SSSHH!! "Inside info from chatty driver"!!

[Dznefreek]

Wilderness Junction and Buffalo Bill Junction were to be built to fill in between FW and WL. It was to be an "Old West Town" themed resort where the buildings (shops, stores, etc.) would be the rooms . . . . .

 

[ftwildernessguy]

us low tech/low hook up folks don't bring in the big bucks for a campsite, so i could see them wanting to cut down on the "cheap sites", but it would be a sad turn of events for us minimalistic campers.

- lori

Don't underestimate the amount of money we low tech campers funnel into Disney. Those big rigs aren't paying any more for a campsite than we are, and I have seen many of them haul in, set up the dish and plant themselves by a television for a week. That means Disney made no money over the campground fee on them.

We went from a tent to a pop up to the hybrid. My wife wanted the security of a hard side, I was quite frankly getting tired of cranking the pop up, but I still wanted to get that tent feeling when I slept. The hybrid was the answer and we are lovin it, too. Set up is a mere fraction of the time that the pop up took, giving me more quality FW time on set up day, and you can "turtle it" and sleep buttoned up on the way down - just pull into the KOA, plug into the electric and you're good to go.

 

[bicker]

I think the bigger question is what is the difference in terms of contribution to long-term shareholder value from one use of an asset (such as a plot of land) versus another. For example, where the BoardWalk now stands, they could have built a moderate resort, or a super-deluxe resort. However, it seems reasonable that the case may be that the (regular) deluxe resort was the best choice. A moderate resort would have sub-optimized the land since they couldn't exact such a high premium per square foot. A super-deluxe would have sub-optimized the land since that would have dilluted the demand by providing more supply than perhaps was justified.

What would make sense to me would be, if it were possible to make reasonably good forecasts, to try to segment the market. If there are things about the A-class RVs (need more space, wider turning circles, etc.) that they could capitalize on to restrict them to a specific portion of the resort, or a different "deluxe" RV resort, then that may be worth considering (and charging a premium for, of course). That isn't to say that there is no way to make money off of tent-camper and smaller RVs, but rather to say that there may be a way to make more money off of the larger RVs, by directing their business to a different (higher margin) offering.

 

[John VN]

Well let's do a little figuring here.

A rig pulls in and hooks up to 50amp service for the rv and starts to display a scene that is worthy of joining the Osborne Lights at MGM that requires the other outlets to be used. Those lights are on forever and even for different seasons and they pay the same as a little tenter or camper or small rv who uses the 20amp or 30amp service in the full hook-up site.

Where is there a higher profit margin for Disney?

 

[bicker]

Charging a higher rate for campsites with different electrical service amperages.

For each example you come up with, you're identified another way Disney can differentiate the service they provide between the larger versus small markets, and can thereby attach a premium to the difference.

 

[ftwildernessguy]

Of course, you are assuming that everyone with the big rig would pay more for the campsite at a more "deluxe" resort. Judging by what I saw boondocking in the overflow lot, I don't think this is necessarily going to be the case.

 

[bicker]

No assumption is necessary. Rather, they could put specific limits on specific campsites, basically limiting the A-class RVs to the "premium" campsites. Enforcement would resolve any issues of "boondocking."

 

[disneyophile]

I would like to see Disney timeshare for campers. FW has a loyal following of guests that there would surely be a market for DVC campsites. It would be a great way to add additional sites in an exclusive DVC loop or loops within FW that has additional conveniences, and possibly larger sites. What are the chances that this could happen?

 

[tim5055]

I would like to see Disney timeshare for campers. FW has a loyal following of guests that there would surely be a market for DVC campsites. It would be a great way to add additional sites in an exclusive DVC loop or loops within FW that has additional conveniences, and possibly larger sites. What are the chances that this could happen?

While I would like to see this also, the problem I see is "balancing" the number of DVC points necessary for a stay.

If Disney maintained the minimum number of points for a purchase and equated the price of a campsite to the price of the rooms at other resorts you end up with (this is a guess folks) about a 3 - 1 ratio. Meaning, three times as many nights at FW (or other camping DVC) as a room at lets say the Boardwalk.

If they reduce the number of points for purchase, you will find folks buying in "cheap" at the camping DVC so they can use their points at one of the other resorts for a week long vacation every other year (using banking).

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I see it as a potential problem.

 

[John VN]

While I would like to see this also, the problem I see is "balancing" the number of DVC points necessary for a stay.

If Disney maintained the minimum number of points for a purchase and equated the price of a campsite to the price of the rooms at other resorts you end up with (this is a guess folks) about a 3 - 1 ratio. Meaning, three times as many nights at FW (or other camping DVC) as a room at lets say the Boardwalk.

If they reduce the number of points for purchase, you will find folks buying in "cheap" at the camping DVC so they can use their points at one of the other resorts for a week long vacation every other year (using banking).

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I see it as a potential problem.

DVC members can now use points to stay at campsites at FW. We currently choose to pay cash for our site since we feel it is more financially sound to do so. Even if there was a DVC FW Resort I don't think it would be much different as far as number of points needed to stay at a campsite compared to the current point chart.

 

[tim5055]

Even if there was a DVC FW Resort I don't think it would be much different as far as number of points needed to stay at a campsite compared to the current point chart.

You use more Vacation Points for larger accommodations, like a three-bedroom Grand Villa, than for smaller ones like a Studio. So, it would have to be fewer points for a campsite; thus it would seem the minimum number of purchase points would give you a much longer stay, no matter what the season.

How many points do they charge now for a campsite vs. the most basic room?

 

[bicker]

see below

 

[John VN]

There are currently no points charts for Fort Wilderness campsites -- only cabins, and they're just a little less than a standard room at AKL.

