WDW Social 'Media' and Conspiracy

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

>>>Thus, you have incorrectly labled (or libeled)me as a whore. Clearly I would be more correctly described as some sort of unpaid harlot.<<<

<<How does Mrs. Lee feel about this? >>

If she's still drinking, then I bet she ain't feeling much at all ...

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<If you want to get anywhere in the company, then you can't be passionate about the company or you have to be in the closet about it.>>

How sad. And this might be very well the reason why their social media strategy appears to be so clueless. If the people in power have no idea how to relate with fans it is no wonder they can't formulate a strategy on how to communicate and interact with them in a way that makes sense. So they set up a department to deal with something that is frowned upon by the rest of the company: passion for the company's product. And since this is something others don't want to touch, they let the social media department do what they want.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<Actually, in the way it is being considered, it will.>>

Would it be in any way related to the extinct Explorers Club restaurant at DLP?

 

Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1

"But again, great point Bob!"


I have wanted to catch the Spirit's eye for YEARS here and FINALLY.....He approves of me.....He REALLY REALLY APPROVES OF ME!!!!

: )

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

Don't get too used to it ;-)

 

Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer

>>>I tend to think you are overvalued. Much like say a fanboi trying to sell a 1985 EPCOT Center Guidebook on e-Bay for $9.99. <<<<

I will pay that in a heart beat!!!!!!!!

LOL

 

Originally Posted By -em

>> If you want to get anywhere in the company, then you can't be passionate about the company or you have to be in the closet about it. <<

Sadly this is soo true. The people that are wanted are the "Defenders of Mediocrity" both working in, visiting and reporting about the company because they don't want the hard questions asked because they don't want to give the true answers- instead they want people who don't know to ask the hard questions...

The ones who accept the new "Disney Parks" merchandise bags with the "Oooh we got new bags!" instead of "Look its another step back in park individuality" and "people are going to wonder where the 2nd castle is" (as the bag has DLR & WDWs castles with the large Disney Parks logo underneath)

Pretty soon I won't know which park I'm at if I depending on the paraphernalia...

But I'm sure it'll generate lots of blog posts and tweets which is what truly matters...

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<The ones who accept the new "Disney Parks" merchandise bags with the "Oooh we got new bags!" instead of "Look its another step back in park individuality" and "people are going to wonder where the 2nd castle is" >>

Disney Parks merchandise bags??? That's so sad. It might be silly, but I really loved bringing back several bags from my trips to reuse them at home. But what's the point if it says Disney Parks on them - that's not the place I visited and have fond memories of... Is it really that much more economical to have the same bags at both US resorts? I just can't understand why they do that.

 

Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1

Glad I kept all my pretty old bags in the closet!

And NO, I am NOT talking about the Witches!!!

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<If you want to get anywhere in the company, then you can't be passionate about the company or you have to be in the closet about it.>>

Come on - that isn't even remotely true. In the WDP&R business unit there are still a lot of people that have tremendous passion about the parks - Tom Staggs has been a huge fan as his daughters have grown up. He has been with the company over 20 years now and has always been a vocal fan - he has always been a regular in the parks - even when he was in Larry Murphy's strategic planning group.

The issue is that the company is a massive employer now - it just isn't possible to find rabid fanbois that are qualified and experienced for management roles.

 

Originally Posted By SpokkerJones

"it just isn't possible to find rabid fanbois that are qualified and experienced for management roles."

There are plenty of rabid fanboys that are qualified to do the core jobs associated with management, finance, accounting and other business stuff.

There are, however, not plenty of rabid fanboys that are qualified to do the job of BS'ing and lying to people.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Disney has a cancer and its been spreading since the consultants and MBAs came aboard in the 90s.>>

That isn't confined to the Company. MBAs were the preferred qualification for most blue-chip organisations in the '90s. My previous employer (now sadly defunct) was a huge proponent of the Havard MBA program that it actively pushed managers into it (and paid for it). I had a choice and opted for a different approach and went for the CPA and bar exams. I think I chose wisely - since the collapse of businesses like Enron and WorldCom employers have been looking harder for more relevant experience and more appropriate qualifications - usually those involving work experiences like CPAs.

The root of the problem at Disney was the excessive powers granted to Larry Murphy and the goons in strategic planning - there is no doubt that it produced some excellent execs (Tom Staggs and Meg Whitman) but also some less desirable ones - including another prominent management team member. MDE gave them far too much power and they ruled the roost. If you were out of favor as a business unit then you had no chance of any capital allocation.

Thankfully Bob Iger disbanded the entire group - now strategic planning and business development sits within each business unit - the management team that leads those business units has to live and die by the decisions they make.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<There are plenty of rabid fanboys that are qualified to do the core jobs associated with management, finance, accounting and other business stuff.

