WDW Social 'Media' and Conspiracy

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

I was for this reader...

 

Originally Posted By Scutr

You did just fine, Doug, and it's nice to be able to put a face to the name now.

Add me to the (short) list of LP'ers interested in your critique of your local medical professionals. I'm about to start classes prior to become a Medical Assistant. I want to know what I'm in for and how NOT to act...

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

Lol Scutr. Reminds me of a time a Chief Executive for one of my clients had a heart attack, his partner was the chief exec of the hospital he was in (award winning). The behaviour of staff was unbelievable - Dr's treating him like a fool (he is published at post doctorial level), nurses arguing about breaks rather than answering the bleep, mixed charts, all sorts of things. He kept me busy when he got out, we did a business process review of his services and the Hospital and cleaned up the shodiness. Of course there were some wonderful points to them too, which we recognised and celebrated.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74


<<You totally misread me Spirit... I was pointing you out as someone whose opinion could NOT be bought. And I know there are others out there with the same integrity you have. So as usual, I hate painting with a broad brush. I just feel there are many like yourself who COULD accept free trips and "swag" from Disney without having their opinion bought. And if you were on the receiving end, I think you would also be the first to say that although opinion buying sometimes happens it does not happen all the time, and those with integrity will not let their opinion be bought. >>

I guess I did misread, apologies. And I absolutely agree, there are people out there that can (and do) accept freebies from Disney and I don't question their integrity.

But since the whole Social Media Dept was formed, Disney is increasingly inviting people who can and are. Without trying to blow my own horn, I do go places, experience things and meet people that others don't/won't/can't. I am not impressed by 'access' or red carpets or celebrity. People impress me. ... well, some do.

What Disney Social Media has done though is very similar to what their marketing campaigns often do, and that's play on the feelings of the audience. A blogger who lives a very ordinary (or worse) life may find it the experience of a lifetime to be invited to a Disney event. And there's no way that their 'coverage' or reviews can be taken seriously because of that.

I wouldn't leave puddles if I wound up getting two minutes with Johnny Depp, let alone a voice actor from the Clone Wars.

<<I just hate saying that EVERYONE given stuff becomes a media whore because I know that is not the truth. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you were give all kinds of swag... I know it wouldn't change your opinion. And I also think you would be rather silly to turn it down if offered.>>

Agreed. The danger is in giving people who are unaccustomed to being in such situations freebies/access because it does make some believe they're 'liked' by Disney or 'special' ... I think that's very obvious when you have people who never criticize anything anything at WDW at a time when the resort couldn't be staler and offering less for a visitor's dollar all the time.

Some of these people say that it simply isn't in their interest to show and speak of the negatives about WDW. That's fine too, since they're fans. But let's not then kid ourselves that they are 'covering' the resort. If you want to show how beautiful EPCOT looks at Flower Fest time, then fair and balanced would also show some of the amazingly bad horticulture on display elsewhere.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<Spirit, next time you go to WDW you need to hit me up... it' been a long time since our last sparing match >>

I will try. Would have liked to last month, but it wasn't a pleasure trip and I was kind of going from hour to hour. But I forgot that you are now a lot closer, which makes things easier.

<<in other news... Disney is NOT the only one hitting up bloggers recently... I was just at Discovery Cove for the grand reef, first visit and it was amazing... (warning, it was a free trip so my rose colored glasses are still on)>>

I don't know. I haven't been to DC yet. Want to, just haven't made it a priority. But I've never known someone who has gone -- and paid -- who has come away disappointed.

What you have to ask yourself is simply would you have enjoyed the experience just as much if you had paid for it, whether it was worth the price point and whether it was a quality experience all around. If you ever answer yourself with a ''... but it was free'' then you have a problem. And any online review/comments need to reflect that because your readers are going to be paying.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

>>Going to DLR this weekend? Been to Trader Sam's yet...<<

<<I doubt I will be able to get away this weekend. And I have only been able to peek in at Trader Sams a couple of times. I am dealing with a major family medical crisis right now, and have only been able to get away for the official media events. (And where is all this fabulous swag we are supposed to be getting "bought off" with?)>>

I am very sorry to hear that and hope all is well in the end.

As to 'swag' that is a term that can mean everything from a LE piece of artwork (and Disney has given these out at select events, I know) to simple items like bags, plush, pins, key chains, pens etc.

I know the 'basic' items given out at WoC's premiere weren't very special, things like notepads and pens with the logo ... others got pins too. It all depends on the event and the media outlet.

