Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "After this past D23 event, there seems to be a lot of backlash against Social Media, Disney Podcasters and Bloggers because of how horrendous the lines at the Expo were and how so many fans did not get to see any presentations at all." Disney is the last organization that I would want to put on a Disneyland convention. You have to remember that the head honchos at Disney are not hardcore fans. And that's fine. But that also means they are not going to be able to put on a good fan convention. Companies can put on fan-pleasing conventions. Blizzard is a good example of this. But Disney is simply not very good at it. They don't announce anything good and the exhibits are lame. Speakers cannot be honest. You usually see more honesty at non-corporate conventions. What Disney basically did was try to exploit the fan base and a lot of people got suckered into signing up for it. It was a calculated marketing and business move, not a "we love the theme parks just as much as you do" move.
Originally Posted By Bolna SpokkerJones, you make a great point there about the convention. The problem seems to be that a company tries to take over the fans of its products - and I think this just won't work ever. You can't be a fan of yourself - especially not if you are a large company with a financial interest. It's the same with the Disney Parks Blog. See the discussion about the "new" Fantasyland concept art which seemingly wasn't as new as the Blog wanted us to believe: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-121385-P-1.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-1.asp</a> It is all about marketing - and certainly some consumers see that. But many are just going to be blinded by magic and pixie dust.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<<Bolna - I remember that I used to listen to at least 10 disney podcasts a week. Then as time went on, I started getting annoyed that I was hearing the same things on each one and so I dropped many of them and am now down to 4. I am really surprised that it has not happened, that people havent just chosen a few and that there hasnt been a decrease in disney podcasts. I think that there would be a decrease if disney were not to cater so much to podcasters.>> I started out with 4 and now am down to listening only to one... Of course a podcast does not really need a certain number of listeners, but I think most people would stop producing their podcast if they find that no one (or only very few) listen to it - who wants to talk to an empty room for ages? But I think you are right, if the fact that you have a podcast gives you more access to the topic you care about, that would be another strong motivation! The question is just really how long can Disney go on and be so accommodating to websites/bloggers/podcasters if they are already starting to see a negative effect on regular guests which is being noticed by the normal fans? The funny thing is, the problem you mentioned in your post - the preferred access - was what originally made the Spirit start the first social media thread: the fact that the Star Tours event at WDW was filled with all kind of social media people and he suspected preferential treatment... Seems like at the Expo there wasn't any "conspiracy" - it happened openly. <<Its preaching to the choir and I do think that Spirit has good points here.>> Yes, he really had good points - and I still don't understand why they make all this effort to preach to the choir. Nobody ever came up with a good argument, why this makes sense from a business perspective.
Originally Posted By coprogress Long time lurker. I thought this was an interesting article about corporations trying to win over bloggers, and failing miserably in the process. In this particular case, Con Agra foods tried to trick food bloggers into thinking they were eating a gourmet celebrity chef meal, and instead they got Marie Callendar's frozen crap instead. The end goal, that the bloggers were supposed to love the frozen dinners and shill them online, didn't quite materialized. They were quite pissed. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/business/media/when-bloggers-dont-follow-the-script-to-conagras-chagrin.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09...nted=all</a> Again, not Disney related, but what I liked about the original thread on social media, and this follow-up thread, is that while the focus is of course on Disney, these issues go well beyond.
Originally Posted By Bolna coprogress, great to see a longtime lurker posting! That was indeed an interesting article and it does show how difficult it must be to find the right way on how to deal with social media as a company. And how much it can backfire if you try to trick people. However, I think the article differs in two very important ways from Disney's social media strategy: There they invited "new" people, they wanted to convince bloggers of their product who did not know the product yet, so trying to reach out to a new audience - while Disney mainly restricts itself to those who are already fans (the Papiblogger was the exception). And with that comes the danger of people not liking your product - just as it happened in that case. And then those bloggers were vocal about that. Because they did not have anything to lose - not getting another invite from someone who offers something which you don't like isn't a great loss. But in Disney's case - the bloggers who are fans want to get the invite to the next event. So there is a very strong incentive to not be critical...
