Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>But I'm not suprised if Spirit isn't so p'o'd that he won't post here again. << <<Impossible! The Spirit will haunt this realm again, all in good time. (Though "po'd" is an accurate statement.)>> I don't know if I'd say that, Lee. More like disappointed and surprisingly not at all surprised. This is the end game of Social Media. What's the saying ... it's good to be king? There's no doubt that any site that devotes all or most of its space to a company's content receives its largest stream of revenue from that company (common sense, right?) The largest banner ads on any Disney site aren't from Universal, Marriott or Norwegian Cruises Lines, they're from Disney. So, then the question arises when do you disengage legitimate discussion among your community as to not 'offend' or otherwise jeopardize the overriding interest in maintaining that revenue stream ... or more simply put, when do you sacrifice credibility for compensation (be that, ad revenue, press junket invites or anything). This is the all-important question facing the medium that is Social Media, and is by no means restricted to TWDC, LP.com or any website. Others have pointed out how ironic all of this is because LP.com certainly has a right to dictate all that appears here. There is no debating this point, so going back and forth with Doobie is simply a waste of everyone's time and energies. I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of comments, but it's been a busy real world day (yes, I don't live 'The Disney Lifestyle' and I'm still a fan, imagine that?) and the weekend is ahead. I will say one thing, right now though, and that is I sincerely would have liked to have heard from and/or seen Doobie post on the original Social Media thread before. We had 1115 posts and as near as I can recall we didn't have one single post ADMINED/removed. I think that says plenty. Social Media is such a key part of corporate business in the 21st century, and the ethics and 'rules' seemingly either do not exist or are made up on the fly. That isn't the Spirit talking, that's reality. And one last comment for now, but there is a difference and a MAJOR one at that between being negative and being just plain honest. One rests on opinion, the other on fact. ~GFC ~
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer GFC for life. Or is that illegal now!?! But at least we got a lot of good info out of that thread, wonderful discussion. Was happy to take part in it.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice <<And one last comment for now, but there is a difference and a MAJOR one at that between being negative and being just plain honest. One rests on opinion, the other on fact.>> But people dont like pesky facts. Opinions are so much easier to form and manipulate! ~({GFC})~
Originally Posted By Doobie As I said earlier in this topic, I do not care if you want to discuss social media and its implications. I do care when it crosses over into discussing individuals and websites and their less-than-honest motivations. Even if what you say is what you believe to be fact - I have a problem with it. Unless you want to cite that fact in a newspaper article, this is not the place, Same goes for individuals within the Disney company. This particular topic is very hard to discuss without getting into motivations so I let it go for a while - much longer than I should have. Ultimately, after 1100 posts, I felt the best course was to just lave it for what it was and move on. Overall, I will readily admit it wasn't my best bit of moderating. So be it, we'll move on. And to interject on topic since there are very few people who run a Disney fansite who spoke from experience in the topic - we do not receive most of our money from Disney. Obviously we our advertisers sell Disney related products (travel agent and Disneyland-area hotel) so Disney's success is very important for us, but the only Disney Company advertising is via the Google ads on our site (meaning Disney is not directly targeting our site and we do not directly deal with Disney). And even adding up everything we receive from those Disney ads wouldn't be as much as we receive from our direct ads with our main banner advertisers. And even those Disney ads are a relatively recent thing. I think they only go back about 3-4 years. Prior to that we had no Disney ads on our site at all. And while I generally hate talking about what happens behind the scenes here, I will tell you that I can only one time when Disney contacted us about content on our site. It was regarding a rumor we posted (not on the Discussion Boards) that said was false. I told them I'd leave it up anyway since it was just a rumor but they could give me a statement which they did and I appended it to the story. It wasn't related to parks and resorts and was, I believe, handled the way any PR firm would handle the situation with any media outlet. I don't believe that part of the company has ever even given us a "perk". There have also been a couple of other times where something on our site has caused Disney to send us (and other sites) a statement - specifically Small World adding characters and the fiasco that was the first Pirates of the Caribbean merch event at Disneyland many, many years back - but in neither case did anyone ask that content be removed or discussion be stop. And again, speaking for my website (and I can't imagine I'm alone here), to the extent that I don't want to be overly negative in the content on our site (putting the Discussion Boards aside where I don't care as long as it's within parameters) has almost nothing to do with making Disney or advertisers happy. It has to do with making me happy. There are a few sites out here that are happy to be mainly critical sites. That's fine with me - they have their place and I'd even say, overall, they've done a lot of good. I have no interest being one of those sites. For the vast majority of the public Disney is something they do for enjoyment. They don't "live" it and if it stops being fun, they'll just move on with their life, not continue to patronize it. I'm more interested in serving that part of the public and in being that part of the public. Parade X may be a bore compared to what Disney did 10 years ago or compared to what I know Disney is capable of, nevertheless Parade X will be enjoyed by 90% of the people who see it (including me) and I'd rather present it that context rather than the other. It's that simple - it's more fun for me that way, it's more fun for the readers I'm interested in that way. It's not a profit motive, it's not a perk motive. It's something I do dozens of hours per week - I'm lucky enough to have a job where I can get to more-or-less dictate my own agenda, and I choose to go that way. I don't know why anyone would insist it's any more complicated than that. And I'm sure I can't be alone in that. Doobie.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost And Doobie...that's the way it should be. It's yours, it was established because you had something you wanted to say and share with others, and you have every right to have it be your dream. Not to mention the concept that FACT is always debatable. I have never seen any comments good or bad, but especially bad, that are not really subjective opinion. Fact is what has happened, until then it is pure speculation no matter what it is based on.