There are, however, not plenty of rabid fanboys that are qualified to do the job of BS'ing and lying to people.>>

The point is that you need a broad cross-section of people to staff the ranks - you can't rely on a cookie-cutter management team. Those that haven't grown up immersed in the company and its products can often offer a fresh perspective.

No idea what the BS'ing and lying point refers to.

 

Originally Posted By SpokkerJones

You can be passionate about the parks, as long as your passion is in lockstep with every decision being made by your superiors.

The passionate people that Spirited is talking about are the ones who would speak up about the various things discussed here. That is a no-no.

It is perfectly understandable that 50 different people's 50 different ideas about how to do one specific thing cannot all be implemented, but the fact that one cannot speak their mind, even if their idea or policy will not be implemented or is not very popular, is what makes these jobs so soul-sucking and depressing.

For all the reverence we give to our democracy, it's amazing how undemocratic working in the corporate world actually is.

You would think that if democracy and freedom of speech were so great, that we would voluntarily implement these concepts into how we do business. But speaking your mind can be a fatal career misstep.

 

Originally Posted By SpokkerJones

"No idea what the BS'ing and lying point refers to."

Telling your boss that their idea is great even though you know it's awful and you know it's bad for the company and you know many others agree.

"Those that haven't grown up immersed in the company and its products can often offer a fresh perspective."

No doubt, but it would seem that nearly every executive has no idea what the parks are all about and treat it as something morons with too much money enjoy. See also: Ed Grier.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<You can be passionate about the parks, as long as your passion is in lockstep with every decision being made by your superiors.

The passionate people that Spirited is talking about are the ones who would speak up about the various things discussed here. That is a no-no.>>

Again - that is a serious generalisation. It all depends on the individual - you need to be smart enough to gauge your audience. I've seen a lot of WDI meetings degenerate rapidly into oponinated arguments - many. I've also seen meetings that typically just become rubber-stamping exercises. Jay Rasulo is a case-in-point - he has a particular style in meetings that can make them very uncomfortable. It is his modus operandi - and entirely his choice. It isn't how I like to work but I can understand why others want to be that way. Ultimately as a manager you should be listening to ideas and opinions but the buck stops with you (most of the time).

 

Originally Posted By SpokkerJones

"I've seen a lot of WDI meetings degenerate rapidly into oponinated arguments"

So let them argue. It's like the act of arguing is enough to get you fired. There is nothing wrong with a good argument.

When major decisions are to be made about the future of Disney theme parks, it isn't "polite" to sit there nice and quietly.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<Sadly this is soo true. The people that are wanted are the "Defenders of Mediocrity" both working in, visiting and reporting about the company because they don't want the hard questions asked because they don't want to give the true answers- instead they want people who don't know to ask the hard questions... >>

I would say this about nails it.

Workers/CMs? Check.
Guests? Check.
Media? Just substitute online bloggers and podcasters liberally ... and ... Check.

That is how you degrade your brand long term, but make the short term bottom line numbers sing in a way Wall Street approves of. You can destroy your brand that way ... or just make it something much lesser than it was.

And this is how you start ...

Cash for copy was how the hacks used to call it. No, before the age of the Internet, reporters were not being paid by TWDC for their coverage. But, just as we were discussing here, large scale news organizations (and smaller fish) were accepting free or discounted trips (a token amount here just to be able to say they paid and didn't accept a freebie), meals, services, event invitations and swag. The thinking was these individuals were being 'sent' or assigned to go to WDW and that was a resource allocation by the news outlet. If that person (or people) were in Orlando, they obviously weren't available to cover other stories back home or elsewhere.

Once home, Disney's media operatives would await to view tearsheets from newspapers and magazines and tapes from TV etc ...

Coverage was used NOT to determine whether the organization and/or individual would be asked to return for future events/openings/announcements ... BUT was used as a barometer to gauge how well the company's product was, in actuality, received. In essence, Disney was using the media, not simply to get its marketing message out to the masses, but to see how well it was doing in hitting its targets.

Disney wanted a critical media because it wanted to showcase how well its version of immersive family themed entertainment really was. And if some people were critical, that was fine too, as Disney wanted that information not to punitively play the 'you can't come to our next party' game but because it allowed them to look at their own product through different lenses and see what might need to be changed, improved, explained etc.

Now, fast forward to the age of the Twitterverse (and don't you giggle just a bit when you say that word?) and the Blogosphere and a time when you are 'Liking' things on FB from sandwiches to Presidential candidates to new Apple toys.

A whole new world, right Jasmine?

And something called 'Cash for Clicks' ...

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

Everybody understands that the best way, or the most direct way, of monetizing the web is by getting your message before as many UNIQUE eyes as possible. No real difference at all from old media, I might add.

