[continued from previous message]   
      
   At some point, Disney’s leadership embraced the strategy of attracting a   
   smaller but much wealthier clientele when it comes to the company’s theme   
   parks. That’s Disney’s right as a business, although as we see above, at   
   some point, you run out of fabulously wealthy families willing to pay   
   those prices. The world only has so many parents willing to spend $4,800   
   to $6,000 to hang around with Star Wars characters for two days.   
      
   Whatever income level you need to be to plunk down several thousand   
   dollars for two days in a hotel and resort with Star Wars characters, only   
   a small minority of the general public has it. Just how often did Disney   
   think these families would come back and spend another $6,000 or so to   
   have the same experience again?   
      
   Disney built its image on family-friendly entertainment, and for a long   
   time, a middle-class family could save up for a trip to Disney World. Now,   
   the cost of a family trip to visit the simulations of Norway, France, and   
   Italy at the World Showcase at Epcot is not all that far from the cost of   
   an actual trip to Europe.   
      
   Disney was never cheap, but it also wasn’t considered a luxury brand,   
   reserved for the very wealthy. It wasn’t Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Brooks   
   Brothers, or Cadillac. While Disney’s movies, television shows, and   
   ubiquitous merchandise are purchased by customers from all walks of life,   
   you can make a strong case that the theme-park aspect of Disney is indeed   
   now a luxury brand. Interestingly, the returning CEO, Bob Iger, said in   
   March that he thought the theme-park prices had gotten too high.   
      
   “In our zeal to grow profits, we may have been a little bit too aggressive   
   about some of our pricing,” Iger said. “I think there’s a way to continue   
   to grow that business but be smarter about how we price so that we   
   maintain that brand value of accessibility.”   
      
   You probably noticed that Disney has lost whatever apolitical reputation   
   it may have once had, and the company’s vision and decision-making have   
   become hot-button issues in our culture wars. A little while back, while   
   debating Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to end Disney’s special   
   privileges under the Reedy Creek Improvement District agreement, set in   
   1967, our Michael Brendan Dougherty argued that “we all know Disney has   
   changed.”   
      
   The political fight, MBD contended, was a direct consequence of the   
   company’s decision to abandon the mainstream, middle-America values it had   
   previously touted and to embrace a vision and agenda at odds with many of   
   its customers:   
      
   Walt Disney World and other Disney attractions in Florida no doubt got   
   many of their special privileges because of the values Disney promoted in   
   1971. The arrangement was seen as an extension of an uncontroversially   
   family-friendly entertainment brand. As the Advocate’s pictures from Walt   
   Disney World’s “Gay Days” show, however, some things have changed since   
   1971. The culture has changed. Now, Disney is a company that admits to   
   sneaking subversive messages into its films. And the content of its   
   political speech — that publicly funded smut should be in primary-school   
   libraries and second-grade teachers should discuss sexual orientation and   
   gender identity with seven-year-olds — is seen not just by the governor   
   but by many in the state as politically obnoxious.   
      
   I cannot help but suspect that Disney’s theme parks evolving into a luxury   
   company catering to the wealthiest clientele in America and the world is   
   intertwined with the company’s evolution into an institution with an   
   increasingly outspoken and direct progressive cultural agenda. If you’re   
   trying to sell things to middle-class families from Valdosta, Ga.,   
   Spokane, Wash., Bakersfield, Calif., Topsfield, Maine, and every suburb   
   and small town in between, you have to stay within the boundaries of the   
   mainstream American identity, and you may well want to avoid hot-button   
   political and cultural controversies entirely.   
      
   A large portion of the customer base just isn’t interested — and as the   
   Bud Light controversy demonstrated, some existing customers will react   
   extremely negatively to a brand’s politicization.   
      
   If Disney wants to continue to be the biggest entertainment company in   
   America, it has to dial back its political and cultural antagonism toward   
   conservative Americans. No doubt, the company’s creative class doesn’t   
   want to hear that. But there probably aren’t enough outspoken cultural   
   progressives to generate tens of billions of dollars in profits on their   
   own.   
      
   ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, Gary Kasparov ripped President   
   Biden a new one on his slow-footed decisions on Ukraine aid, and Axios   
   assured us that Biden only yells and swears at his staff because he   
   respects them so much.   
      
      
   --   
   We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that   
   stupid people won't be offended.   
      
   Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem.  It has none.   
      
   No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.   
   Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.   
      
   Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden   
   fiasco, President Trump.   
      
   Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the   
   The World According To Garp.  Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood   
   queer liberal democrat donors.   
      
   President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed   
   dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)