The original concept of glamping has suffered from appropriation. The word itself has become so corrupted that it has become meaningless.
All the major dictionaries are in close agreement in defining it through its foundational attributes of camping in luxury. Most authoritative definitions assert that stays are of short duration, located in the open air, lasting a couple of nights or so, and done for recreational purposes. The association with tents is particular and extremely strong.
However, glamping is now depicted in so many eclectic and varied ways that virtually anything can be claimed. Advocates of different and unrelated hospitality offerings contend that their form of place and space are valid and appropriate glamping manifestations. They argue that such marketing representations are acceptable business practices.
This process of substitution within glamping has accelerated in recent years. Here substitution is presented as glamping, but manifests as something completely different, feeding the development of Pseudo-Glamping. Guests are not provided with any actual glamping experiences, but instead, various degrees of simulation are engendered, whereby they believe they have. A process of commodification is occurring in which the brand related to glamping has become disconnected from its conceptual underpinnings.
The incursion of substantial permanent structures such as tiny homes, boats, houseboats, castles, and villas illustrate the level of infiltration. The latter is noteworthy and is perhaps the most deceitful attack on the notion of glamping where urban spaces are stamped over rural environments. It appears that Pseudo-Glamping has become so prevalent that if glamping is to survive, it must rebrand, recast and reassert.