby The Caravan Layout category was a consistently strong one, with all manufacturers scoring at least out of 5, except Westbrook with 3.67. Victory ran out as winners, scoring an impressive.75 out of 5, the joint highest score from any manufacturer in any of the four categories. Swift were second in this category. Their score of.67 would have been enough to win any of the other three categories barring the Value For Money division, and was the second highest score of any manufacturer in any of the categories. BK Bluebird finished third in this notably high scoring category with a score of.5. Again, this score would have been enough to top any of the other categories, barring Value For Money. It was this excellent score that raised Bluebird s average and secured them a top three finish overall, pushing Atlas back into th. Westbrook finished bottom of the Caravan Layout section by a considerable margin. The manufacturer s 3.67 was a full 0.33 of a point behind Pemberton and the only sub-four point score in the category.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 7 2.2.2. Caravan Build Quality Caravan Build Quality.1.1.12.05 3.5 3.5.25.33.19 ABI Atlas Bluebird Cosalt Delta Pemberton Swift Victory Westbrook Willerby Westbrook s score of.33 was enough to secure top spot in a fiercely contested category and represented the high point of a rollercoaster ride for the manufacturer in terms of their standings. Victory finished 2 nd, with.25 out of a possible 5. While Victory scored well in the only category that they did not top, this was the division that prevented the manufacturer securing a clean sweep, and one that can be identified as an area to be improved by the firm. Willerby, the most popular caravan manufacturer in terms of ownership numbers, finished 3 rd in this category, scoring.19 out of 5. This score was 0.05 of a point above ABI and Atlas two of Willerby s major rivals in the manufacturing stakes who were tied on.1 each. There was another tie for last place in the category, with both Pemberton and Swift scoring 3.5 out of 5; the lowest score posted by any manufacturer in any category. This coupled with a poor showing in the Value For Money category cost Pemberton in particular, and undoubtedly contributed to their bottom placed finish overall.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 8 2.2.3. Caravan Décor Caravan Décor.17.25.15.06.05.0 3.73 3.8 3.67 ABI Atlas Bluebird Cosalt Delta Pemberton Swift Victory Westbrook Willerby Victory returned to winning ways with a 1 st place finish in the Caravan Décor category. Décor was the lowest scoring of the four categories, and Victory secured top spot with a score of.25. Swift posted their 2 nd top-two finish of the survey, scoring.17. This was enough to edge out rivals Willerby, who were 0.02 points behind on.15. As mentioned, Willerby came 3 rd in this category, and were 0.09 of a point clear of ABI in th. Once again, there was little to choose between ABI and Atlas, the former pipping the latter to th place with.06 points to Atlas.05. BK Bluebird completed the chasing pack with.0. Westbrook followed up their category-topping performance in the Build Quality division with another last place finish. The firm scored 3.67 out of 5 in this category.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 9 2.2.. Value For Money Value For Money.75 3.95 3.92 3.82.2 3.75.33 3.83 ABI Atlas Bluebird Cosalt Delta Pemberton Swift Victory Westbrook Willerby Victory completed a convincing performance in the survey with a table-topping finish in the Value For Money category. In what was generally a low scoring category, Victory were an anomaly, claiming top spot with a strong.75 out of 5. Westbrook finished strongly in this category, despite claiming the wooden spoon in both the Layout and Décor divisions. Their.33 points total was significantly off the pace, but enough to see off Delta in 3 rd. Delta took 3 rd place in the Value For Money category with.2 points out of 5. This was Delta s only top three showing in any category, and was not enough to lift them above 5 th place overall. Five manufacturers scored lower than out of 5 in the Value For Money category, more than in any other division. Of these five, Pemberton scored the lowest, posting 3.75. Another bottom-placed finish from Pemberton condemned them to last place overall, dragging their average down to 3.81.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 10 3. Analysis 3.1. Westbrook s Build Quality and Value Over Design The most interesting story to emerge from our survey was surely Westbrook s rollercoaster ride of table positions. The firm finished in pole position in the Caravan Build Quality category and 2 nd in the Value For Money standings, but tarnished these showings with two last places in the Caravan Layout and Caravan Décor categories. This discrepancy between positions appears to indicate that while the manufacturer s caravans are of a good quality and are reasonably priced their design leaves something to be desired. User comments left on the My Holiday Caravan website have proved inconclusive as to why this may be. One user described one of the firm s vans as ok for short stays, while another said that they purchased a Westbrook unit as a first-time caravan, to see if the ownership experience was suited to them. Both of these comments indicate that