Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By MPierce <<Now that Spirit is back from holiday birdn worms could stroke his ego in person>> >> I'm not sure, but I don't think I like the sound of that. Maybe you could re-word it? << >> I agree with bobbelee. In my town, people get arrested for that sort of thing...or at least the stripper gets compensated for it! LOL << Even though it's pretty small, I love having my ego stroked.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt UGH! ya' know there is a porno thread over in WE that is TOTALLY histerical! just sayin'...
Originally Posted By MPierce So is this one. It's kind of like the Steinfeld show. They're both about nothing.
Originally Posted By grlweatswchpstx Class action suit anyone? Lawyers love those if you can find enough people in the same boat as you. I was just part of one against disney a few years ago. It happens, so *if* Disney is taking back these offers, hopefully people are standing up for themselves.
Originally Posted By birdsNworms Thank you to those contributors to this thread who provided their personal experiences or articulated a view on the overarching issue of compensation for damages and corporate responsiveness in relation to liability waivers. My participation in disseminating specific information related to this matter [case by case recitations] is limited for a variety of reasons, not the least being a closeness to the protocol utilized in gaining these waivers. As well, there is a strict prohibition from accessing this and similar websites during the work day and/or from company-owned computers. Such activity by those who are not charged with monitoring online activity results in termination. I am able to follow LaughingPlace only during down time, and that means I cannot reply to all who post. Nor would that be indicated as some individuals do not use this forum as a platform for discussion but for entirely different reasons. Responses are given when indicated and as my schedule allows. For the record, there are several other LPers who are similarly bound. Like former -- and some present -- Imagineers and operational executives as well as the current publisher of Tales from the Laughing Place (a product originally positioned as the [outsourced] heir to Disney Magazine). This thread was started, and has been reinforced as a means, to inquire among the fan community of the prevalence and awareness of this activity among the most loyal Disney fans. You. While being ever aware that there exists an exponential number of 'lurkers' who routinely visit the site and follow the many topics posted here. It is only by accessing this resource that the true extent of the harm, or disloyalty, this program is causing can be determined. And therein lies the problem. Many people who are duped, regardless of the context or the company, are embarrassed and humiliated and feel a certain guilt over it resulting in silence. Yes, you could direct these John and Jane Does to 'simply' sue for breach of contract. Straightforward enough. Except for one undeniable truth: a contract is only as good as the company or party willing to stand behind it. Disney does stand behind its contracts. But only those contracts it has to. Meaning, the ones it enters into with large companies or talent it has a substantial and vested interest in continuing a relationship with. Unfortunately, as many here have written about over the years, the value of the individual guest to TWDC has all but evaporated. TWDC's view: 'It's a turnstile, stupid!' At TDB, in the shadow of the dwarfs, a stripping-down of the theme parks division was framed by Iger on that exact line just weeks after taking the helm from Michael Eisner. Turn one guest off, and there are countless others waiting in line. In practice, this shunts and can even close revenue streams which is hardly good in the longterm for business or brand management. But, it also removes more 'difficult' or demanding (or discerning) guests from the paradigm allowing greater marginalization of the medium and artificially propping up short-term results. That means for Disney, and other companies, there exists a great disincentive to please this particular guest. So, a kid trips on the parade post the cast member failed to plug resulting in an ER visit and a half dozen stitches. A grandmother takes an inadvertent surf through the food court when a tray is left on the floor and in the middle of the 'x' zone en route to the cashier. One broken hip and one destination vacation in the bin. How regularly does this happen and what is Disney's response? The stitches come out, the knee heals. The hip is pinned, and grandma plays tennis again. Even so, there is no denying liability in these instances. So, what does Disney do? Approach, appease, and appeal. One -- keep the family together, as this is not a timeshare presentation and you will need to play upon the entire family's emotions all done by a white-collar looking, mock executive who instills a sense of authority. Two -- exhibit empathy while quickly mining the family on "what can we do to make this better" so the guest feels the well-dressed hourly is "on their side." Three -- employ those Disney heartstrings to turn the table on the injured person by manipulating the dynamic and turning (recruiting) the other members of the family "to the Disney