Cookie Policy

The neighborhood where Le camp de base is located is rich in cultural and socioeconomic diversity. As in many large cities, many people there face precarious situations due to structural challenges (immigration, single-parent families, undervalued professions, etc.). Others benefit from more favorable economic dynamics. This diversity led us to reflect on how to welcome everyone into a space like ours.

For us, even though this sport has historically been "reserved" for a certain demographic, climbing should be accessible to everyone. We have therefore experimented with a differentiated and conscious pricing model. Those who have the means to pay a little more enable others to climb at a reduced rate. This is about establishing a degree of social justice, ensuring that a passion for climbing is not reserved for a privileged elite.

We offer three rates for access to the climbing gym:

• Mouflon entry – reduced price (€11): for those who need financial support.
• Marmot entry – balanced price (€13): standard rate, which covers operating costs.
• Wallcreeper entry – supporter price (€14): for those who wish to contribute more and support our solidarity efforts.

‍

The standard price is the one that allows the gym to operate sustainably, covering all expenses. The reduced price is intended for those who need financial support, while the supporter price helps fund discounted access for other climbers.

When customers arrive, we explain this system using clear visual aids. We do not comment on their choice of rate, nor do we ask for any justification. Our point-of-sale system records the chosen rates anonymously.

We have also decided to remove certain specific discounts (ULB students, partner gym members, etc.) to make the system simpler and more inclusive. This accounts for less than 3% of our sales, but it allows us to extend benefits to more people and ensure it is clearly understood by everyone.

Before implementing such a system, we believe it is essential for everyone to understand how our expenses are distributed:

• 53% of our expenses are dedicated to our team's salaries, which allows us to maintain a high-quality service.
• 26% of our costs relate to the building, primarily including loans and maintenance.
• 11% is allocated to climbing, covering wall maintenance, hold replacement, and improving the climbing experience.
• Taxes and duties represent 4%.
• The events we organize account for 4% of our expenses.
• The remaining 2% covers our energy costs.

The balanced price, set at €13, represents a break-even point that allows Le Camp de base to operate without a deficit while providing a quality experience for all users.

However, for this system to work, it is crucial that everyone is aware of the impact of their choice.

This model has its limits: if too many people choose the reduced price, the system becomes financially unsustainable. This is why we ask everyone to make a conscious choice and reflect on their own means. By understanding how costs are distributed and the gym's financial needs, every climber can help ensure the long-term viability of this solidarity-based model.

Without this balance, it would be difficult for us to maintain the quality of the services we offer or to continue making climbing accessible to as many people as possible.

Before implementing such a system, we believe it is essential for everyone to understand how our expenses are distributed:

• 53% of our expenses are dedicated to our team's salaries, which allows us to maintain high-quality service.
• 26% of our costs relate to the building, primarily including loans and maintenance.
• 11% is allocated to climbing, covering wall maintenance, hold replacement, and improving the climbing experience.
• Taxes and duties represent 4%.
• The events we organize account for 4% of our expenses.
• The remaining 2% covers our energy costs.

The balanced price, set at €13, represents a break-even point that allows Camp de Base to operate without a deficit while providing a quality experience for all users.

However, for this system to work, it is crucial that everyone is aware of the impact of their choice.

This model has its limits: if too many people choose the reduced price, the system becomes financially unsustainable. That is why we ask everyone to make a conscious choice and reflect on their own means. By understanding how costs are distributed and what the gym’s financial needs are, every climber can help ensure the long-term viability of this solidarity-based model.

Without this balance, it would be difficult for us to maintain the quality of the services we offer or to continue making climbing accessible to as many people as possible.

A gradual decline… and some limits to clarify

While the early days of the conscious pricing model were promising, we are now seeing a gradual decline in the solidarity-based dynamic. The proportion of entries at the reduced rate has increased, the support rate has decreased, and the average price per entry is dropping every month. As it stands, the model is no longer financially balanced and could eventually jeopardize the economic viability of the venue.

This system relies on collective trust because everyone's economic reality is often invisible.

A fragile dynamic, a model to question

The survey we recently conducted among our members confirms the questions raised by the data analysis

• 57% of our clients would change their pricing tier
• 66% of these clients would opt for a lower rate

While indicative, these results reinforce our caution: generalizing the conscious pricing model (to 10-visit passes or subscriptions) would lead to a significant drop in revenue without any guarantee of sufficient compensation. This raises questions about the long-term sustainability of the model.

(Temporary) end of the experiment

The idea of conscious pricing remains meaningful. It has allowed us to ask fundamental questions about access to sports, solidarity, and our role as a committed private entity.

But at this stage:

• the model is no longer financially viable,
• solidarity-based behaviors are fading,
• our economic environment requires stability and predictability.

We have therefore decided, with great disappointment, to reinstate our standard pricing, in order to reconsider its operation, limitations, and drivers, and to reflect on a version that is more robust, fairer, and also economically sustainable.

Accessibility has its limits: a gym is no substitute for social policy

Even with a reduced rate of €11, climbing remains an expensive sport for many people. We are aware of this.

Like any private business, we face significant costs, which we have tried to present with a degree of transparency to our users.

We sincerely believe in making climbing more inclusive and equitable. A private gym cannot replace public policies for wealth redistribution. Our sliding scale pricing is a creative and introspective attempt, but it cannot, on its own, compensate for systemic inequalities. We are trying to do our part, honestly, but without any illusions.

What now?

We remain convinced that a fairer pricing model is possible, but to be sustainable, it must be both inclusive and economically viable.

This is therefore an opportunity to take a step back, analyze the effects of the initiative, and lay the groundwork for a potential return that is better structured, better supported, better explained, and, above all, collectively driven.

Thank you to everyone who believed in this experiment, supported it sincerely, and is helping us imagine other ways to do sports… together.

This conscious pricing model may not yet be up to our ambitions, but it has helped us grow. And we have plenty more ideas where that came from. See you soon for what comes next.

In the meantime, here is some recommended reading…

Among the resources that could fuel our thinking for the next steps of our experiments—which are only just beginning—is a behavioral economics study co-authored by Marc Le Menestrel, a unique figure at the intersection of rock climbing and ethics research.

The power of requests in a redistribution game: an experimental study

It shows that systems based on solidarity and voluntary contribution work best when they are clearly explained, understood, and championed by the community.

An insightful read that could help us think through a potential version 2 of our conscious pricing model.