njDizFan
Well-Known Member
I agree on many of your points and thank you for the civil discussion.
I wish we did have all the data so that opinion would not be necessary, but unfortunately no matter who we talk to and what books we read there is still going to be some level of "editorializing". The F&W analogy is great because there is evidence that Disney may not simply be out for short term profit since there was an underlying cause.
I think the points in the current article cannot be so easily refutable. If you read Cockerell's book and make a timeline of his work at the TWDC and elsewhere you can see what he was trying to accomplish. He succeeded and it's hard to argue it has helped the overall Disney experience but certainly it helped the bottom line.
I wish we did have all the data so that opinion would not be necessary, but unfortunately no matter who we talk to and what books we read there is still going to be some level of "editorializing". The F&W analogy is great because there is evidence that Disney may not simply be out for short term profit since there was an underlying cause.
I think the points in the current article cannot be so easily refutable. If you read Cockerell's book and make a timeline of his work at the TWDC and elsewhere you can see what he was trying to accomplish. He succeeded and it's hard to argue it has helped the overall Disney experience but certainly it helped the bottom line.