Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, I don't think you're such a bad egg, birdsNworms, duckling. Some goslings around here are naturally suspicious of somebody who's new-- ORDDU: --and who speaks as eloquently as you do, dear. ORGOCH: Ya got guts, smarts 'n courage, too! ORDDU: And you don't allow yourself to be bullied easily. That's a rare type of tolerance you have, dear. ORWEN: I think some are afraid of others with better educations than their own. But you sure aren't a troll! ORGOCH: least ways yer not like any trolls us cauldron gals ever ran inta!!! ORDDU: So consider yourself blessed despite some of the negative reactions you've received here.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Now ... the question is: Could Duped By Disney? be a thread name for Disney's Best Kept Secret?>> When I bought my initial points at the Boardwalk for $65 per point it was an OUTSTANDING value. Now that points are being sold for $120, not so much. Between the price increase and the massive discounting Disney is currently doing at its resorts, I would probably not buy in at today's cost. I still love DVC and am glad I'm a member. I also believe it will be a good value again in the future. Just not so much right now. Spirit... can you believe I'm saying that?
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<BS? Because it's not your personal experience? That's wonderfully ignorant.>> Genius, you will notice in my original post that I wondered why no one else on these boards has fessed up to a 2 hour wait time. As you know, this board is full of AP holders/DVC owners/devoted Disney fans, and many of them wouldn't think half a second before calling the company to task for keeping them on hold for two hours. These are the people who should be experiencing your supposed 2 hour wait time, but no one's complained about it yet. Also, mousemerf, I never doubted that there are queue times. Every time I call Central Reservations I get the recording that tells me how long it will be until my call is answered. Yes, Spirit, I understand that it is possible and has probably happened at one time or another. As for it being a regular occurrence - BS!
Originally Posted By birdsNworms This is one example of what is now 'the system' within TWDC when handling "guest inconveniences" once the visitor has returned home with a letter of compensation or voucher relating to a future visit. As most posters on this forum know, a 'guest inconvenience' is how Disney codes many different kinds of problems that occur on property. Here, the situation has been edited only for privacy and legal concerns. On-property guests have a pleasant stay at WDW until the last night of their vacation when they dine at one of the resort's highest profile restaurants. Shortly after a pleasant dining experience, multiple members of the family become acutely ill. Shaking, vomiting, convulsing. EMS is brought to the room at Disney's direction and by necessity. One member requires hospitalization for food poisoning which was traced by the facility and TWDC to a meat (from a menu item) that had not been properly refrigerated, or refrigerated at all. The family is very understanding as the Disney representatives express 'sincere regret' over an "inexcusable" oversight on the part of the kitchen staff. These are loyal Disney fans with annual passes for WDW who frequent[ed] the resorts four or more times a year. As the Disney trip was about to end, and they had plans to travel from Orlando to a final weekend destination before returning home, the illness and subsequent hospitalization required the cancellation of that portion of their trip and the many costs associated with such an upending. TWDC immediately offered to cover any medical costs not covered by the family's insurance. This was unnecessary as their insurance covered all but a nominal amount. Disney also offered the family a travel compensation voucher, on corporate letterhead with signature and date, to return for a similar stay -- the same number of nights, the same resort (if available, or one comparable). The only caveat was the family agreeing to not pursue legal action against TWDC or discuss the matter [outside of private, casual communication]. They agreed, as the offer offset the cost of rescheduling their itinerary. And, they summed it all up as making the best of a bad situation. However, this was not, it must be emphasized, a simple case of food not agreeing with a particular guest. This was severe food poisoning. After some months passed, the family called the guest services number on the 'voucher' to learn that TWDC had revoked the offer. Disney's word, not the family's. No explanation was given, no counter offer made. They went up the chain of command and were given no satisfaction. At one point, and these are highly educated and respected members of their community (not that this should ever have any bearing on TWDC's handling of them), TDB hung-up on them. They sought redress, and were told at every juncture there was nothing that could be done. The letter, the contract, was only as good as the company's willingness to stand behind it. The one option offered: file a claim in small claims court and fly back to Orlando for the hearing. Of course, it was then explained that TWDC will not (routinely does not) appear at these hearings for the court's review and the family would be granted a default judgment that was worth less than the paper it was written on as TWDC was under no obligation to respect the judgment. TWDC does not pay small claims court judgments in the rare instance someone brings such a claim. [Continued.]
