The Concord Trap: How Rational Program Analysis Can Transform Summer Camps

On a recent trip to Paris, my daughter asked me about the Concord that greets you at Charles De Gaulle.  Nearly 70 years after its design she was still struck by its futuristic shape and contours.  Curious, she asked me all about it, so I told her as much as I knew.  (I was actually surprised by how much I knew, My Dad was in the Royal Airforce, apparently, I gained a lot of plane knowledge by osmosis).  She asked why it no longer flew.  I told her about the cost over runs in production, the noise problems, the lack of demand, the cost to service and maintain it and the cost to fly it, and finally the crash in 2000, before being retired in 2003.  She listen intently, before stating “it’s a surprise they even made it.” Exactly.

Concord is the perfect example of the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy, also known as sunk cost bias, is a common logical fallacy and a type of cognitive bias in decision-making. It occurs when an individual or organization continues a project, investment, or action primarily because of the substantial resources (time, money, effort) they have already committed or "sunk" into it, rather than because of a rational analysis of the current situation and future prospects. This bias leads to a focus on past costs rather than future utility, resulting in potentially poor decision-making.

Despite the escalating costs during its development and the realization of a smaller than expected market for supersonic travel, both the British and French governments continued to fund the Concorde, driven by the substantial investments already made and national pride. This decision-making was clouded by the sunk costs of time, money, and effort, leading to the continuation of the project and its operation for decades, despite growing concerns about its economic viability and environmental impact.

I see this frequently at Camps, with their add-on programs and specialty camps.  In a desperate need to provide something for everyone, and keep up with local competition, Camps feel they need to offer more and more, with out really questioning the economics, or how it might be diluting their brand. (link)

The problem is so pervasive that its one of the first things I look at when I take over a new facility or I am asked to help a camp.  Upon arrival at my one camp, they had 24 specialty camp programs.  Some with a single camper in them for a session.  This was quickly reduced to 4 with no complaints from campers or parents, or a decline in enrollment.

Normally these programs are historic and are considered part of the camps fabric, had or have a staff champion, or where a fad program, or programs with a large set up cost.  Other are programs that made sense originally but escalating costs, especially rising insurance cost no longer make them viable.

I see a lot of camps with water ski, and wind surf programs, popular in the 80’s, but now struggling to maintain quality as the number of available instructors decrease, and the equipment ages.  Additionally these programs have high running costs as replacement parts are more expensive as the sports have declined in popularity nationally and the maintenance cost of an aging speed boat fleet increases, two expensive to replace, and then there is the price of gas, all of this reduces margin’s.  This is even before you consider the small number of campers that are participating in these programs.  But because these are legacy programs, they are remembered fondly by alumni who loved them when they were much cheaper to run.

Paintball programs are another example, extremely popular in the late 90’s and early 2000’s these programs once had a staff champion.  Some one who loved the activity and drove its early success.  But again the costs of paint balls, equipment, the large amount of space they take up, and questions about the effects of teaching highschoolers to shoot each other, all make it difficult to justify today.

Day trips are another one.  As the cost of activities increases, camps are reluctant to pass on these costs to parents.  Transport is one of the most dangerous things we do, and we pay an insurance premium to do it, not to mention the stress these trips place on staff.  Yet many camps are expanding these offering, without based on a handful of emails from parents that maybe represent 1% of their total camp population, rather than an actual need.

The one Camp I am always shocked by are jewelry making camps, where campers use all the supplies in the first few days of a camp and they are constantly replenished.  This poor inventory control leads to the camp costing far more than the price of enrollment.  This of course is an easy fix with a little staff training and  inventory control and oversite.

Though there are Camps that run these programs both efficiently and effectively we need to ask questions of all our programs.  Are they cost effective?  When I ask, I am shown the revenue that each camp brings.  But the revenue is only one part of the equation.  Of course, there is the expense side.  But we also have to ask if you removed these programs, would these kids still attend camp?  The answer is almost always yes.  I know of almost no examples of Camps removing programs and campers not returning.  They return for the experience rather than the programing.

Just because a program was expensive to set up, doesn’t mean it’s viable now.  Our camps can’t fall into the Concord trap, where we keep running program because it was a pet project of someone we like, or because we spent a lot of money to get it off the ground.  Pouring in more money wont save it, its just taking money that you could be spending elsewhere.  Evaluate all your programs and make rational decisions based on return.  And if it’s a program that doesn’t break even but brings attention to your camp.  Maybe that’s the one you save.