Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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.>> Good point ... but can I ask ... (I will anyway) but are you a lawyer (or one for Disney that may have a conscious?) After speaking to one last week that works at a pretty high level in Burbank, I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu. <<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.>> I could say the same thing (and often have here) in half the words, buddy. But I couldn't help but think of a quote by Bob Iger recently in the O-Sentinel when he was talking about the struggling Adventures By Disney venture. It jumped out at me because it does suggest that (especially in Orlando) Disney really only cares that you visit once. <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-adventures-by-disney-092109,0,4954514.story" target="_blank">http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14.story</a> And here's the quote: "You know, a lot of people who visit our parks don't come back, and yet they continue to take family vacations," Disney Co. Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger said last year, after being asked about Adventures By Disney at a conference. "We would like to capture a little bit more of that spend with an experience that has all the brand attributes of the experience they might have when they go to our parks." <<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? >> That's something I'd love to know. I have the feeling you know more than you're saying, which is why you're facing a battle here. This is a pretty open-minded (especially MPierce, ideas go right in one ear and out the other) site. You'd be sliced, diced and cooked on other more MAGICal sites. Believe me. <<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. >> That sounds like the few situations I am aware of. <<Now, the reason for the thread...>> Perhaps, that should have come in the first post! <<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.] >> You have to be a lawyer for the Mouse!!! You wanna tell us why 70-minutes is so crucial? <<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. >> That's a whole 'nother can of worms (no pun intended). Disney created Destination Disney so it could data-mine its guests. I have a strong vibe you know this. The PR was all about being able to tailor offers and vacations to people based on the guests' history, but anyone knows the real purpose was to be able to predict and encourage more spending. Disney isn't any different from other corporations in that regard. I guess they're just the only company that started it with a talking Mickey plush (btw, you don't see many of them anymore, do you?) <<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 got that. And I think others here have as well. It's just a topic that doesn't get mentioned much because people aren't aware of what really goes on (even a 'supposed' insider like yours truly). And your posts have come off very legal, not that there's anything wrong with that. I just think you may be coming off above your audience (and if you are working for Legal, do you really want to tip anyone off there?) But people here generally are used to more basic stuff ... so can you tell us as a Disney lawyer when Spidey is moving from IOA to MK? Or when construction on the new Fantasyland begins (although I feel like you may know what it's actually going to cost too!)? Oh, and since you must have a company Disney Visa, where would you advise I dine on my next magical WDW vacation?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<Meh.>> Just an aside, but I hate that word. Is it even a word? All the kids seem to use it today. It's like the 21st version of 'blech' which seemed so popular (kinda like rotisserie chicken) in the 1990s.*** More of a Simpsons reference meaning something like "I feel indifferent to this and/or slightly annoyed by the topic". And no, it's not even a word but neither is p'wned and I love that one (even though Kozy accused me of language vandalism for using it).
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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.>> Wow! A long nasty thread that wasn't even started by me ... I dunno whether I can afford to leave the LP again for fear that my 'stirring the pot' mantle may be taken over by someone who likes worms ;-) To be fair, though, the OP ASKED about people being duped. He/she didn't say they were ... although I know in at least some cases (isolated?) that is the case. <<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.>> I gave as specfic examples I could without giving names and dates. I don't want a call from Disney Legal next myself. I don't know how specific someone can be. And I don't work (thank God) for the Mouse. <<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.>> It's very easy to say what you'd do when something happens to others and not yourself. I know with the family I aided at DL, I gave them the phone numbers of three reporters they could contact. They didn't want 'any trouble' and were genuinely concerned that Disney could turn around and tell them they and their family were no longer welcome at DL -- they didn't want to do that to their children. Again, the Mouse plays dirty (just like most major corporations) and this family didn't want to be bothered. And that was before half the media in this country ceased to exist. More than ever, organizations are very cognizant (you can trust me or not, but I know this busines very well) over what stories they'll touch and what companies they'll piss off. Not sure what the answer is, but simply calling WESH or the O-Sentinel and thinking that Disney will get a black-eye and be forced to honor its word is very, very naive.