Originally Posted By coprogress Bolna, some good points, there are definitely some differences here. But I think it does lend some credibility to the idea that corporations only want to use bloggers as shills for their products, in any way they can. I think it's unethical, and as in this case that method can fail miserably and backfire at the company. Do I think suddenly Lou Mongello is going to come down from his pixie dust high? Absolutely not, but as Spirit and others mentioned some of the lesser bloggers have posted about how unhappy they were at official events. The potential is certainly there for a blogger backlash.
Originally Posted By SeventyOne <Do I think suddenly Lou Mongello is going to come down from his pixie dust high? Absolutely not, but as Spirit and others mentioned some of the lesser bloggers have posted about how unhappy they were at official events. The potential is certainly there for a blogger backlash.> I think this is it. The story becomes not "look how cool the new ship was" but instead "Lou Mongello got an all-access pass and I only got a bus ride from the All-Star." You can control all of the bloggers some of the time, and control some of them all of the time, but...
Originally Posted By Doobie This is where the last topic got off track. Can we please limit the discussion of specific bloggers and just talk in general? Thanks.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<But I think it does lend some credibility to the idea that corporations only want to use bloggers as shills for their products, in any way they can. I think it's unethical, and as in this case that method can fail miserably and backfire at the company. >> Yes, I agree, it is unethical. For me that was one of the points of the discussion about the difference between simple marketing and propaganda. <<but as Spirit and others mentioned some of the lesser bloggers have posted about how unhappy they were at official events. The potential is certainly there for a blogger backlash.>> I used to believe in that danger as well... Somehow, I have become much more cynical during the recent months about this – and that despite normally not being a cynical person at all! And I think when the Spirit mentioned bloggers being unhappy about how they were treated by Disney he mentioned it in a context of those people using this as a “threat” in order to get Disney to give them “more” – not as a general critic that Disney should improve what they are doing for everyone. I would rather agree with that notion. I really see the danger that between a lot of the bloggers/podcasters/webmasters on the one side and Disney on the other is a very unbalanced relationship of very strong dependence. Why would anyone start to blog etc. about Disney? Obviously because they are a fan! It is a lot of effort and requires a lot of time, you don't invest that in something which you don't care about. So Disney is in the position of having something which is extremely valuable to these people: access to the product which they love so much. I don't think Disney would officially ban anyone from the parks who writes a negative blog about WDW. But what they can do was explained by Kevin Yee in post #407 in the original Social Media thread. Not trying to debate a certain blogger here, just quoting what he said as proof for what I think will be Disney's reaction towards criticism. This is what he said: <<So much to comment on, and I'm extremely late to this cocktail party. I think I'll content myself with the observation that Spirit is, of course, correct in his observation that I have asked Disney to be included in their media list (did we talk about this on the phone, Spirit? I rather think we did). I've been covering this coast since 2002 but resisted asking until early 2010, since I felt I would be better paying my own way. But the tsunami of smaller sites suddenly reporting on Disney events starting last year made me wonder if I should be reporting on these events too. Long story short: Disney replied back "we'll keep you in mind" and promptly never communicated with me again. In many ways, I'm honored and touched. It validates my independent reviews, I think, that they feel I'm not the appropriate audience for such events. At the same time, it's a bit vexing. It would be nice to have access to Imagineers and managers, in order to hear from the horse's mouth (so to speak) about Disney offerings.>> <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-119691-P-41.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...P-41.asp</a> So if someone is on Disney's media list – wouldn't there be a strong incentive to behave in a way to stay on it?
