And thinking of all the Patagonia-clad mountain climbers and water-water rafters that we met in Brazil, it also begged the question: Where do we turn for real adventure travel?

Would you consider Adventures by Disney real adventure travel? Your opinion, as a reflection of self-image, will obviously vary depending on your previous experiences as an adventure traveler and your previous experiences with Disney — and whether they were favorable or unfavorable to your sensibilities. But let’s make this a little more interesting, and perhaps more objective: Are the offerings of Adventures by Disney Real-real? Real-fake? Fake-real? Or Fake-fake? 

To decide, consider:

– Is Adventures by Disney true to Disney, and exactly the kind of (fill in your own adjective here) adventure that Disney would naturally offer?
–Or is Adventures by Disney not true to Disney and a departure from the kind of artificial experience Disney usually offers? 

–And is Adventures by Disney what it says it is, namely, true adventure?
–Or is this (air-quoted) “adventure” and not at all adventure, but an imitation of the real-real thing? 

You decide. Then vote on the Real/Fake matrix above.

These “apple fries” not only resemble actual french fries, but are served in a fries-like serving cup/shell. But they are not actually fried and are served chilled.

Few will likely think the item is what BK says they are: fried. And Burger King readily admits the apple fries are just meant to “look like French fries.” So are they what they say they are, “BK Fresh Apple Fries”? Or not?

And are the apple fries “true to self,” namely what you’d expect from the product-development process of Burger King? Or are the apple fries “not true to self,” an askew side dish that is obviously out of place at “the home of the Whopper.” Would any “actual customers” freakout if the “Fresh Apple Fries” were taken off the menu? (See: www.whopperfreakout.com for “authentic” BK freakouts.)

In assessing whether Fake-fake, Fake-real, Real-fake, or Real-real, remember one’s conclusion should drive what action would be recommended. The decision should determine if BK would be advised to celebrate, mask, acknowledge, or transcend the item’s inauthenticity. So, have it your way: You decide.

Spectacular? Of course. Fan-friendly? Maybe from an architectural standpoint. Surely the new Bronx ballpark will remain hostile to Red Sox fans or any out-of-town fans donning the attire of visiting teams. But more importantly: Will it be real? Or will it be fake?

Is the expense, and the extravagance, of the new stadium true to the recent Yankee history of always buying the best that money can buy? Or is it an untrue-to-self departure from the team’s rich history in “The House that Ruth Built”, the facility in which the Yankees have played since 1923, and where the team has won 39 American League pennants and 23 World Series championships.

And will it really be what the Yankees say it will be, The New Yankee Stadium? Or will it be, instead, The New “Yankee Stadium”?

Real-real, Real-fake, Fake-real, or Fake-fake? You decide.

Some links to visit before you vote:
– The official site: The New Yankee Stadium
– ESPN on The New Yankee Stadium
– New York Post on Hard Rock Cafe at The New Yankee Stadium
– One blogger’s take on the Hard Rock at the new park
And search “fan friendly Yankee Stadium” on YouTube for some interesting results.

The airline has long prided itself in being unlike other domestic U.S. airlines — in principle and in practice. Recent revelations of Southwest neglecting required structural inspections on 46 older 737s makes one wonder: Are we really free to (safely) fly around the country? Both the airline’s Customer Service Commitment statement and Safety Commitment statement — available for viewing via southwest.com — stress that Southwest “always” tries to “do the right thing.”

Really? Is Southwest really what it says it is — committed to safety as its “#1 priority”? Or is it all too willing to cut corners to maintain ongoing operations and profits?

Are what the FAA describes as “deliberate violations” true to Southwest corporate self? Or just an aberration from what one can still expect from an otherwise exemplary airline? You decide: Real-real, Real-fake, Fake-real, or Fake-fake?

So watch the crying scene again on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk&feature=related

Then apply the Polonius Test:
1. Being true to your own self
2. Being what you say you are to others

1. True to Self
Is: So, was Hillary’s getting choked up true to herself? Does her real-real or fake-real self really shed tears over whether her country “falls backwards”?
Not: Or, were her tears not true to her self? Were they not true to the otherwise self-controlled personality we’ve come to know?

