any experience at Wilderness Camp at Disney???

Good point on the campground ROI. Disney will find a way to capitalize on anything it can, so I could see this being 'on the table' ?
Disney has just started charging $20 a day for you to PARK at your hotel!! This is. It an issue of not enough space, just another source of $$.
For as much as I do not like Disney because of its rates, it does it completely right and am hard pressed to find fault in their parks operations.

Lantley wrote:
Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

With many large corporations like this one, the business itself can be profitable on its own, but the company has a whole level of charge-backs that go into the business's P&L, like Legal, Finance, HR, Admin, rent, etc. These charges move the target and redefine profitability. I've heard similar group's leadership say, "oh yeah, we were definitely making money, but not after Corporate adds all their charges."

I don't know any of the particulars for this park though.

Lantley wrote:

soren wrote:

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

It's not that they are "LOSING $$" but that their ROI is probably down in the fraction of what their other resorts located as close to the MK are making. It wouldn't surprise me that FW is down in the 25% to 50% ROI as compared to it's closest resort the Wilderness Lodge.

Larry

soren wrote:

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

Pirate wrote:
I am happy to see so many people that would prefer to stay elsewhere.

WOW talk about misreading what has been posted ... 15 positives and 4 negatives out of 30 responses thus far is IMO hardly "so many people":S:E

Our typical stay there for the last 10 years has been is 40 to 70 days once a year!!! Before that it was generally 2 to 4 weeks. This year will be our 21th in the last 33 years and our total nights at FW just over 650.

Larry

I am happy to see so many people that would prefer to stay elsewhere.

We love the park and will go back as much as possible. We were never charged for a pet,

WAY to expensive. We did find a place that was 55.00 a night that was nicer, closer and cheaper than the 65.00 a night we spent at a koa. Wish I'd had found that place first. No extra charge for the dog to walk on there ground either. It was about 5-7 minutes from the gate. I doubt taking on site transportaion would have been so fast. But as one op said, to each his own. I'd rather save the money. And yes parking was 20.00 for the whole day, but you can leave and come back when you want.

Someone said parking is 15, no it is 20. The main perk to being on site is early and late Magic Hours. Next time my kids visit, will use my pass holder discount to get them on site so they can do more in a few days.