Originally Posted By birdsNworms TWDC's database showed the great frequency with which this family visited its resorts, dined in its restaurants, and shopped in its stores. The data trail went back many years and was attached to their annual passes (including DMV information for the parents), home address, telephone, and email. Data points were employed to evaluate whether TWDC would likely lose any revenue by not respecting the offer the family accepted from Disney in good faith (theirs, clearly not that of TWDC). Based on the spending patterns and visits, the profile returned determined that this family would continue to frequent WDW regardless of whether the offer was rescinded. In this instance, unlike the one Spirit of '74 described, it was the family's affluence and 'attachment' to the Disney brand that caused the offer to be revoked. In other words, their familiarity with and love for the product. Why give something, when you can take instead? After all, these were annual passholders who stayed on-property multiple times a year. Their money, their business, is -- according to the data -- a given. Spirit's group had what appears to be data that would conflict with this family; yet, paradoxically, it seems the result is the same. They were on two extremes, two ends that did not require -- warrant -- TWDC's attention. Why? Because TWDC decided it no longer had to meet guest expectations, specifically the expectations of these guests. They were, they are, deemed to be dispensable as TWDC no longer needed any 'one' particular guest under the business model employed. Guest Services, telephone or remote operations, was even given a directive to tell so-called difficult guests -- read that to mean informed guests -- that "perhaps our product is not for you and your family." A more 'magical' way of saying 'we don't want your business anymore.' (For those who have noted the elevation of George Kalogridis to President of the DLR, GK was the lead executive to have given the 'ok' to that "protocol" after being demoted from the number two at the DLR in 2002 while over at the WDTC where he was heading up Destination Disney.) The family in this particular situation are here at LP.com. Specifically why I selected their experience to profile. They asked that their names or any specific information -- like the dates of the stay, the restaurant where they ate the contaminated food, the resort where they were staying -- be removed out of fear that TWDC would actually ban them from WDW for speaking out. As, no, they did not simply accept this profoundly bad behavior. They called to their local TV station, newspaper (as well as contacting the tourism writer at The Orlando Sentinel), and -- when they were told it was not significant enough to warrant the limited resources of these outlets -- went to travel advocates.
Originally Posted By birdsNworms The conclusion: The travel advocates were downright cryptic in their responses. Several nationally syndicated advocates, who you likely read online or in your Sunday paper, said they no longer accept "cases" related to TWDC because Disney was an "unresponsive" company that would often drag its 'feet' to consume the writer's time and rarely lead to anything more than "a token gesture" that could not be incorporated in a column. As the idea behind a travel advocate is to, at the bare minimum, get the guest what he or she was promised. Repeated requests were made to the columnist/advocate who pursued this matter for the family to allow the posting of the email exchanges on this site. Not only were they denied, this poster was informed legal action would be taken against him if any identifying information were placed on the web to tie this advocate with this situation -- or, for that matter, any individual at TWDC. This is a columnist who is published widely both in the US as well as internationally. Ultimately, after several months going back-and-forth with TWDC that included Disney's use of highly inflammatory and knowingly erroneous information [clearly, TWDC did not realize the travel advocate had been copied with every communication], the comments I am able to post here are as follows: "Thanks for your note. Sorry I have been out of touch... I was not able to get anywhere with Disney. My contacts have been entirely uncooperative. [deleted personal information] ... Disney has handled this situation poorly. Disney was dismissive of the claim and my involvement on your behalf throughout the many months this has taken...Its personnel should not extend offers and then rescind them, regardless of the circumstances [deleted reference to contradictory/knowingly false information TWDC was pleading]. Unfortunately, there is nothing that I can do to assist you and I am at a loss as to any advice I can offer to resolve this matter." According to multiple advocates and a few attorneys the family contacted, TWDC is, simply put, too big to challenge on these kind of BOCs. And there are many other BOCs against TWDC that are out there -- or right here, but there is no reason to post incident after incident. In fact, I have found only one whereby the family successfully pressured TWDC to honor one of these breached contracts, and that was when a member of their party was taken from an attraction with a broken arm and the father, unknown to Disney until it initially revoked the offer, worked for a third party supplier to one of the nation's largest convention planners. (He was able to get media attention, although this was several years ago before media was savaged by a shift in distribution followed by the recession.) While some folks want to believe the media is there for them, the law is there, that is just not the reality and big business [Disney] knows this. Also, anyone visiting California should know that civil law requires that a plaintiff who wants to pursue a claim against a business in CA must first post a bond in the estimated amount the defense -- here that would be Disney -- will spend to fight your claim. If you do not post this bond, your case is immediately dismissed. If you do, the idea is that should you not prevail the court already has your money to hand to Disney to pay its lawyers. How many 'guests' can afford that? How many would risk that? ...No matter how legitimate their claim.