Originally Posted By MousDad Doobie: First, thanks for your openness and your explanations. I have a question though, as your post seems to indicate such. Is it your desire that most critical discussion of TWDC including how the parks are run be tapered off on this site? I was unclear from your last paragraph if that was what you meant.
Originally Posted By Doobie No, I don't care what happens on the boards as long as people aren't stopping positive discussion when that's what people want to have. I was referring to the overall tone of the main site - not the boards. Doobie.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer To be honest, I think there's a very good balance on this site. We have a good group of respectful, different members, and I think that the way opinions are presented aren't always as negative as people want to believe.
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 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 ReelJustice <<And no, before the conspiracy theorists jump in, I don't work for Disney. >> That's exactly what a Disney Secret Agent would say! :tinfoilhat:
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Maybe the moderators here noticed some of the extreme libel in that thread.>> Vacationer, I do NOT know your background. Too often people throw around words with no respect for their actual meaning. Libel is one of those words frequently thrown out when someone says something that someone else simply doesn't agree with or understand. It's a legal term and has legal implications. Let me assure you, no such act was committed here. You might wish familiarize yourself with the word before using it. And, while more broadly, any blogger/podcaster out in the Cyberverse is in the Public Domain. That makes them fair game to be criticized and questioned, just like any celebrity. And again, so many of them want to be just that. If you can't stand up to public scrutiny then don't put yourself out there. A blogger/podcaster is not anonymous nor do they wish to be, a poster on a discussion forum is a different story. We all are as anonymous as we choose to be. The former has an incentive to write/blog/talk, the latter does not. There's a difference there. ~GFC~
Originally Posted By Doobie But with the caveat - when expressing those views in someone else's forum, ultimately the owner of that forum is free to allow or not allow whatever they wish for any reason they wish.
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 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 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 Doobie, before I respond to this, I did want to thank you for this morning's email. It was a very interesting question and I will be in touch later today/tonight. But it actually is sunny today and I don't wish to spend the day in front of a screen. That said, I did want to put a few comments/questions out. <<That said - I do have a problem with any personal attacks against any other websites or anyone within the Disney company. It was a mistake to let it go as long as I did in that topic. I don't care if you want to discuss the topic but I do have a problem with the severe personal attacks on specific people's motivations in and out of the company. If you insist on having that debate again, you're welcome to do it somewhere else but it's not what I want on this website.>> That's a very broad statement. When TWDC makes major executive changes such as the recent promotions of Meg Crofton and Karl Holz are we going to a 'hands off' policy? Are you going to claim that legit criticisms of the way WDW, its parks and resorts are run can't be leveled against the people who make said decisions? What some may feel is simply a criticism, you may feel is an 'attack', not intellectually, but emotionally. Hell, are Bob Iger or Tom Staggs now untouchable? I recall being on another site where they wanted to have a discussion about the HoP without discussing politics, which is akin to discussing a church or the Bible and not religion. It just can't happen. The notion that another website and its personalities should be off-limits is disturbing. These are your competitors, after all. But, more to the point, we've been talking about things like Al Lutz reports for as long as this site has existed -- and many years before this Spirit was known here. Is that off-limits? And I want you to understand I am not trying to be confrontational, but I'm trying to understand. If the rule is it's your site and what you say is 'the law', I think we all get that. But LP.com has been known as a shining beacon of fair and open discussion of Disney. What makes it special is that it isn't like the other sites. If the lines are being drawn just to silence certain voices, then that needs to be reevaluated. As part of the Disney Social Media strategy, communities like this have slowly, but steadily died. Hell, the company went out and stole the idea for their D23 fanzine from your much superior Tales From the LP. I have no idea if they have caused issues behind the scenes that have resulted in only one issue coming out in the past year (or longer). I'd hate it if Tales disappeared and D23 (a glorified PR publication) kept going. I don't see how questioning what's going on with Disney's handling of Social Media is somehow a topic that shouldn't be discussed. Again, would the thread have gone on 1115 posts, if people simply weren't interested in the topic? More importantly, doesn't the topic speak to the viability long term of sites such as this one? Perhaps, there was some rhetoric that you felt went too far against others sites/individuals. But it was Leemac who stated his own uncomfortableness when a podcaster acting like an official Disney CM stuck a microphone in his face on the Disney Dream launch. The same podcaster, who is the only person allowed to advertise his site on The Disney Parks Blog and give tours that compete with Disney's in their own parks. You don't feel that he is fair game? He sure doesn't seem to mind publicity ... Then, you have someone like the Latino-centric blogger who was cast by TWDC, along with his wife and children, to pretend to just be a family on vacation when they are in fact under contract with Disney and GM to shill the products (and, look, this isn't my opinion ... the information is on the Internet ... it's there for anyone and everyone to see). Not fair game? I really want to understand the rules and your rationale for them. How about publicists for the company? Part of their job entails being a name on a quote. Are you saying we can't name them here? Thanks for the answers in advance ... and I will absolutely get back to you this weekend. ~GFC~
