You guys that say a campground expansion is not going to happen because of the bean counters are probably right. It is logical that they make more money with a hotel type resort. On the other hand, it depends on what kind of beans the bean counters are counting. Copper Creak has cabins. An RV site takes up about the same space as a cabin. Disney World is 42 square miles and there is plenty of room to build many more hotels. Having an RV and cabin DVC resort in this location would not restrict the development of traditional resorts at all. Fort Wilderness is a very special place. It can not be described, it must be experienced to understand it. For thousands of people Fort Wildeness is what makes Disney World so special that they keep returning year after year. Disney could decide to expand on this and it is a perfect fit in this location. Disney is all about making a quick buck these days by selling DVC. The RV and cabin resort could be built very quickly. Small investment, quick return on that investment, some bean counters would have to love this. Now if a decision maker is an RV guy, it could happen. Just keep building the hotel type resorts someplace else. This old River Country location is the perfect place for my dream. I do want to comment about Fort Wildeness folks spending money. Most campsites are occupied by 2 to 6 people, not the max allowable 10. Most of the Fort is now classified as premium sites and cost between $120 and $200 per night. Not cheap. If we do save a few bucks we just spend more on things like Hoop Dee Doo Review dinner show at the Fort and Happily Ever After Dessert Party at MK and Dinner at the California Grilljust a short boat ride away.
It's not a matter whether an expansion of the campground, or an RV DVC, would make money. It would. The demand at Fort Wilderness is off the charts for the RV spots. It's a question of profitability. WDW has a finite amount of money to invest. Let's say the option is to invest $1MM. For that $1MM you could either build an RV DVC or a hotel DVC. When all expected revenue is accounted for, that means expectations for increased park ticket sales, restaurant revenue, gift shop revenue, etc. versus all expected expenses which includes construction, upkeep, employees, etc., the RV park is going to return some multiple less than the hotel. So given the limited budget, you owe it to the owners of the company, the shareholders, to invest that $1MM not just in what will make money, but will make the MOST money. So if a campground has a profit margin of 30%, all factors included, and a hotel has a profit margin of 50%, both are good investments, but the hotel is the one you must choose as a good manager.
There are ways Disney could solve some of this discrepancy. I'm always amazed they let people stay for months on end at Fort Wilderness. It's a horrible business model because those people aren't as likely to buy tickets, food, and souvenirs as a family that comes in for a week. Same with phantom bookings because while you get the site revenue, you miss out on other revenue if that site wasn't ghost booked. Namely you'd have another family on site going to the parks and buying some food and souvenirs, and you'd still have the revenue from the offsite guest. So the very first thing I'd do, if I was in charge of Fort Wilderness, is set it up like a state park. You can stay a maximum of 10-14 days in any month. If WDW would let me, I'd tie stays to park tickets. For example, you must have one park entry ticket for every registered guest for every 3 days you stay at Fort Wilderness. Obviously annual pass holders already qualify, but everyone else would have to have linked tickets. I'd do like other campgrounds do and charge for guests over 5 at any one site. Maybe an additional $10 per person per night. If you started to make these changes you'd see the profitability, per person, at the campground go up and it might, might, make sense to expand it or add amenities.
I love Fort Wilderness, it's already insanely expensive as a campground, but as a way to stay onsite at Disney it's generally a bargain. So long as that remains true, it is unlikely to see any kind of significant investment and that's a shame, because it really is in serious demand, beloved by the users, and yet at the same time, far behind in things like a decent sized pool.
Mackinac Island is my favorite vacation place when it isn't snowing. WDW is my favorite winter vacation place (although next time we are going in June due to school schedules) . If I could merge those two, that would be awesome! However, I may consider buying DVC in this location irregardless, as long as it is good themeing that allows you to step away from the hubbub of the parks.
