This sounds subjective in that an expectation is not necessarily the same for every person.
As has always been the case. The specifics of what will be successful in entertainment IS very subjective.
I never said don't offer it. I said they'd lose their shirts if they tried to pass the costs off to the consumer and they basically can't afford it otherwise.
Very short-sighted thinking.
In general terms, what's more "costly", spending $100 million on something the public rejects, or $150 million (or even $200 million) on something they embrace for decades to come?
The costs for something like PotC back in the mid-late 60's were enourmous. Certainly a decent return could have been had for 1/2 the price. Yet, nearly 35 years later, it appears a sound investment decision was made... (Especially when one considers that without PotC:The Ride, there would be no PotC:The Movie... Do you think that 30 years from now, "Primeval Whirl: Curse of the Brown Dung" will be a hit?)
These are the same choices Walt faced. Sure, the specifics of what the public wants, and the technologies available have changed, but the basic laws of business have not changed.
Its not that Disney, or anyone else, cannot survive without a Walt-like strategy. Its just that, by definition, they can't become exceptional by doing what everybody else does. Average is all well and good, but its not why we are posting on a Disney site in the first place.
Mr. Pirate, I have no problem with the way you choose to view the goings-on in and around Disney. It is, after all, only a company, and there is certainly no moral duty to acknowledge that company's shortcomings.
But really, how you can take this:
"The idea for [
Disneyland] came about when my two daughters were very young and Saturday was always Daddy's day with the two daughters. So we'd start out and try to go someplace, you know, different things, and I'd take them to the merry-go-round and took them different places and as I'd sit while they rode the merry-go-round and did all these things--sit on a bench, you know, eating peanuts--I felt that there should be something built where the parents and the children could have fun together. So that's how Disneyland started."
...and translate it into this:
when in actuality he probably was more likely to have meant that the attractions were built for the entertainment and satisfaction of the kids while the surroundings were built for the adults.
...is just too much.
What evidence have you come across to lead you to believe this? Evidence that is more compelling than the fact that many of DL's attractions WERE appealling to adults, and more compelling than the direct quote from Walt himself?
Forgive me, I'm certainly in your car but could you clarify these points a little?