value and pricing are major motivating factors for people buying Westbrook caravans. Our analysts took a closer look at the findings, in an attempt to identify a pattern. The 2 nd placed manufacturer in the Build Quality category was Victory, who scored consistently well across the board. The third placed firm was Willerby, who matched that showing in the Décor category, meaning that their appeared to be no correlation between a strong showing in the Build Quality category and a poor showing in the design area. However, the performance of manufacturers Swift who scored 2 nd place finishes in both the Caravan Layout and Caravan Décor sections hinted at a possible pattern. Their finishes mirrored those of Westbrook, as the firm scored big in both the design categories, but finished bottom of the pile in the Build Quality division. It is not definitive, but the performances of Westbrook and Swift in the survey suggest that there are two avenues to go down when manufacturing a static caravan. On the one hand, there is the luxury design and layout route, while on the other there is the build quality and value for money route. The key is it appears to strike a balance between the two. Victory s impressive performance across the board proved that a balance between style and substance is achievable. 3.2. Victory s Strong Showing Victory were undoubtedly the big winners in our survey, finishing in first place in three out of the four categories and finishing only 0.08 behind Westbrook in the other. But, while other firms found it difficult to strike an appropriate balance across the four categories, why did Victory apparently find it so easy? The user comments left on the My Holiday Caravan site would suggest that attention to detail and an excellent knowledge of what consumers want are major contributors to Victory s success over some of the better known caravan manufacturing brands. In the main, users were at pains to point out that their only qualms with the firm s caravans were minor ones. One user cited the colour scheme of the caravan s sofa as the sole reason for not scoring it 5/5 in the décor category, describing it as a great entry level unit.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 11 Another reviewer used the same superlative of great, while also pointing out that the caravan required more storage space. The findings should be treated with a degree of trepidation, due to other factors such as park location, caravan condition and age, and the decision between buying new and used impacting greatly on the ownership experience of an individual user. However, they do indicate that Victory is ticking all the major consumer boxes in the manufacture and sale of its products. 3.3. Caravan Décor: Lowest Average Score The average score received by caravan manufacturers in the Caravan Décor category was 3.98. Not only was this the lowest average of all the four categories, it was also the only average to fall below the out of 5 threshold. In addition to this, the.25 out of 5 score posted by table-toppers Victory was the lowest high score of any of the four categories. Is this indicative of a low quality of décor across the caravan industry? Or perhaps it suggests that the focus of caravan manufacturers is elsewhere? A review left on the My Holiday Caravan site for a Cosalt caravan who finished third from bottom in the category suggests that the general design of the unit is sub-standard; The caravan design is rather old fashioned, with lots of bright ceiling lights which aren t usable, the reviewer wrote, before adding that at least the furnishings were comfortable. These comments reflected those from other Cosalt owners. However, the negative comments were all made regarding units produced in 2000 and 2001, and therefore relate to caravans which are over a decade old. Newer units did score higher in the décor category, indicating that if tasteful design and up-to-date décor are high on your agenda when purchasing a caravan buying a more modern unit is advisable. However, as discussed earlier, the findings of our survey indicate that the caravan buying public are a savvy bunch. Not only will an older static caravan feature a smaller price tag than a newer one, it will also be less susceptible to depreciation. This means that if you come to sell the unit you are likely to recoup a greater percentage of the purchase price than if you were to buy new. With this in mind, actively engaged consumers are unlikely to sacrifice several hundred pounds of resale value for a more stylish or aesthetically conscious unit. There is also another factor to be considered. The purchase of a holiday caravan is a lifestyle choice, and it appears that consumers are willing to compromise on things like décor and layout in order to gain access to this exclusive club. This leads potential buyers to ignore luxury touches in favour of fundamentals such as build quality. A caravan manufacturer, identifying these purchasing habits, will be more inclined to invest in a good quality build that will last for a long time, rather than in a sharp colour scheme and stylish interior. It comes down to remaining flexible to the whim of the consumer; within the current economic conditions, it appears that décor and aesthetics are lower on the agenda of the average customer, although this could change in the future.
