Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Oopsie. Maybe THEY like to play with Germans. It's certainly a fun sport.
Originally Posted By berol >>>There is well-documented research proving new attractions at Southern California theme parks do not result in any meaningful increase in attendance, especially if you look at the market as a whole.<<< "Strange then, that you'd automatically use the phrase "I believe" for something you later claim to be so well-documented." Well-documented research doesn't mean fact. It's impossible to know if the quote is true or not without knowing what "any meaningful increase in attendance" is defined as. It could mean still up 20% after 10 years or up 3% for its first 6 months.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Sorry you got all bent out of shape.†You seem to be eager to push me in a corner. I presented my evidence and then you scoffed. Of course I got bent out of shape. What did you want me to do, call you up and invite you over for crumpets at tea? “I was just wondering what you actually knew, as opposed to what you simply believed and were foisting as fact.†The report in question, which is the only one of its kind, by the way, gives us some very interesting and critical insight into what drives attendance at parks in the Southern California market. Furthermore, I am not sure why the credibility of the report is being downplayed here simply because the authors are UCLA business students. This is especially perplexing considering that the University found their research sound enough to actually PUBLISH their findings and present them to theme park industry executives.
Originally Posted By hopemax Actually, Buzz Price's book Walt's Revolution, based on his 50+ years of research made basically the same point. Roy was constantly asking him when "enough was enough" so he could reign Walt in. He could never answer that for Roy, but what Buzz found... There is no correlation between new attractions/new reinvestments and attendance. However, he also made the point, that if you DO NOT reinvest you WILL die. He also made the point that customers will demand new things, and they are fickle, such is the nature of the beast, and you must feed it. And theme parks are not for the risk adverse.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>You seem to be eager to push me in a corner. I presented my evidence and then you scoffed.<<< It's not evidence if it's scoff-worthy. University's publish lots of things. I have friends who've published a number of thesis papers that are at best, mediocre. Just because it's the one piece of its kind doesn't mean it is either accurate or well-written. I mean, if you actually READ the writing, it isn't merely that there are a number of factual errors, it's the actual writing style - it's fairly amateurish in construction.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror As for the UCLA thing... well, that's just friendly ribbing. I'd find this piece of work just as uneven and fallible if it come from some boys in the Marshall School of Business.
Originally Posted By Socrates So where is that paper that proves Buddha was a crossdresser? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror You really want to read it? Some guy at Michigan State wrote it...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It's not evidence if it's scoff-worthy." Which is probably why you haven't produced anything to prove that the findings in the research aren't true. Goodbye.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>It's not evidence if it's scoff-worthy" >>>Which is probably why you haven't produced anything to prove that the findings in the research aren't true. Goodbye.<<< No, silly. That statement means I scoffed because you presented scoff-worthy material. If you present something as evidence, make sure it's not easily exposed as faulty. Which, by the way, I was able to do within its first few pages. So I don't think you can rely on something like that - especially when it's the only document you were able to provide on the subject. I can write up a report on tornados and give it to every weatherman in the USA. It doesn't mean they're going to get anything more out of it than a chuckle. There's some good observations in the report, but it's hardly accurate throughout.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Oh, was I supposed to say goodbye? Or ..."you are the weakest link" ?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I can write up a report on tornados and give it to every weatherman in the USA. It doesn't mean they're going to get anything more out of it than a chuckle. << True, but I doubt that UCLA would publish it.
Originally Posted By monorailblue But a series of conclusory statements are not "findings." Findings are conclusions or inferences drawn from or summaries of evidence (facts). It is not the critic's duty to discredit a string of conclusions. It is the proponent of the conclusions (the author) who is required to substantiate the conclusion. The critic is perfectly free to point out the lack of evidence and rest her case.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Don't confuse a B-School paper with a scientific paper. B-School studies are always full of assumptions. So are business plans.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Scientific studies often draw conclusions based on assumptions. As long as the research methods and techniques are sound, why would there be a difference between the two types of studies?
Originally Posted By fkurucz Assumptions have to be used. Walt and Roy build DL based on little more than assumptions.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Not entirely. For instance, they commissioned the Stanford Research Institute to conduct a study on the best site location. The conclusion was that current site in Anaheim was one of the best locations based on population growth, climate, and its proximity to the I-5 and central Los Angeles.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Don't confuse a B-School paper with a scientific paper. B-School studies are always full of assumptions. So are business plans.<<< Thank you. As to what UCLA would publish... given some of the papers that friends of mine have had published... I've just had to shake my head (nicely) and congratulate them. Universities publish a lot of stuff without verifying the findings. They simply often don't bother. >>It is not the critic's duty to discredit a string of conclusions. It is the proponent of the conclusions (the author) who is required to substantiate the conclusion. The critic is perfectly free to point out the lack of evidence and rest her case.<<< Exactly.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>For instance, they commissioned the Stanford Research Institute to conduct a study on the best site location. The conclusion was that current site in Anaheim was one of the best locations based on population growth, climate, and its proximity to the I-5 and central Los Angeles.<<< Exactly right. And they used Stanford Research Group because they had credibility, a track record, and a terrible fastidiousness where accuracy in forecasting was concerned (and still do). Big difference between that group and some college student newbies looking for a grade and publication.