2. What it says it is
Is: Were the tears what they (the tears themselves) said they were — sincere concern expressed at the end of a weary New Hampshire campaign? Alternatively, were the tears what they (again, the tears themselves) said they were — another Clintonesque contrivance to win at all costs? (You have two ways to see as “Is.”)
Not: Or, were the tears not what they said they were, not tears at all but a bad acting job? Alternatively, were the tears not what they said they were, not tears at all but a great acting job? (Here too you have two ways to see as “Not.”)

Finally, vote:
RR: Is-Is (we had to get a Clintonian “is-is” in here somewhere!)
RF: Not-Is
FR: Is-Not
FF: Not-Not

Like they say in Hillary’s hometown of Chicago: Vote early and vote often!

And if you’ve read chapter 6, you’ll know the approach the Clinton campaign takes to pursue the Democratic nomination rides on this assessment: Does she Go Faux? Create Belief? Reveal the Unreal? Or Get Real?

However, in the 1990s the company lost its way as the thirst for still further growth caused it to move far outside its tradition of family-oriented, character-driven experiences: acquiring its own distribution arm, Capital Cities/ABC (and its “T&A” offerings), buying the Miramax movie studio (and its R-rated and even NC-17 films). In other words, in searching for growth, Disney’s output effectively excluded the very young audiences at the heart of its heritage. No wonder various family-oriented groups called for boycotts of all things Disney.

Today, CEO Robert Iger is doing quite a bit to restore the heritage of the company, refocusing movies away from Miramax and its other adult studios and on the core Disney brand. His boldest move: buying strategic partner Pixar in early 2006 and thereby redirecting the trajectory of Disney animation back solidly within the heritage of Walt Disney, the man and his movies.

Consider, too, the latest Disney movie (starting production under Eisner’s helm): “Enchanted”. Using hand-drawn animation rather than computer-generated rendering for the half of the story set in a Fairy Tale kingdom, it harkens back to classic Disney princess movies — and then makes fun of them. It winks and nods at various legendary characters (Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Thumper, etc.) and situations (poison apples, love’s first kiss, and so forth) that once would have been heresy within the Magic Kingdom. And it works! The movie (which one of us saw with his daughters) is, quite simply, enchanting.

So with all that and your own all-important perceptions, The Walt Disney Company: Real-real, Fake-fake, Fake-real, or Real-fake? We ask. You vote.

Today, Disneyland is over fifty years old. Think about it: for every member of Generation X, Millennials, and whatever other designation follows them — not to mention almost exactly half of the Baby Boom generation (including your authors, late boomers both) — Disneyland has always been around. It has, therefore, acquired a patina of authenticity, at least for many.

Further, of all Disney theme parks, this one most springs from the heritage of the man himself, Walt Disney, and the only one he was involved in from start to finish. Main Street USA is an idealized recollection of his youth spent in Marceline, Missouri. And his design criteria for the rest of the park was to create a “three-dimensional cartoon” in which he could immerse the audience.

Then again, there is the fact that Disneyland is completely fabricated to create certain impressions in the minds of its visitors — its guests, in Disney parlance. It is an unreal reality.

Our view of where Disneyland lies in the Real/Fake Matrix is no secret; it’s right there in Chapter 6 of the book. But authenticity is personally determined. Where do you think it lies in the Real/Fake Matrix? Cast your vote at the right of this page.

Some people, however, would not be caught dead stepping foot inside a Starbucks, preferring to frequent smaller, locally-owned cafe venues. Some even go so far as to sport bumper stickers that read “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drink at Starbucks” – so fervent is their anti-Starbucks sentiment (one undeniably based on perceptions of authenticity, not the quality or cost of the coffee). Yet others distinguish between “real Starbucks” (those that are company-run) and “fake Starbucks” like the ones operated at airports, hotel lobbies, and as mall kiosks. (Google or flickr for numerous “fake” or “faux” Starbucks commentary and sightings.)

Perhaps no other opinion weighs as mightily on the state of affairs at Starbucks than that of founder Howard Schultz himself. His leaked e-mail to CEO Jim Donald in February 2007, posted at Starbucks Gossip outlines Schultz’s concern that automatic espresso machines, flavor-lock packaging, streamlined store design, and poor mix of merchandise (the lack of real coffee gear like grinders, filters, and the like) all has led to the commoditization of Starbucks. Why? Precisely because the cafes no longer seem real to customers. Is that indeed the case?