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys >When I bought my initial points at the Boardwalk for $65 per point it was an OUTSTANDING value. Now that points are being sold for $120, not so much. Between the price increase and the massive discounting Disney is currently doing at its resorts, I would probably not buy in at today's cost.< Excellent point.At $65 it was a steal, but I wouldn't buy in at today's prices either. Geez,I wonder if I should sell, get the cash , have no more annual dues and buy a PSL and season tickets for the Giants? My wife would love that
Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad We are all taught to try to be fair as we are growing up. Moms and Dads teach kids to share. I try to teach my kids to do what's right even if it is not the easiest option. I encourage them that if they are going to be a friend, then be a good friend. Then something like this comes along and you realize that the world isn't fair and nobody cares. The few people who do seem to care are powerless to stop it. This thread bothers me because I don't want to acknowledge the reality of it. It is watching the fall of a childhood hero and the destuction of one of my last reserves of innocence. The world is not fair and no matter how far into the sand I stick my head I can't escape reality.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Based on the spending patterns and visits, the profile returned determined that this family would continue to frequent WDW regardless of whether the offer was rescinded.*** If Vegas is any indication, Disney has their thinking ass backwards if this is true. You go out of your way to PLEASE your most frequent customers, not tell them to shove it. Of course, unlike Vegas with its' many options, Disney offers a unique sort of experience so I suppose they might assume the family could not do without their Disney trips. But speaking only for myself, an experience like that would certainly give me reason to reconsider my vacation destination entirely (like maybe give all that money to Universal and enjoy riding Spiderman a whole heck of a lot...with the rest of my cash going to SeaWorld and Busch Gardens).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Then something like this comes along and you realize that the world isn't fair and nobody cares. The few people who do seem to care are powerless to stop it. This thread bothers me because I don't want to acknowledge the reality of it. It is watching the fall of a childhood hero and the destuction of one of my last reserves of innocence. The world is not fair and no matter how far into the sand I stick my head I can't escape reality.*** Disney aside for the moment, I'd have to say that these days there is a stunning lack of ethics from BigCo, U.S.A. on all fronts, along with a complete lack of shame (if you will) to go along with it. We see it all the time, management teams fire employees, screw customers, mislead stockholders, beg the government for a bailout when things go sour, and then merrily collect their bonus money and go on a $1,000,000 company paid golfing retreat for the weekend. Why does this happen? Because we, the people, allow it to continue with the blessing of the U.S. government (occasional dissenting voices notwithstanding). So I say, don't blame the corporation. It has no soul, it has no heart. It only follows the letter of the law (teams of lawyers in place to advise, naturally) and gets away with whatever it can get away with, in the pursuit of more profits no matter who gets hurt in the process. So in that sense the above story is no surprise to me. It doesn't even crack the top 100 "I can't freaking believe I read that right!" stories I've read over the past few years about corporate arrogance and crappiness. Still, it sounds to me as though it's an unsound business practice that, if true, might bite them in the ass if they screw over the wrong people one of these days.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't like this but why does it surprise people? This is the same company that sued a day care center for painting pictures of Disney characters on the outside of its building. It is the same company that, for years, required its costumed character performers to share undergarments. It doesn't shock me that it happens but it does shock me that we don't hear more about it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***This is the same company that sued a day care center for painting pictures of Disney characters on the outside of its building.*** I actually think this is reasonable, from a corporate "protect the brand" point of view. Of course, the bad press made them look like monsters so it was an idiot move to say the least. ***It is the same company that, for years, required its costumed character performers to share undergarments.*** Um, I'm definitely assuming you mean the costume pieces were pooled, but nonetheless washed before reuse? If so, that's not an issue at all, it's done often in the field of entertainment. If NOT, gross! And can you say "health hazard"!?
