HopperFan
"It's a bug-eat-bug world out there, princess."
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
I've said this before on the camping boards. I don't think they ever build another campground, despite massive demand, because there is no way a campground generates similar revenue per guest as the resorts, but I don't think they get rid of The Fort since it is basically a sunk infrastructure cost and is always jammed, regardless of being one of the most expensive campgrounds in the U.S.
That being said, there are such simple ways they could increase revenue from the campground it always blows my mind they don't. For one thing, limit the length of stays. When people come and stay for a month, you get low revenue annual pass folks, or people who stay in the campground more than go to the resorts. If they limited it to 10 days per month, 30 days in a year, revenue per guest would go up as you got more park goers and fewer long time stays. Cut it down to 5 people per site, and charge $20 per person over 5 per night extra. That would also help with the phantom booking problem. Tie stays to tickets. If you don't have a park ticket for every 2 or 3 days you stay at The Fort, you can't stay for more than 3 days. Tie holiday weekends and special events to tickets. You want to stay at Halloween? You need to have a park ticket for every day you stay.
If they did simple things like this, that campground would generate significantly more revenue. It would still lag, since campers tend to bring their own food, but it would be worth so much more money. And if it makes more money, they are less likely to do something stupid like bulldoze it.
While I think the campground makes money compared to it's operating costs I think they could make LOTS more and bring in more campers who continued to add to the cash registers. Your ideas are spot on.
They really need to bring back Express Transportation, that was easily one of the best ideas Disney has ever had, they were glorious.
They did, it's called a Minnie Van and they make LOTS more money.
I could easily see an argument that the campground is very much an example of a less productive asset. They run hotels at 90% capacity most of the time. They've been knocking down other resorts to build up towers to increase room availability. What's stopping them from taking over what's basically a big parking lot. A few towers in place of the campground could very much be more profitable, especially as something like a true high end resort since they really don't have one.
I have stayed in campground, I won't go back because I left camping in my past, just not for me. But MANY MANY people love it, it's a low maintenance resort for Disney, and it can be hard to book. Not sure why you think it is a less productive asset? Because the gross amount of money they take in? Maybe, but they spend a lots less money to maintain and operate it. Campers are pretty self-sufficient. Add to that paving over that land means they have to find a way to protect a bunch more land elsewhere, the state won't allow that kind of huge impact to water.
As far as high end resort, Disney has made it perfectly clear they'd rather folks like Four Seasons offer that. Disney would have to substantially up their service and offerings while cutting prices to compete. They are not in it for that kind of commitment. They are shooting for those once or twice visit families who will drope thousands and thousands of dollars on everything even if it's not worth it. Get them in, get them out .... next!
I know, but is there any rumor about what would be replacing it? The PP said it's good that Disney replaces things, but do we even know if that's what's being proposed here?
Nada shared that I saw, just throw something out there that get folks worked up and clicking .... haven't seen it posted anywhere else ... yet.
Maybe @TheRustyScupper has heard some rumblings?