Is more Better?

When working with a camp, especially traditional camps in the non-profit world, one of the first things I look at are their add-on programs. These are the camp weeks that offer specialized programming for an extra fee. These add-ons, ranging from horse riding to sailing, paintball to go-carts, and llama treks, are often touted as the linchpins of differentiation and revenue growth. Camps frequently receive encouragement to lean into this sort of programming to increase revenue and by extension, margin. However, my experience reveals a starkly different narrative: these premium offerings may not only fail to drive anticipated revenue but can also diminish the camp's brand and impact camper and parent satisfaction negatively.

At first glance, premium programs seem like a lucrative strategy. They promise an exclusive experience for a higher fee, ostensibly driving up revenue. Yet, upon closer inspection, the reality is more nuanced. The costs associated with these programs — specialized equipment, expert instructors, feed and fuel, consumable equipment, and additional insurance — can significantly erode their profitability. But my greater concern is whether these programs drive retention or enrollment.

First, let's look at experience. My Maryland camp had 24 of these programs on the day I arrived. They brought in significant revenue, close to 20% of all revenue. But closer inspection showed that 5 of these programs accounted for almost 85% of that income. The rest broke even or lost money. When we reduced these programs to sailing (two levels of programming), water ski, equestrian, and paintball, our total revenue increased rather than decreased, and our margin more than doubled on this GL line.

(Side Note: We kept water skiing, a legacy program that the camp had been known for in the 80s, even though it lost money, and we also kept the horses, even though volatile feed prices in winter meant that profit was not always guaranteed.)

This discovery illustrated two important points: Brand Dilution, and the “paradox of choice” theory, which suggests that beyond a certain point, more choices may lead to decision paralysis and disappointment rather than satisfaction. We won't be able to cover all of my thoughts here in one sitting. So, we will return to this subject again.

Professor Scott Galloway from NYU Stern School of Business, when not making (hilarious) dick jokes, frequently talks about the specific crowding out the general. What does he mean? Lots. But on one level, he is talking about brand dilution. (I am a fan boy of his)

Brand dilution occurs when a company extends its brand far beyond its core strengths, introducing products or services that do not align with its established market identity. This overextension can confuse consumers about what the brand stands for, weakening its perceived value and distinction in the market. In contrast, brands that concentrate on a specific niche or core competency often achieve a stronger, more focused market presence. This focus enables them to command authority and credibility in their domain, effectively crowding out competitors who adopt a more generalized approach. These specialized brands resonate more deeply with their target audience, as they clearly communicate a consistent message and deliver on a specific set of expectations. Over time, this focused strategy not only enhances brand loyalty but also erects barriers to entry for generalized competitors, who may struggle to match the depth of connection and expertise established by more focused brands.

For camping, add-on programming works for large private and expensive camps where premium is their brand. But for most smaller and especially non-profit organizations, their brand is quite different. For these camps, a strong brand is their low-tech traditional approach to character development. They should be focused on clearly communicating the camp's values, who they are, and what they are not. They are for inclusive experiences for all, and there is a strong target audience for this and offerings to its target audience. Premium programs, especially those peripheral to the camp's central theme, risk muddling this communication. This dilution not only weakens the brand's resonance with its audience but also complicates marketing efforts, making it challenging to articulate a clear and compelling value proposition.

Another critical dimension that requires scrutiny is the social dynamics these premium programs engender within the camp community. By creating a visible divide between those who can afford these extras and those who cannot, camps inadvertently cultivate an environment of exclusivity and division. This stratification runs counter to the ethos of inclusivity and community that form the bedrock of the most cherished camping experiences.

An extensive menu of premium programs introduces complexity into the decision-making process for parents, inadvertently fostering dissatisfaction. This phenomenon, rooted in the paradox of choice, suggests that too many options can overwhelm and lead to regret, undermining the very rationale for these add-ons. Rather than enhancing the camping experience, they introduce anxiety and doubt, potentially decreasing the likelihood of families returning. But this is for another time.