team" to make the situation go away. The result most of the time is a signed waiver, which is not ever given to the guest. Instead, the guest is given the oft-referenced "make good" offer emblazoned with corporate letterhead and an original signature. All the 'guest' has to do is call the guest services line when/if he or she opts to return and cite the file number. Now, the reason for the thread... There is within TWDC a program, a protocol, for determining which offers must be respected and the many the company extended merely to make the guest go away. Quietly. The sole method of getting the word out on how widespread this activity is: getting people to talk about their experiences with Mickey & Friends in said situations. As you can see, and as TWDC capitalizes upon, this is a not-so-easy task. And yet, this is merely the tip of Disney's data mining habits and the 'fruits' such pernicious activity is beginning to yield. If you don't have to pay, if the injured party is determined to be low risk -- or voiceless, why bother...? A few posters have been forthright in discussing specific instances whereby a wrong was addressed by Disney. It is essential to know that of the small minority who decline an on-the-spot waiver TWDC ascribes a dollar value on an incident-by-incident basis in a rather peculiar and egregious manner. The bottomline, what you receive in compensation is directly proportional to the amount of time legal expends on your call(s). Nothing to do with actual damage, not a bit to do with liability. [For those on such a call, 70 minutes is a crucial threshold.] Then again, if you were aware of the depth of the information being gathered about you and -- far more importantly as most companies are collecting information on consumers -- the extent TWDC is manipulating your personal habits or preferences, perceived wealth, education, community connections, etc...you might not ever tender a name, swipe a card, or offer up your fingerprint to enter what is supposed to be a place for a fun escape from reality. The question, and this thread was posed not as a declaration but as a query, is not whether TWDC dupes consumers (as to a certain extent that's good marketing). It is the systemization of the activity by corporate citizens and its broad-based implications.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey birdsnworms, a word of advice: write for your audience. You're not writing a corporate report, you're posting on a fansite. Very few people are interested in reading an overlong post full of business jargon on a site such as this. After spending all day at work sifting through paragraphs written by 5th graders, I'm certainly not in the mood to translate your technical babble into conversational English. I'm sure many other posters would agree with me on that point. I also suggest erring on the side of brevity. Get to the point, dude!
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<Even though it's pretty small, I love having my ego stroked.>> I think you should consult with your wife for this one, MP!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***birdsnworms, a word of advice: write for your audience. You're not writing a corporate report, you're posting on a fansite. Very few people are interested in reading an overlong post full of business jargon on a site such as this. After spending all day at work sifting through paragraphs written by 5th graders, I'm certainly not in the mood to translate your technical babble into conversational English. I'm sure many other posters would agree with me on that point.*** I just figured he was a flaming geek.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost What I have learned from this thread is that all this "discussion" has lead to very little, if any, verification of the original charges. I agree with whatever poster insinuated that perhaps after review, Disney decided that the claims were unfounded and therefore unworthy of any reward. Why then wouldn't someone come forward to say how they were "duped"? Because the dupee, in reality, was the duper. We have all wasted a lot of time on this thread with still no examples of duping detailed enough to understand. Even "Spirit" when not dropping names in wholesale fashion, usually has specific insight. In this case it was more, I know something you don't (recurring theme, btw) or a I know someone who knew someone that this happened too. The offended parties, if legitimate have many avenues of recourse the most damaging is public disclosure. If these people had a reasonable claim they certainly could have gone that route. We as a collective grouping of Disney junkies in all likelihood would have heard about it. Nope, still not buying it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***In this case it was more, I know something you don't (recurring theme, btw)*** Ain't that the truth!? It does get pretty tiresome. Leemac, at least, offers up details of his comings and goings as much as he can, and when he's restricted from talking at least he says so in clear terms. This whole "well, I'm an important person you see...but I can't divulge, well, ANYTHING about what I do because it's so very important and you all would be jealous if I told you and, anyway, I'm just an important guy so don't forget it!" kinda seems lame to me. If someone is so important, why write on message boards? More importantly, why BITCH on message boards (if you're so important, you should be able to bitch to the important people, I would think). I dunno. This whole thing smacks of self important company-bashing to me. *shrug*
