perculata
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
Wrong. Most people here dont compare the two. Common sense dictates they are a different product that can be enjoyed, differently. The whole "better" theory is just an opinion of each individual visitor.
Opinion and fact are very different. Had the OP stated their post as pure opinion I doubt it would have gotten this much attention. Its the stating of facts that were incorrect and the bashing element that really isn't necessary when offering an opinion.
Sorry, what i was getting at is many think the parks are similar in quality. Obviously both parks are extremely different for each other, which is why the work so well together.
Overall I don't see where this poster actually claimed things to be fact incorrectly. They may have been somewhat harsh in their posting, but it didn't seem like any fallacies were stated.
This whole thing about people comparing Universal parks to Disney got me thinking. I've realized that this is most likely a direct result of Universal's poor approach to marketing. Instead of hyping their own brand of entertainment, they compare it to Disney's and tell you why there's is better.
Maybe if Universal would wise up and leave Disney out of their marketing campaigns, people wouldnt' feel the need to compare the two. Honeslty, Universal played a large role in getting people to directly compare the two.
If Universal can't market itself without often taking shots at Disney, then why shouldn't someone compare the two? I mean Universal almost causes you to do so with the way they market.
It's just another way to look at reason that people compare the two resorts. Maybe I'm crazy, but if Universal could separate themselves in their own marketing, then maybe people would be more apt to look at their parks as something completely unrelated to Disney.