For TWDC, it would make sense to seek out Disney-friendly sites. To direct advertising revenue, press and publicity/social media assets, and even to court for invitations to experience the product in preview form. Now, aren't Disney-centric or exclusive blogs a perfect platform for this?

Setting aside (for now) the really obvious relating to how one might manipulate 'hits' to show that you are getting 6,000 visitors to your site when you might be getting six sets of eyeballs. Or ... like with certain podcasters you may have an audience of barely a few hundred and yet your site claims an audience of say 30,000. We all know how these numbers are manipulated. Unless, of course, you believe websites like this one get far less traffic than much smaller, much newer, much less significant (when it comes to coverage and the scope of it of TWDC) do.

Here's the thing, WDW Co. knows all about this manipulation. It has been allowed to go on because it is the reason many people are employed at Celebration Place. When Gary, Tom, Charlie and the gang have to justify their jobs or why they are allocating so much of the company's money to host webmasters/bloggers/podcasters (going to try and refrain from using whores anymore, let's see how long it lasts), many that have to flown in from other states and nations, it sure doesn't help if Site A has 123 views a day and Site B has 76 and Site C has the owner's family, 12 FB friends and Sally from next door viewing.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that Burbank had a grasp of what's been going on (ONEDISNEY or not) or to what extent down in the Florida swamplands (starting the five-month summer TODAY!)

Now, you might be saying 'who cares?' Or 'they're still getting their message out' ... or 'I checked and you can get a 6:05 PS at Rose and Crown tomorrow night, so all is cool' (oops, sorry, wrong thread ... but it always does come down to food, doesn't it?) ...

No, what it really comes down to is Cash for Content or really ... Cash for Clicks.

And, no, there's no problem in doing that. Well, no problem ... unless ...

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

When the WSJ covers something at WDW, the NYT, or NBC, for that matter, it fills one small part of their daily coverage. That means whatever 'cooperation' they receive from TWDC can easily be dismissed by all parties as nobody is going to argue that any of those organizations is somehow beholden to Mickey and The Weatherman (I'm thinking that may be a cool name for my garage band ... with Pierce on drums ... and Dave on bass!)

So that Cash for Content thing simply doesn't apply.

However, under the present model used by WDW Co. to credential virtually every person in the Blogosphere or Twitterverse with a 'Doing Disney MY Way' at-home business, you have a tremendous incentive that Disney's Social Media Dept has delivered to these folks in the form of Cash for Clicks.

Only, when the content and coverage on the site is restricted entirely, or very close, to Disney ... well, we gots real problems here. Legal problems.

Oh, that's Burbank talking and not the Spirit.

You see sometimes it's hard to distinguish, even with a disclosure, that the site one is viewing is not sanctioned or otherwise endorsed by TWDC, after all ... the banner ad is a WDW ad ... the font used is the Walt font or the classic WDW one ... and the pages emulate what one would now generically describe as the Disney Look. You add to this the effusive praise of all things Disney and the over-the-top spin that even Press and Publicity can't be taken seriously for and you hand these folks the Keys to the Kingdom.

And let's again be blunt here, 99% of these sites are NOT actually covering WDW. They are picking and choosing what to cover, usually in the hope that more invites, freebies and swag will be coming their way. They aren't using news judgment and they aren't taking pictures 'of burned out lighbulbs' (remember, what Al Lutz was always accused of until he became a 'go to' authority on DLR precisely because he wouldn't take a thing from the company) ... or more serious things.

You know a site that has done a pictorial on River Country today and what a danger it poses?

You know a site that shows how bad the pavement is in many places at WDW and could pose safety risks?

Seen any State of WDW Monorails: Two Years After Tragedy on a site?

Hell, do you know a site that has just bashed the DDP and the state of dining at the resort?

Didn't think so, because that stuff will get you off the invite list faster than a typical WDW guest can scarf down a turkey leg.

What you hear from site to site with very few exceptions (this Place and its amazing community would be one) is simply an echo chamber filled with WDW Co's talking points. And what's the problem with that? And does that present a legal question?

Let's see, you write only about Disney, you stay on the company's message, you are a de facto arm of WDW's Social Media Dept, advertising from TWDC is a staple of your site, you accept junkets (if disclosed) that amount to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on an annual basis. The de facto Disney website you own is bought and paid for in every tangible way by TWDC. Yet, 'you' -- the webmaster -- are somehow independent?

To all those who laughed when I used the word payola (and thought it was something Pierce caught in the 60s in his wild LA days) or cringe at the mere suggestion of Disney engaging in improper influence over the message through improper payment to the messengers ... this was not much of a holiday weekend for some people.

As a hard news reporter, who is looking into Disney's relationship with social media/fan sites, said to me with utter disgust, ''we didn't get this much pushback when they had the monorail death'' ... tell you something?