Originally Posted By jkayjs <<Then again, if you were aware of the depth of the information being gathered about you and -- far more importantly as most companies are collecting information on consumers -- the extent TWDC is manipulating your personal habits or preferences, perceived wealth, education, community connections, etc...you might not ever tender a name, swipe a card, or offer up your fingerprint to enter what is supposed to be a place for a fun escape from reality. The question, and this thread was posed not as a declaration but as a query, is not whether TWDC dupes consumers (as to a certain extent that's good marketing). It is the systemization of the activity by corporate citizens and its broad-based implications.>> I wasn't going to post on this thread again & even had my own post removed because I don't want or need anyone apologizing for me. I would just like some clarification. Disney is compiling our info & useing it to manipulate us & for who knows what else including but apparently not limited to my personal wealth & community involvement? Also this is a systematic activity that Disney execs are party to along with duping the guest which is considered to some extent good marketing? These are pretty heady acusations that if acurate are certainly note worthy if not grounds for prosecution. I am surprise that the Orlando Sentinal hasn't jumped on this as we know there is no love loss there. Maybe that's to come who knows. What I do know is that I come to this site for the most part to get info/news about a favored vacation site & to enjoy the different personalities of fellow LPers. There are deep topics from time to time but this a little to deep for me. And before anyone can point it out yes that makes me shallow. So be it, I'll stay out of the deep end.; Oh & BTW these were sincere questions.
Originally Posted By grlweatswchpstx You know Mr. X, that's exactly what I was thinking.. And the leading implication that you work for Disney but then can't go home to your own computer to talk about these things. No one ever said you needed to check this site at work.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Wow, I've always been very leary of Mr X since he lambasted me in WE, but he had me ROTFLMAO. Beautiful.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sorry Bobbelee...nothing personal! I'm just a regular keyboard warrior over there.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Do you have any details on why the "make good agreements" were not honored? Was Disney just being crappy, or did subsequent investigation show that the guest was not entirely truthful when stating the cause or extent of their injury?>> I don't know whether you are asking me or the worms poster. In the instances I am aware of, Disney just decided it wasn't going to honor the deals. Period. I do know these folks weren't faking anything or making things up -- those are usually the people who actually DO turn around and sue Mickey. In the Space Mtn example, when Disney 'rescinded' its offer months later, I made sure the family got comped into DL on my own. <<Disney has DEEP POCKETS and is not afraid of fighting in court.>> That's just my point. Many companies today actually want to be sued. Mickey is gonna be able to outspend just about anyone in court, especially over these relatively small-scale contract breeches. Again, this isn't someone getting killed on attraction. Or even seriously injured. This isn't some Imagineer raping a 13-year-old boy. ... Disney will gladly pay up in those situations and do its damnedest to make sure it stays out of the media (which makes me wonder what has happened with the monorail piliot's family ... or even those involved in the bus collision). But if you fell on property due to something being improperly maintained and you wound up in Celebration Health getting six stitches in your forehead and a free weekend back at DAK Lodge and Disney decided they weren't gonna honor it, I'm just not sure lawyers would be banging down your door to represent you against the Mouse ... and that's after you drop a $2K-$5K retainer down. <<On the other hand, I can't believe they would want the publicity black eye they would take by fighting a settlement someone was truly due.>> See above. Someone has to be willing to fight and hire an attorney (an expensive proposition) ... and in today's media landscape, to assume they'd get attention is a leap I wouldn't make. <<I would guess the agreements people sign probably state that the agreement is null and void if subsequent investigation shows any type of fraud or misrepresentation was involved.>> The ones I have seen are simple agreements. They're more like travel certificates than legal contracts. But I haven't seen many ... I suspect the worm man has, hence the thread. <<I still think there is more to this than meets the eye.>> Surely. And I am certain it depends on circumstances whether Disney decides to stick to its word or not.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Even though it's pretty small, I love having my ego stroked.>> Don't we all ...
