JanaDee
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,911
I was being ironic, by way of being rhetorical. We stay away from specifics because each specific idea can be debated on merit. Vague ideas like "Disney needs to add new attractions?" Not so much.
Disney receives tons of feedback, from multiple sources. It relies on actual data in deciding where to allocate money. We rely on anecdote (on which no agreement exists, much less consensus), which we think if aggregated at this infinitesimal forum level somehow equals data. It doesn't.
The minute the next big attraction gets announced, this forum will be flooded with those who strongly agree, those who strongly disagree, and the dozens of levels in between - all certain they represent a plurality, all certain that their group holds the keys to success.
WDW arose from a swamp, without much input from those it would need to appeal to. It has been successful in adapting to changes demanded by its market and it will continue to.
You got MDX and FP+ instead of some new attraction because that's what the analysis concludes is needed.
Success is based on satisfaction, and if you're not satisfied, you now know where you fit in the 80/20.
Sometimes analysis can be wrong.