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ***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.>> I think many folks have missed the point. <<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.>> Leemac, and I sure wish he was around more, has his agendas as well. He knows where his bread is buttered. And when folks like Dick Cook can be tossed out like yesterday's trash, and others like Marty Sklar and Wing Chao can be gently nudged into retirement, Lee isn't going to be stupid. Unless he has some very damaging photos, Lee could be gone tomorrow if folks decide he is expendable. And I have heard a lot of frustration in some of his posts over the past few months over the situation in Glendale. And if I've read it here, rest assured the folks who pay him have as well. I love when Lee spills either new info or sets the record straight. I even love it when things happen (like Fantasyland at MK) that he didn't see coming. But everyone has unique circumstances. Just because Lee can (and often can't) speak of certain things doesn't make his 'normal' the same for any of us here. <<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.>> I dunno if you're talking about worms here or me, X, or just in general. But I have seen nothing from the newbie to suggest the 'tude you're ascribing toward him/her, and I certainly don't have it. If anything, I don't know when to keep my freaking piehole shut! <<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).>> Oh. c'mon. You KNOW these boards are watched. Likely the most-closely of any at Disney. That may have to do with Lee's connections or not, but I know for a fact that LP threads have wound up in the hands of people at the top of the Disney food chain. Hell, and I don't wanna make this about Lee, but since you brought him up, one might say it's not smart for him to post here at all. He can't win. If he talks up something at the company then he can be accused of spouting PR spin (I have accused him of this myself). If he basehes something or someone, then it's easy to say that's because it conflicts with whatever he and his pals are working on at Disney. It is no win, which is why I give him props for posting at all. <<I dunno. This whole thing smacks of self important company-bashing to me.>> I don't see it. And I do my share of company-bashing a lot. After coming from DLP and DL, I want to do some serious WDW bashing right now. And after being so hyped by D23 (which I did not attend as I was in Paris at the time), I got so down on Disney when Iger cut Cook so coldly (and I can tell you as someone who spent much of Emmy week with industry folks, Iger is being savaged for it in almost all circles). I think this is a very interesting thread, just not as interesting as certain Spirited ones! ;-)
Originally Posted By danyoung The thing that I don't understand in all of this is why? Why would Disney promote this policy? Why would a company that at least publicly prides itself in customer service do something so heinous, something that has the potential to blow up in their faces, something that would cost them practically nothing to NOT do? It simply makes no sense, beyond some isolated instance that contains more details than any of us knows, for Disney to behave this way. I know if they had done this to me in my situation, if they had made me sign the papers and then renegged on what they had promised me, my first call would have been to the Orlando Sentinal and then probably the Dallas Morning News and then CNN and then whatever other outlet I could find that would listen to me, and I would generate as much negative press as I possibly could. And believe me, that would cost Disney far more than it would have cost them to keep up their end of the bargain. Nope, it just doesn't make any logical sense.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<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.>> Wow! A long nasty thread that wasn't even started by me ... I dunno whether I can afford to leave the LP again for fear that my 'stirring the pot' mantle may be taken over by someone who likes worms ;-)<<< Curb your ego there Spirit...that section wasn't in any way, shape or form in reference to anything that you posted. At least prior to my posting it. It is in reference to and speculation as to the reason that Disney might actually back out of an agreement for compensation. It might be a numbers game that some mathematician came up with that states that 90% (just to be clear that is a fictitious number) of all complainers are faking it so refusal will clean out that many and all they will actually have to deal with are the real ones. Who knows and who the hell cares. If something happened to me and it was real and that is how I was treated, then I would be all over it. I might not be successful but I sure would do everything I could to get justice. If others don't, that is their problem.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 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.] ------------------------------ do you really believe this is different than any other corporation ? I sure hope not as I can tell you that's exactly how potential litigants are dealt with anywhere. What is the time/effort that will need to be expended, what are any extenuating circumstances that could lead to 'soft' damage, i.e. the press. And wxactly what are lmits of liability ? Hint: there are none - one need look no further than what a jury is willing to give a litigant- such as the famous McDonals hot coffee incident. There is not an actuarial /underwriting table that has exact limits - simply doesn't exist. If someone signs their rights away via a waiver on the spot - then unfortunately they are open to a less than optimum settlement- hence the term 'waiver'. No one should ever do that in any situation whetehr you are injured at Home Depot / WDW or Aunt Sophie's house,it's just plain dumb.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 It's like the 21st version of 'blech' which seemed so popular (kinda like rotisserie chicken) in the 1990s.*** ------------ blech also used extensively by Charles Schultz in Peanuts comics in the 60's
