The End of Ringling Brothers Circus: Understanding the Business and Ethical Decisions
The Ringling Brothers Circus, one of the most iconic and enduring circuses in America, officially closed its doors in 2017 after over a century of entertaining audiences across the nation. This closure marked the end of an era not only for the Feld family but also for the legacy of the Ringling Brothers, who had been at the helm since 1884. In this article, we delve into the reasons behind the circus's closure and the complex intersection of business and ethical considerations that led to this decision.
Business Decisions and Declining Attendance
The closure of the Ringling Brothers Circus in 2017 was primarily attributed to a combination of financial challenges and declining attendance. The circus, managing the name and rights after the original founders had passed away, struggled to maintain its relevance and revenue streams in the modern entertainment landscape. By the late 2010s, the number of visitors had significantly decreased, a trend that had been on the rise for several years.
The economic shift towards digital media and live entertainment alternatives made it increasingly difficult for traditional circuses to attract large crowds. To combat this decline, the Feld family attempted to modernize the circus by integrating technology such as digital projections and 3D effects. However, these changes were not enough to sustain the business in the face of changing audience preferences and the increasing competition from other forms of entertainment.
Impact of Animal Rights Groups
Even though declining attendance was the primary reason for the closure, it is essential to recognize the significant influence of animal rights groups in contributing to the circus's eventual decision to close. For years, organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society have been advocating for the humane treatment and rights of animals. Their campaigns, which focused on exposing the living conditions and performance treatments of the circus's elephants, put increasing pressure on the Feld family to reconsider their act with animals.
The circus's use of elephants for performances was particularly contentious. Despite efforts to maintain the safety of the elephants, such as the hiring of veterinarians and a state-of-the-art facility in Apple Hill, New York, the broader narrative was one of exploitation and cruelty. This narrative, fueled by documentaries and personal accounts, severely damaged the circus's public image and contributed to a growing consumer boycott.
Strategies and Attempts to Survive
Absent a singular reason for the circus's closure, the Feld family developed a series of strategies to try and preserve the Ringling Brothers Circus. These included innovative and costly renovations to the big top, the implementation of new animal-free acts, and attempts to reinvent the circus for a modern audience. However, these efforts were met with resistance from animal rights activists and failing public interest.
One of the key strategies was the introduction of new, non-animal acts. This included shows centered around human performers, acrobats, and magicians. The aim was to shift focus away from animal acts and toward human talents that would appeal more to contemporary audiences. While these acts did well in some regions, the broader cultural narrative and the emotional attachment to the elephants hindered their full adoption.
Conclusion: A Complex Tale of Business and Ethics
The closure of the Ringling Brothers Circus was a multifaceted decision that reflected the complexities of balancing business needs with moral and ethical considerations. While declining attendance and financial pressures played a significant role, the ethical arguments against using animals for entertainment also demanded a response. The Feld family's efforts to modernize and innovate were ultimately insufficient in the face of public pressure and changing entertainment preferences.
The story of the Ringling Brothers Circus serves as a reminder that businesses must adapt to the evolving social and cultural landscape. It also highlights the importance of ethical considerations in the entertainment industry and the potential impact they can have on public opinion and long-term sustainability.