Originally Posted By danyoung >This is the same company that sued a day care center for painting pictures of Disney characters on the outside of its building.< This is completely different from making a promise and then breaking it. I had no problem with that move when it happened, as the day care center had no permission to use copyrighted characters. >It is the same company that, for years, required its costumed character performers to share undergarments.< I'm having a hard time taking this on face value. As X said, if you mean some type of suit that you wore under your big furry suit, then I can see how this would be necessary. But underwear as in skivvies and t-shirts? I just don't buy that.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It was quite the news story back in 2001. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/08/business/fi-7876" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/20.../fi-7876</a> I'm not adept at posting news links. From the article: Things have been passed around," said Gary Steverson, a stilt walker at Animal Kingdom. "I know I don't want to share my tights, and I don't want to share my underwear." "Many of the characters must wear Disney-issued jock straps, tights or bike shorts underneath their costumes because regular underwear bunches up and is noticeable. Each night, they turn in the undergarments with the rest of their costume before going home. They then pick up a different set the next day. Disney officials had told the workers that hot water was used to clean the undergarments, but the laundry apparently wasn't doing so, said Steverson, a shop steward with the Teamsters, which represents workers who portray such figures as Goofy, Pluto, Minnie Mouse and Donald Duck. Some workers complained about receiving undergarments that were stained or smelly. Steverson said there have been three cases of costumed workers at the Magic Kingdom getting pubic lice or scabies during the last two years."
Originally Posted By Mr X Dan, they do provide the WHOLE costume (at TDR as well), including special garments and socks. I suppose the cast member could wear their own if they really wanted to, but considering the hot and nasty conditions, a performer can go through 6-8 sets of special undergarments in the course of a normal shift (think "drenched", that's pretty much what they go through on any one set in summertime). So, in general Disney gives the performers a generic set of 6-8 garments to change into over the course of their shift. In the case of Tokyo I can affirm that these special garments, while "pooled", are quite clean and sanitary for the next shift, but if Wahoo is claiming that they have to hand off stinky, sweaty undergarments to the next guy...well, if that's true I don't know what to say. In general for the costumed folk (I've never had the privilege but I'm friends with about a million of them so I know all the ins and outs), a much MORE disgusting concern is the outer costumes themselves. If the last person inside "Donald" was, let's say, less than exemplary in terms of hygiene, no matter how much disinfectant spray they use it can still be a thoroughly unpleasant experience.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Some workers complained about receiving undergarments that were stained or smelly. Steverson said there have been three cases of costumed workers at the Magic Kingdom getting pubic lice or scabies during the last two years."*** Okay, well that's just gross then. Yuck.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys The bottom line to me of this entire thread: It will not have any effect one way or another if I go to Disney. I judge my vacations by what they mean to me and my family. We've had the good fortune of having some of our best family moments at WDW and also the downer of being less than satisfied with Disney to the point where I have gone to Guest Serivces (aka, Customer Relations; I am not a guest, just a paying customer- sorry Disney) and written scathing letters to the company. However, WDW is still my vacation destination of choice. For someone to make me aware of a situation where Disney made promises to injured parties and reneged is not ethical on the part of the company, but I am not naive to buy in to the notion that I think Disney is all "magic". It's a business and sometimes business practices can be downright ugly. My question remains: Was this thread started for the purpose of gathering information,to insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that Disney is not all magic (as if we don't know) or just to satisfy the ego of the thread starter by jumping on LP with a controversial thread in order to make him/herself noticed?