The points chart is on our DVC Members web site.

John

 

[bicker]

I just was there and checked. I didn't see it. All I saw there were point charts for the cabins.

OKAY... I see them now. Thanks for the correction John.

 

[Gillian]

Does Disney have seasonal sites? Is that kind of what the winter settlers rate was? Do I remember correctly that they didn't offer that discount this year? A long term area could be set up, even if it isn't DVC. It could have the larger sites and roads required by newer units.

One thing I worry about, if they funnel larger RV traffic elsewhere, is that the bath houses in the old loops will be more crowded! I doubt expanding them will be a priority, but it really could be a problem if the areas are filled with tenters.

 

[Gillian]

us low tech/low hook up folks don't bring in the big bucks for a campsite, so i could see them wanting to cut down on the "cheap sites", but it would be a sad turn of events for us minimalistic campers.

- lori

Lori, I am also not sure I agree with this, as far as the $$. From reading the boards, I find that many tent campers are going to Disney for a normal vacation, where they will see the parks, eat out at least a few times, and spend money! Many of the RVers seem to stay a long time. They have annual passes, they cook their own meals, bring their own bikes and golf carts. They hang out longer but spend less, or at least less quickly than their low tech neighbors. So beyond the (discounted?) site fee, they aren't contributing much to the WDW bottom line.

We are visiting in April, and I'm trying to convince my SIL & BIL to join us. They would either camp or stay at the all stars. Either way, they will be buying park tickets, eating out and buying stuff for 2 adults, 2 teens & a baby. Good money for Disney!

 

[disneyophile]

It is my understanding that at the DVC properties, the level of the property that you purchase determines how many points you receive per year. For instance, if you purchase a studio you receive fewer points per year than if you purchased a three bedroom property. ( And thus, it would require more points to stay at the 3 bedroom property than at the studio for the same length of time.) If a FW DVC were created, assuming that the level of the property and cost would be lower than a studio and three bedroom, you would receive fewer points per year. You could then decide to use your points each year for a FW DCV, or allow them to accrue for a few years to vacation at another DVC property. Folks could buy in cheap at a FW DVC, but they would need to visit a DVC much less often in order to stay at a higher valued property. That would be no different than someone buying a studio, but saving their points for several years to stay in a 3 bedroom.

 

[bicker]

DVC members do not purchase a specific "level of the property"... they actually purchase a percentage interest in the property, expressed in terms of points.

 

[bama_ed]

Gillian,

I camped next to a "Winter Settler" a few years ago at FW in the 1300 loop and she explained it to me. I didn't get specific dates but "winter settlers" are people who came and stayed for about 3 months over the winter and paid a slightly reduced daily rate. They had to be in by a certain date and out by a certain date. With the exception of Christmas-New Years week, the late November to mid-February period was usually pretty slow so Disney was probably glad to have them spending $$ there. There were a limited number of winter settler rates (no new names were being accepted). It was like buying season tickets for a football team: There was a waiting list to get on winter settlers' rate.

Anyway, if you are not familiar, many snowbird/retirees come south to spend the winter with us (I'm in Alabama) and they will bring their campers for 3 months of so (Nov-Feb, Dec-Mar, Jan-Mar, whatever) and stay many months then go home. Most state parks offer long-term rates. This lady's husband had passed away (she was a widow) but they had come to FW each winter for many years so when her husband died she had the trailer stored in Orlando for 9 months a year, paid someone to haul it to FW and set it up, and she spent the winter there.

As other on the board have noted, the winter settlers generally don't buy admission tickets for the whole 3 months, don't spend restaurant dollars the whole 3 months, don't buy souvenirs the whole 3 months. So I guess if Disney gets enough tourist/visitor demand at FW who are willing to pay more than the winter settler rate, they will shut the program down.

I personally look forward to getting on the list when I retire, coming down for the winter, getting a seasonal job (even if it's picking up trash) in the Magic Kingdom, and camping at FW every night.

 

[John VN]

Gillian,

I camped next to a "Winter Settler" a few years ago at FW in the 1300 loop and she explained it to me. I didn't get specific dates but "winter settlers" are people who came and stayed for about 3 months over the winter and paid a slightly reduced daily rate. They had to be in by a certain date and out by a certain date. With the exception of Christmas-New Years week, the late November to mid-February period was usually pretty slow so Disney was probably glad to have them spending $$ there. There were a limited number of winter settler rates (no new names were being accepted). It was like buying season tickets for a football team: There was a waiting list to get on winter settlers' rate.

Anyway, if you are not familiar, many snowbird/retirees come south to spend the winter with us (I'm in Alabama) and they will bring their campers for 3 months of so (Nov-Feb, Dec-Mar, Jan-Mar, whatever) and stay many months then go home. Most state parks offer long-term rates. This lady's husband had passed away (she was a widow) but they had come to FW each winter for many years so when her husband died she had the trailer stored in Orlando for 9 months a year, paid someone to haul it to FW and set it up, and she spent the winter there.

As other on the board have noted, the winter settlers generally don't buy admission tickets for the whole 3 months, don't spend restaurant dollars the whole 3 months, don't buy souvenirs the whole 3 months. So I guess if Disney gets enough tourist/visitor demand at FW who are willing to pay more than the winter settler rate, they will shut the program down.

I personally look forward to getting on the list when I retire, coming down for the winter, getting a seasonal job (even if it's picking up trash) in the Magic Kingdom, and camping at FW every night.

According to a thread some time ago, the Winter Settler Rates were discontinued for the 2005/2006 season and might not be available in the future. I think it was site 1302 that the woman had.