A recent survey reveals how Russian parents weigh the cost of sending a child to a summer camp. The majority, about 56.6 percent, are not prepared to pay more than 50 thousand rubles for a week of camp, according to data gathered by SportZania and reported by ATOR. This snapshot highlights budget boundaries that many families observe when planning a seasonal getaway for their children and points to a price-sensitive market where value and safety must align with parental expectations.
Another sizable group, 28.1 percent, is willing to invest 50-75 thousand rubles for a seven-day camp experience. A smaller share, around 8 percent, is considering options up to 100 thousand rubles, while the rest show readiness to shell out more than 100 thousand rubles for a weekly shift. These figures illustrate a tiered willingness to spend that varies with perceived quality, program variety, and the overall camp environment.
When it comes to choosing a camp, respondents identified the program as the leading criterion, capturing 34 percent of the vote. A comfortable site and a reasonable overall cost followed closely behind, each gathering roughly a quarter of the responses. This ranking underscores that parents seek a blend of engaging activities and practical value, with affordability playing an important supporting role in decision making.
Nutrition received relatively less emphasis in the survey, attracting attention from only about 12.2 percent of parents. The low priority given to meals is notable, especially since many camps advertise dietary options and healthful menus as part of their core offering. Industry observers interpret this as a signal that while nutrition matters, it often takes a back seat to program quality and location when parents compare options for their children.
Igor Pugachev, chief executive officer of SportZania, commented on the nutrition question, noting that every campsite should provide children with healthy, balanced, and proper meals. The assurance aims to alleviate parental concerns about daily sustenance during a camp stay, reinforcing the expectation that camp operators meet basic dietary standards without requiring constant parental oversight.
The survey also touched on potential unexpected costs, though fewer families mentioned extras beyond the base weekly rate. In several cases, parents weigh the impact of additional charges for activities, equipment, and supervision against the core price. This dynamic underscores the importance for camps to present transparent pricing and clearly outline what is included in the weekly package to avoid surprises that could affect a family’s choice.
Looking at the broader context, the data paints a picture of a market where value alignment, safety assurances, and program richness drive decisions as much as sticker price. Camps that clearly articulate the benefits of their itineraries, highlight safety protocols, and demonstrate predictable costs are more likely to capture the attention of budget-conscious families. For operators, this means tailoring offerings to emphasize meaningful experiences while maintaining accessible pricing tiers that reflect the varied willingness to pay among households.
In conclusion, the examined responses reveal a cautious but orderly market. While a significant portion of families prefers more economical options, a meaningful segment is prepared to invest in enhanced programs and services. The key takeaway for the camp industry is balance: deliver compelling, safe, and well-structured programs, clearly communicate what is included in the price, and ensure nutrition and care standards meet parent expectations—so peace of mind travels with every young camper.”