>when the elephants left, there was a "dramatic drop" in ticket sales. Paradoxically, while many said they didn't want big animals to perform in circuses, many others refused to attend a circus without them.
This isn't paradoxical. The people protesting the circus are obviously not the same people buying tickets to the circus.
They seriously half assed it. They only dropped elephants, and pretty suddenly at that.... But left "lions, tigers, camels, donkeys, alpacas, kangaroos and llamas." Not nearly enough to keep the animal welfare people happy but just enough to annoy the ticket buyers. People who want to see tigers jump through flaming hoops also want to see elephants "perform." 99.9% of the people who object to elephants being in circuses are then going to object to other wild animals being in circuses. Removing elephants but leaving lions doesn't please them and it doesn't even make sense.
By getting rid of one without the other they made exactly nobody happy and signed their own death certificate. How the hell did nobody see this?
I guess it was a knee jerk reaction?
They might have used the opportunity to have reimagined themselves as a modern circus without animals... Maybe, if they reformatted themselves and modernized. But I think their identity may have been too interwoven with animals to be able to move forward.
But the question posed remains, would people bring their kids to this kind of show without the allure of exotic animals? Probably. But maybe not under the Ringling Bros name.
Maybe the writing was on the wall for years and the elephants were the last nail in the coffin. I, personally, feel that Ringling Bros always was kind of still an outdated sideshow act. Sorry, Ringling, you stayed in the wrong century.
Cirques du soleil is the reinvention of the circus (yes they do have a travelling tent). It's a great lesson for us to see how a stale industry can be transformed.
This isn't paradoxical. The people protesting the circus are obviously not the same people buying tickets to the circus.
They seriously half assed it. They only dropped elephants, and pretty suddenly at that.... But left "lions, tigers, camels, donkeys, alpacas, kangaroos and llamas." Not nearly enough to keep the animal welfare people happy but just enough to annoy the ticket buyers. People who want to see tigers jump through flaming hoops also want to see elephants "perform." 99.9% of the people who object to elephants being in circuses are then going to object to other wild animals being in circuses. Removing elephants but leaving lions doesn't please them and it doesn't even make sense.
By getting rid of one without the other they made exactly nobody happy and signed their own death certificate. How the hell did nobody see this?
I guess it was a knee jerk reaction?
They might have used the opportunity to have reimagined themselves as a modern circus without animals... Maybe, if they reformatted themselves and modernized. But I think their identity may have been too interwoven with animals to be able to move forward.
But the question posed remains, would people bring their kids to this kind of show without the allure of exotic animals? Probably. But maybe not under the Ringling Bros name.
Maybe the writing was on the wall for years and the elephants were the last nail in the coffin. I, personally, feel that Ringling Bros always was kind of still an outdated sideshow act. Sorry, Ringling, you stayed in the wrong century.