But swag doesn't mean people are getting gift bags that Oscar nominees are getting or even what BCS game participants are ... it just means free stuff ... can be very valuable or total crap. And value is in the eye of the person getting it too. I wouldn't get all hot and bothered by a special LE vinylmation, but I know many bloggers would.

<<After the month my wife and I have gone through, I could write a comprehensive article on the hospital we have been in and out of-- comparative reviews of the rooms in each building, cafeteria food vs. in-room service, and staff profiles for dozens of individuals, from doctors to cleaning ladies. But that would hardly be of interest to the LP crowd...>>

That sounds really awful. I don't know what to say other than I hope things improve. I am dealing with a bad situation (maybe situations) of my own and life is incredibly stressful at times.

I guess that's why I wish Disney was the quality escape it once was, and not a place that constantly reinforces all of the problems we currently have in Florida, the USA and on the planet!

 

Originally Posted By Scutr

Andy and Spirit:
There's a difference between disagreeing with a person's statements, asking for clarifications....and making a personal attack.
You're both guilty of that. Who started it is irrelevant. Andy's posts seem to have been designed to derail what was an interesting DISCUSSION reisney's "buying" good reviews in the media into an immature "is too!...nuh uh!...yuh huh!" type of snark-fest (making it hard for me to believe you had no "agenda") and Spirit swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

I think you both need a "time out" for the weekend.
Maybe after that the topic can go back to being a somewhat mature, albeit spirited (lame pun intended) debate.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

>>1) Disney using Disney affliated social media for marketing.

2) Disney secretly using un-afflicated social media for marketing.

3) Disney Websites using Disney IP for financial gain.

All 3 are different topics/issues.<<

<<I think this is a very valid point. Spirit, perhaps after a well deserved break for the weekend, you could break this down succinctly. It would help me to understand the extent of your concern about the "Social 'Media' and Conspiracy.">>

I'll try and put something up, Doug.

But they are three different, although related, issues. I've done my best to keep things separated, but some people are muddying the waters.

Maybe a simple approach will be best, let me think about it.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<You totally misread me Spirit... I was pointing you out as someone whose opinion could NOT be bought. And I know there are others out there with the same integrity you have. So as usual, I hate painting with a broad brush. I just feel there are many like yourself who COULD accept free trips and "swag" from Disney without having their opinion bought. And if you were on the receiving end, I think you would also be the first to say that although opinion buying sometimes happens it does not happen all the time, and those with integrity will not let their opinion be bought.

I just hate saying that EVERYONE given stuff becomes a media whore because I know that is not the truth. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you were give all kinds of swag... I know it wouldn't change your opinion. And I also think you would be rather silly to turn it down if offered.>>

RoadTrip, I think you make a very valid point: not everyone can be bought. And I know that I tried to emphasis that in a number of my posts.

BUT then I also think that there is a danger: How do you know who can be bought and who can't? In the end, if you are aware of the problem you are getting suspicious like Lee (hisownself) who said:

<<How I know I've been talking to Spirit too much...

I read Lance's glowing review of Mernaid on Screamscape. My first thought was "Yeah, but he got a free trip out there, so how can I trust him.">>

I don't think that he has been talking to Spirit too much. Well maybe he has, but then I don't think that his scepticism is the result of that. It is just a reasonable reaction.

Of course, if you know someone very well, you can judge that person's integrity. But how many "online personalities" do you know that well? To be honest, I would be suspicious if the Spirit went on an all paid for trip to WDW and came back telling us that it isn't as stale as it used to be, even though I have read his posts for a number of years and think he comes across as a very honest person. Or to put into a larger perspective how many casual reader of all those unofficial website hang out there that much that they get to know those people well enough to try to make that judgement?

And then, even if a person cannot be bought - and I have made that point several times, so I am sorry for the repetition, but it just fits in here so well - for evaluating if something offers good value for the money you spend, you have to spend the money yourself. Only if it does hurt you, will you know whether it was worth it.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<I'll give you that one! But the trade-off was that I had to appear on camera. It has NEVER been my intent to be an online personality (we have plenty enough of those, thank you!). But to share that experience required me to put on a jacket, take off my hat, and comb my hair. Hope it was worth it for the readers...!>>

I guess you are talking about the Star Tours and Mermaid interviews? I did not watch the ride related ones because I try to stay away from spoilers, but I did watch the one with the chef and thought it was very entertaining! And I noticed that you did ask some serious questions, especially the one about whether the food was being prepared freshly on the premises. So, I felt it was a very good reporting!