Originally Posted By Bolna <<You can control all of the bloggers some of the time, and control some of them all of the time, but...>> Well, you can try to control enough to drown out those whom you don't control... I have been following Disney related websites since the late 90s and I feel they are still multiplying at an astonishing rate - and the more there are the less of a voice have single ones who don't conform. There was the video Spirit linked to in the original thread where it was said that Disney did not have to fear negative comments because for every negative one there were 18 positives. Same thought can be applied here.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey Ok, I went back and read the original thread and I don't understand the outrage. MANY companies are using bloggers to promote new products, and many (if not most or all) are using bloggers that have a history of being complimentary to their products. If you were started a bakery and are looking for bloggers to promote your products, are you going to send a sample to someone who's routinely criticized your baking in the past and cross your fingers for a good review? NO! You're going to send it to someone who likes your product. What people must keep in mind is that most bloggers are impartial. They are often not professional journalists and are not formally tied to any ethical code. If a blogger is putting on a good public face when they secretly hate something in order to keep the invitations from Disney coming, it is absolutely unethical - on the part of the bloggers. Disney is trying to promote their products in a positive light - and, no disrespect to Kevin Yee, but considering his critical eye for the company, I wouldn't provide press access to him if I were on Disney's PR team, either. There are VERY few companies that are going to give access to someone who has had issues with their products in the past - that's like playing Russian Roulette. Has anyone also considered that the "rabid fanbois" that took part in the Star Tours preview were some of the first ones to sign up? If they are as rabid as they were described in the original post on the original thread, they obviously have their fingers on the pulse of Disney happenings and may actually have legitimately been granted access. This whole dust-up is, in my opinion, cooked up. Disney isn't doing anything that any other major company wouldn't do. If the bloggers are only providing good reviews to keep the access coming, then they are crossing an ethical line (which isn't clearly defined because they're bloggers, not, in most cases, professional journalists).
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey Let me amend my first post - I didn't read the WHOLE original thread, just the first few opening salvos.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey Another amendment: <<What people must keep in mind is that most bloggers are impartial.>> That should read NOT impartial. That's what I get for typing early on a Sunday when I'm only partially awake.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Like most things you read or hear (newspapers and television included)I read things with the understanding that the writer comes to the subject matter with a bias of some sort, good or bad. That is especially true with fan blogs. The writer is usually a rabid fan, a detractor, or somewhere in between. Disney would be stupid not to tap into this form of communication. I am a Keven Yee fan. The reason I respect his opinion is that like myself he is a former CM and comes to Disney from the perspective. I usually agree with him, not always, but usually. I read him understanding where he came from and also from a position that he goes to the parks every week, which most assuredly taints his opinion. Having said that though he is in a great place to see how long some issues remain unresolved. His discussions of late of Splash Mountain mirror my own and I can tell you that we are not frequent MK goers, but have noticed the ongoing problems there for some time now. In the finale scene there are two chicken gospel singers who are not working. Our 4 year old grandson saw them and said "Look their dead." Which made everyone in our log laugh but was also sad.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> If the bloggers are only providing good reviews to keep the access coming, then they are crossing an ethical line (which isn't clearly defined because they're bloggers, not, in most cases, professional journalists)<<< Thing is, that's exactly what they are doing. And ethics is to be concerned when they are being compensated and given employee benefits to do so.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey Is there proof that the bloggers are providing positive reviews just for free swag?
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I think he is referring to bloggers that are on staff with Disney. The WDW website has some people who blog about upcoming things, but I always assumed they were CM's
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey If that is the case, sjhym, then these criticisms are even more ridiculous. If that's considered unethical, then some of us are in dire need of a lesson in public relations. Has any "official" blogger for Southwest or Hershey's badmouthed the company in said blog and kept their respective job? Of course not - they're hired to promote the company through the blog, not badmouth it.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I think Disney has people on staff who blog. That's ok as long as there is full disclosure about that. There are also tons of non staff bloggers, many of whom receive perks as "journalists" like special event access for free, free rooms, free previews, etc. One hopes that they remain objective in their blogging, though there are many who believe that is hard to do when receiving free things from the company. Personally I could care less. I don't read many of the bloggers and even the Disney fan sites I read I take with a grain of salt in terms of their opinions. I read it for entertainment...Al is always a fun read and Jim Hill is too, but I dont take their columns as gospel.