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I really don't know what people here are talking about. Disney has always treated me wonderfully. I complained about the air conditioning at the OKW resort last April/May when we were at WDW for our daughter's wedding. They refunded the points I used for accommodations for us, our daughter and her hubby, our son, and the grooms parent’s. They also reimbursed us for all wedding expenses, and had a lovely E-Class Mercedes delivered to our home in Minnesota. Needless to say, I was astounded. I guess it really pays to be part of Disney’s “Best Kept Secret”. ;-)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 What color e class did you get ? Mine was black on black psss...stop giving away OUR besy kept secret Trippy... btw- my daughter considering a much smaller WDW smaller wedding vs a gala extravagansa here. I am all for that
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Ours was very economical (and beautiful). It was not held on Disney property, but at the Harry P. Leu Gardens in Orlando. Of course we all had accommodations at OKW and used WDW restaurants for the celebratory dinners. It was an EXTREMELY small wedding (immediate family only) but was just what they wanted... both are very wary of "big productions". We offered my daughter the choice of a big wedding or helping them with the down payment on a home, and they wisely chose the home. Here is a link to photos from their wedding. The password is "whitwam". By the way... my daughter has given me permission to share this link. <a href="http://photobucket.com/guestlogin?albumUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fs656.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu281%2Frachelwhitwam%2FWedding%2F%3Falbumview%3Dslideshow" target="_blank">http://photobucket.com/guestlo...lideshow</a> Sorry to temporarily hijack the thread, but it is a good hijack!
Originally Posted By SuperDry After getting caught up on this thread, and then re-reading the original post, several things come to mind: Ostensibly, the only thing the OP is really saying is that he is asking if anyone else is aware of situations of Disney rescinding compensation offers after a resort incident and a release of liability is signed by the guest in return for the compensation offer. Even though he doesn't say why he wants this information, it's a reasonable enough question. But the question could have been asked as simply and directly as I stated it above. Instead, we have a quite long post, with many superlatives thrown in, and accusations made, such as calling it a "predatory scheme." 90% of the post could have been eliminated if the actual purpose of the post was to find people that have been in that situation. When asked for specifics, both the OP and others seem to say that for obvious reasons, specifics can't be given, but trust them that they do happen. That also is all within the realm of possibility. But here's the kicker: given that these situations can't really be discussed specifically online, how are we to take the OP at his word that he's wanting to hear about them if HE PROVIDES NO CONTACT INFORMATION? There's no email address (not even a throw-away set up just for this post) or other means of contact in either the OP or in the poster's LP profile. Especially considering that he himself states that these things can't be discussed in detail in a public forum, how does he suppose others that had run into a similar situation were to contact him about it? If you were posting such a request and your actual purpose was to solicit responses, wouldn't you have provided a way to contact you?
Originally Posted By Mr X Great album RT, what a beautiful bride! So, which one are you anyway? Offer a description or something?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The guy in the black and white photo where Rachel and I looked at each other just before beginning the walk down the aisle.
Originally Posted By jkayjs Trippy thank you for sharing. Our daughter did the "big production" & it was indeed lovely but exhausting. BTW what wonderful pics.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<When asked for specifics, both the OP and others seem to say that for obvious reasons, specifics can't be given, but trust them that they do happen>> If the OP knows specifics, why does he/she need to hear from anyone here?
Originally Posted By beamerdog >>But here's the kicker: given that these situations can't really be discussed specifically online, how are we to take the OP at his word that he's wanting to hear about them if HE PROVIDES NO CONTACT INFORMATION?<< I do have a story to share, but the statement above sums up the reason why I didn't. So, op, contact me if you will.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: For his/her own personal information, if nothing else, trekkeruss, duckling. That's most likely why birdsNworms asked his original question. ORWEN: Right! I mean, sometimes when I cast a new spell for the first time, I like to know if anybody else has ever been affected by it. So it's just like me to ask around. ORDDU: Thank you, Spirit, for all your own insights into this particular topic. It's been quite an education to read what you and everyone else, here, has to say.