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>I guess you are talking about the Star Tours and Mermaid interviews?<<

Actually, they were talking about this one:
<a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/Videos-View-1523.asp" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/V...1523.asp</a>

Thank you for the kind comments about my interview. I actually haunt the boards (especially before major media events) to get a sense of what LaughingPlace readers would ask these people if they had the opportunity. One theme that has turned up from time to time is, "Theme Park Food is AWFUL." So I made a point to ask about that aspect of the new offerings at the restaurant.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<Actually, they were talking about this one:
>>

That was great!! Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed watching it. And I think it was definitely worth it to step in front of the camera to bring us that.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Thank you again.

 

Originally Posted By MPierce

>> You and pierce and the only ones making it about me. Anytime I don't agree with you I get the 3rd degree. <<


No Andy this thread was never meant to be about you at all. It was meant to be about people who are openly generating, and selling DVD's about Disney without an agreement. It's about giving tours on Disney property for profit without TWDC permission. We are discussing the ethics of receiving compensation from Disney, and not informing your readers of that. We are discussing whether TWDC knows exactly what is going on or if they have been completely in the dark concerning this matter. We are discussing the possibility of a representative from the Disney Social media posting on LP to clear up what surly must be a misunderstanding in some way of what has happened regarding Disney’s intellectual properties. It was never meant to be about you specifically unless you fall into one of the above categories.

I'm sorry if you felt you got the 3rd degree. It's just the way you reacted with some of your post that caused me to wonder if you were somehow involved in what we were discussing. So I felt the need to ask you if you were. I would certainly answer any questions you might have about my participation in this very interesting discussion, and not be the least bit defensive in my replies.

 

Originally Posted By MPierce

>> <<Just curious Andy||, do you sell Disney specific DVD's on your website?>>

Can you handle the truth, Pierce? ... I don't think you can.

Winky probably could, though. <<

Winky can be quite analyitical, and unemotional at times in discussions about TWDC.

 

Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub

This is relevant and amusing if you think of a certain Disney executive as the devil...but the article is a commentary by Cathleen Falsani concerning a new book

Devil's Ink by Jeffrey C. Pugh

[the devil is re-imagined as a blogger]

"You may wonder why I am starting a blog. The fact is, my colleagues, we must be flexible and innovative or we risk losing influence,and if there is one thing I fear losing, it is influence...
I debated whether to start a Facebook page,but there are so many who are doing the heavy lifting for us there it would be reduntant...I am also thinking of a Twitter account but am still trying to figure out what the point is."
Like any good blogger the devil arranges his dispatches by topic, complete with tags at the bottom of each post.
He mixes it up a bit in termss of form and content, weaving clever pop culture references with music,television, movies and celebrities.
In one of the funniest posts ,
I'm going to Disney World", the devil explains why the happiest place on earth serves his purposes more elegantly than the infamous Las Vegas Strip:
"I love WDW. No , seriously, it is one of my most enjoyable places on the planet," he writes...It has given us so much: illusions, fantasy,Britney Spears. One small thing I have always enjoyed about it is the nuance and deception on display. Take Vegas for instance. There we don't have to concern ourselves with working hard...But Disney is even better because we can still fleece the rubes, but this time we use their most precious possessions to do it: their children."
"Though our methods are timeless, we have also learned through the ages to use those fleeting and transitory things that humans create to help us reach our goals. One must change with the times or risk being irrelevant, and if there is one thing I am not prepared to be at this time is ignored."
Still wonder why Disney is using new social media?
Sorry it is so long...

 

Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub

^I just re-read that...sounds like the devil has been monitoring Spirit's posts^

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

>>1) Disney using Disney affliated social media for marketing.

2) Disney secretly using un-afflicated social media for marketing.

3) Disney Websites using Disney IP for financial gain.

All 3 are different topics/issues.<<

I agree. I have said as much over and over and ...

Somewhere in this novel of a thread (or is it a thesis? ... or just the makings of a book -- not likely published by Hyperion!), we've tackled all three. Perhaps, as some here have suggested, ad nauseum.

While they could be, they are not mutually exclusive and therein lies the greatest challenge and my most significant issue. The relationship is in so many ways incestuous. Devious. Very ... underhanded.

Content is the issue. Where it comes from. Who creates it? Who owns it? Who writes it? Or produces it? And why?

Make no mistake, Disney does have a place in the growing (or not) Social Media medium. This discussion though is more about how the WDW Co.'s Social Media Dept. has gone astray with its approach/use/abuse of said media. Often we get to this point where people, understandably, want to hear solutions. I want to hear them, see them.

Who wouldn't? The world and The World are messed up places and need our help ...

