My economics degree must be showing.

But seriously: you are going against the grain somewhat, as "experiences" - particularly thrilling ones - require a kind of sheltering and a definite restrictiveness. Experiences, in the thrill-ride sense of the term, are as restricted as iPhones and there's no jailbreaking. The experience provider doesn't want to get sued - or charged with a crime!

It's the same with WWE. If you look at those big bruisers with a certain common sense in your head, you'll see why all the bouts are scripted. Were they really as freewheeling as they appear, the guys in the ring would outright injure each other and there'd be the occasional "work-related" death in the ring. There definitely would be recurring tragedies. That's not the way to run a league, let alone a high-grossing "Entertainment" service.

The reason why you're getting so much pushback, I suspect, is because experience marketing requires structure - which we cryptonauts see as "centralization." Really, if you accept the conventional sense of the term, there's no way to square the circle. Not as long as delivering a consistent experience requires structuring and control - i.e., centralization. Even if its iCentralization.