flynnibus
Premium Member
I agree with you that discounting a percieved negative action because fiscally it will payoff is generally a bad idea.
Where we disagree is that this is a negative action. I look at it more like adding an enhancement for many guests and it's profitable for the company too. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Note, I didn't call this change a negative action in itself.. I personally don't have an issue with alcohol in the parks. But... I respect the people that made that decision.. it was an intentional one.. and it worked very well for them. So if that's the identity they want to maintain.. It's not a big enough impact to me to really be opposed to it.
The negative action label comes from Tony The Tiger's assertion that started with..
That's how business works. You can't please everyone so you go with the formula that displeases the least.
And his justifications for claiming that's just business and 'reality'.. and I pointed out that great companies didn't get great, or stay great, by flushing their ideals simply to 'displease the least'