But, aside from the obvious ones relating to unsanctioned commercial activity on WDW property and reasonable conclusions drawn from this thread, I cannot (and will not) offer any. This is waaay too close to what I do in the world beyond the net. And I wouldn't really want others to provide 'solutions' to TWDC here either.

Why?

Simply put?

Besides, what I've stated about the amounts of cash Disney throws at consultants annually (build a few E-Tickets or buy some new monorails or raise the starting cast salary on that), Disney's own outsourced consultant on Social Media has gone on the record stating she advises ALL of her clients to troll sites like this one for feedback, trends, and, most importantly, ideas IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (from 'fandom' to Facebook).

To me, that says no one here should be offering up anything beyond all that surrounds that nagging question, "What is WDW Co.'s Social Media Dept. thinking, and do they realize the damage being done to the BRAND ... the Legacy they are custodians of?"

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

Several times I've been asked here why this subject 'appears' to bother the Spirit so ... ... so ... um ... wait a sec ... and I'll go grab him and see if he'll post more ... wait, a sec ... he's Tweeting about his bagel ... oh, now it's about the monkey he saw last night (he REALLY did see a monkey, and not a plush one!) ... OK, here he is.

Now, where was I?

Think about it, how many Facebook 'friends' does the typical user there have?

10? 100? 1000?

Many folks, just regular people (not even talking Disney fans here) have a number closer to that last one. 1000. Now, tell me, can you possibly name 1000 people (if so, would it take you many, many hours to do so)? Not friends ... just people ... historical figures, celebrities, family, and, well, anybody you can think of.

Didn't think so. And, you know, maybe that's the real rub for me.

OK, part of it.

Social Media, all that fits under that umbrella, consists of ...well, as Skinner has pointed out, so many pretenders, so many characters that are falser than Snooki and that entire Kardashian gang. Even those who participate to embrace it in its purest form (just people getting together through technology to say 'hi' and 'while we were at dinner Biscuit chewed-up Bobby's Vinylmation collection and now he's at the vet and we're gonna have to put $2K on our AmEx to get them out'', you know the essential stuff of life) inadvertently or otherwise pick and choose what to post.

Important point coming: they don't converse, they scriptwrite the way they want to be perceived by their 'friends' and anyone who can access their info via FB.

Social Media is the perfect forum for people to create the life they want others to believe they are living. One that all too often is quite different from reality. Add to that a heavy-handed corporate element, and how can it be anything but a scam of sorts ... a front, for a wannabe version of you or of WDW. At best, it is a veneer. Too often, it's just an outright lie.

How many times have you come across a person on FB who has taken their own photo with a cell phone? With 865 FB friends, doncha think someone would have been able to snap a flattering shot? Contrast that with someone else ... maybe they have a shot with an NBA star like Dwyane Wade ... an actor like James Franco ... or a celeb Imagineer like Tony Baxter.

Does that somehow elevate them? Are they 'friends' with those folks? We all know the answer to that.
(BTW, I am still waiting for a fanboi to FB friend Zenia Mucha and tell the world about it! C'mon, someone must want to thank her for D23?!?)

Anyway, I digressed ... as a Spirit is known to do. Back to the point of lying and creating false realties, be it individuals or on the corporate level.

Does that concern you? Does it concern TWDC? ...

Nothing remotely real, remotely genuine about it.

And maybe that is why this thread has grown to 60-plus pages and yet not one person has been able to articulate the value in ROI TWDC gets from pursuing this massive giveaway that is allowing 'certain select' members of the fan community to get away with the Disney brand as though it is their very own. Just stop for a second whether you agree with me, disagree, or are just plain confused moreso than someone starting to watch Lost in the middle of Season 3.

Reread that. Repeat. What is the ROI that TWDC receives by spending massive amounts of capital on 'special' fan bloggers/podcasters/webmasters with giveaways and by allowing some to steal/appropriate Disney content on their sites and by selling products.

While many posters have noted how this can/does/has devalued the BRAND, not one person has appeared here to show how WDW Co.'s Social Media machine has monetized this in any way. Nor that they even can or ever will.

I don't profess to know what The Weatherman is thinking with all of this, but what should give him and all who have so quickly forgotten the dot.com bubble (you know, when AOL BOUGHT Time Warner?) pause is that I've not found a single person who could even reach 100 names randomly when asked spontaneously to do so (shouldn't you be able to name all of your 'friends' or at least a significant majority of them?). And some of the people asked are in positions not unlike that of Iger. Many are called 'brilliant' ... 'visionaries' ...