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 12 3.. Value For Money: Low Score The Value For Money category featured more scores below than in any other category. Only a strong performance from Victory in this division rescued it from posting a lower average than the décor category. The scores given to manufacturers by participants in the survey were generally good, showing a decent level of customer satisfaction across the board. The low scores submitted in the Value For Money category indicate that this is an issue many users feel strongly about, and one that is not being addressed by manufacturers. User reviews for caravan manufacturers that performed poorly in this section did not shed too much light on why this may be. Many reviewers suggested that their caravan was over-priced, while scoring it high in other areas. As there is an important distinction to be made between expensive and poor value for money, this is an area that requires further exploration. Caravan manufacturing firms are competitive commercial entities. So while the findings indicate that the big players in the industry are ignoring an issue close to the hearts of their customers it seems unlikely that manufacturers would be so short sighted. Our analytic team decided to look into this further. They identified an issue with our survey sample that could explain the apparent discrepancy between manufacturers attitudes to value for money and those of the consumer. Everyone who took part in our survey was a static caravan owner. Therefore, while the perceived poor value for money was enough for some reviewers to score manufacturers poorly in the survey, it was not enough to prevent them purchasing a caravan. In order to gain a better picture of which manufacturers offer the best value for money or whether manufacturers are directly addressing the issue at all another survey will need to be carried out, one that includes potential buyers who were dissuaded by pricing and value issues.. Summary The overall standings will make pleasant reading for most of the manufacturers who featured in the survey. The showings for all manufacturers were consistently strong, with all but Cosalt (3.9) and Pemberton (3.81) scoring at least out of 5 overall. This consistency has wider implications for the caravan industry. It shows that, despite the tough economic times we currently find ourselves in, static caravan owners are generally satisfied with their purchases and with the ownership lifestyle in general. This is also indicative of an engaged and savvy consumer who is equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools to make an informed choice when purchasing a static caravan holiday home. The modern caravan buyer is fully aware of all their needs in terms of both caravan make and model, and park location and is therefore able to make the right choice. The consumer does not feel pressured to rush into a purchase, and instead takes incremental, considered steps towards buying a caravan. This consumer intelligence is reflected in the general levels of satisfaction displayed in the findings.
3.5 3.5.32.1.05 3.95.12 3.67.1.06.12.0 3.92.15 3.73 3.82 3.9 3.8 3.75 3.81 3.67.17.18.05.2.1.1.19.15 3.83.07.7.5..17.09.25.25.5.33.33.67.75.75 w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 13 5. Appendix 5.1. Comparison Chart COMPARISON CHART Caravan Layout Caravan Build Quality Caravan Décor Value For Money Overall Rating A B I A T L A S B L U E B I R D C O S A L T D E L T A P E M B E R T O N S W I F T V I C T O R Y W / B R O O K W I L L E R B Y 5.2. Cumulative Votes CUMULATIVE VOTES Caravan Layout Caravan Build Quality Caravan Décor Value For Money Overall Rating W I L L E R B Y.1.19.15 3.83.07 W / B R O O K 3.67.33 3.67.33 V I C T O R Y.75.25.25.75.5 S W I F T.67 3.5.17.09 P E M B E R T O N 3.5 3.75 3.81 D E L T A. 3.8.2.1 C O S A L T.18.05 3.73 3.82 3.9 B L U E B I R D.5.12.0 3.92.15 A T L A S.32.1.05 3.95.12 A B I.7.1.06.17
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 1 5.3. Year of Manufacture: Percentages Year of Manufacture 1992 1% 1993 0% 199 1% 1995 0% 1996 0% 1997 1% 1998 3% 2011 7% 2012 5% 1999 1% 2000 7% 2010 13% 2001 % 2002 % 2009 7% 2003 7% 2008 5% 2007 8% 2006 8% 2005 5% 200 11%
w w w. m y h o l i d a y c a r a v a n. c o. u k P a g e 15 5.. Year of Manufacture: Comparison Chart Year of Manufacture 28 31 18 18 19 19 17 18 8 11 10 12 13 12 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 1992 1993 199 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012