To me, that's a big wake-up call to anyone who is buying into the Zuckerberg myth.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

I know HOW BIG WDW Co.'s Social Media Dept. has grown to in all its bloated glory. And, hey, if it employs some folks who would otherwise be appealing to the state to collect that 23 weeks of $250 in unemployment comp, fine.

But, the Disney BRAND is where my focus is and remains.

It means so much. And is still so valuable. Yet, I have never witnessed a company work to undermine its own brand for such a remarkably short term and negligible gain.

I know there are folks on this forum who remember when HoJo's was the biggest restaurant chain IN THE WORLD. When Pan Am was the de facto flying ambassador of the USA across the globe. When names like Woolworth's, Montgomery Ward and A&P were known from coast to coast as leaders in retail and no one knew who Sam Walton was outside of Arkansas. Those were too-big-too-fail, grand brands.

Where are they today?

People want to always know the end game. What's the end game of Social Media?

I think it has much to do with closing off events/happenings/news from folks, the masses won't have a clue any of this exists. Just fragmented parts of the audience, whether the happy bloggers or some other 'certain select' group, will be 'in the know'. Now, how could that ever be good for a mass media juggernaut like TWDC?

Pre-Facebook and Twitter and all the others, this was a grand vision of consultants. Pitched loud and wide to anyone who had a checkbook and would listen. I believe that micro-targeting is what they called it. Still do.

You pretend you know what someone is interested in, and make your pitch directly to them and only them. Only, they also pretend, they also exaggerate, they also embellish, (yes, they also LIE), they even sometimes just drift from one site to another unknowingly.

You just can't rely on data points from a blind and bound box somewhere afar. And, above and beyond that, how does a company ... how does Disney know if the metrics generated were generated by the same eyeballs who are now before that same screen, looking at their ever so targeted ad?

They don't. They can't. Worse, as many have alluded to here, it works to so clearly and definitively disenfranchise so many others. We call them the masses. Kinda what the target of mass media has always and will always be about. That's not a generational thing, it is tangible (and easily quantified) fact.

People, and corporations, want to promote the idea (and pretend) that Social Media is inclusive, that it's meant to bring them closer to the people and products they love. The truth, as is often the case in the crazy 21st century, is the opposite. The whole point of Social Media is to rip people apart (from communities like this where little cliques go and have their own FB echo chambers where there is no disagreement) and make divisions seem normal and OK (there was a great story on the whole subject recently and I wish I could recall it right now and link to it ... here it is: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/vision/151058/what_facebook_is_hiding_from_you/?page=entire" target="_blank">http://www.alternet.org/vision...e=entire</a> ... long and more on social implications of echo chambers that FB and Social Media can lead to, but I found it fascinating).

I'm sure you've all heard the term 'FB depression' by now ... and why many people are turning away from it because they don't want to go online when their home is about to get foreclosed on or they're about to lose their health insurance or they can't afford to buy their child a quality education and read their 'friends' FB Fantasies (prior to FB, I called them Life Lies).

For a company whose very foundation and reputation rests on creating family entertainment for all, Disney is becoming more and more fractured. We've heard it here in different ways for years now. From FP to hard ticket parties to DDP folks taking all the seats at the dinner table to EMHs for SOME who paid a ridiculous premium ... to a 250-person invite to a preview of Star Tours (to get way back to post #1). We even have online folks whining and doing battle amongst themselves in the Twitterverse because of perceived slights from TWDC and the Celebration Place Cabal.

Again, what is supposed to be bringing us all together is tearing us more apart than a good 1,000-post thread on the ethics of using old resort soda/coffee mugs could never do. The old nasty newsgroups were so much better than today's so-called Social Media because they had conflict, they had divergent views, they had people fighting and arguing and being passionate (like they are -- or were -- in the real world). But it meant people were also thinking and engaging ... and sometimes coming around to new and different viewpoints.

Social Media, in general and as WDW Co is using it, is simply pixie dust for addicts. Everything is always MAGICal. Mistakes never happen. And nothing is as it seems because reality never has to enter the picture if the user opts not to ... again, for what Social Media's purported purpose is for Disney, not one Disney representative has opted to chime in here (and possibly shut down any misconceptions by me, or anyone else), none of the folks who live off of behavior that is in question have decided to come here and speak to it and none of the people responsible for all of it in Burbank have dropped by (yet, members of all three groups are completely aware of everything that transpires on the thread).

It would seem that Social Media in Disney's world and at (Walt) Disney World is not at all what it appears to be. Like much of what you see online. It is one thing, however ...

Ultimately, it's all just bad business. Very, very bad business.