WDW Social 'Media' and Conspiracy

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<After reading this topic I do after wonder how the whole social media thing would affect the Disney guest who saves up for a few years to take his family down to WDW? Someone who wouldn't know a Mongello or the Moms Panel.>>

I think that is exactly the point the Spirit has made over and over again: Why spent money and resources on something which does not affect the majority of your customers at all. It will not bring you any new guests.

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

But Bolna, it does dillute any negative messages, and most people who can afford to go to a Disney resort are likely to research in on line. And I think that is the point.

I do not agree with that strategy, but I understand why it would be adopted.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

Dave, to a certain extent, yes. But I don't think small websites and blogs would be among the first hits on google. And who ever ventures further than lets say page three if those three pages in the beginning already offer some rather informative sites like this one or allears etc. So is all this effort to try to control the online message to such a degree really worth it?

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

I do not think so, but Disney must think so. I think there is also a bit about experimentation, to see how the channel develops. Just as Disney were late to down load media (Pixar and Steve Job's part has changed it), I think they want to rule all channels. The problem is, they have forgetten how to provide quality content. That is what was sold in Walt's day, and that is what is very important in a very noisy world where we can choose 1000's of tv channels, millions of songs, our news sources, and millions of web sites. The dominance becomes almost impossible so they try to be omnipotent in their approach.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<I think they want to rule all channels. The problem is, they have forgetten how to provide quality content. >>

Indeed.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74


OK, I think some people got the point and others missed it.

The link to this particular NY Times Magazine article was posted here for many reasons. It wasn't to derail the original thrust of this thread ... the issues of Social Media and WDW Co's misguided exploitation of it to what can only appear to be ill-defined and dubious gain (if there are any because, again, no one has been able to show any ... paging Leemac back to the thread, please pick up the red, black and yellow Mickey courtesy phone in the Pixie Dust Lounge, as maybe he can at least explain the thinking here). It was a tangential point, but a powerful one nonetheless.

I'm not really all that interested in the writing quality, although I certainly think the piece had its moments. Oh, Lucha, you made my week ;-) ... I also think some folks lost the underlying message/commentary by just reading it quickly at face value. But ... not the point I care to debate right now.

Only around five years ago, this article would never have appeared anywhere in mainstream media. And might be found in some obscure corner of the web, if even there.

All you have to do is look at the picture on Page 1 ... Doesn't exactly scream out, 'Hey everybody, look at what yer missin', come on down!' That picture alone speaks volumes and was enough to cause loads of consternation at Disney before anyone even began reading, I'm sure. ... As the picture really screams out 'what the HELL are we doing here?!?!'

WDW week-long vacation on property: $8,000. Brittany in princess costume and makeup: $200. Brittany bored out of her mind in said costume standing in front of Cindy's Castle: PRICELESS.

The author used 'getting high' on marijuana in the parks as both a way to blunt a clear 'hit piece' on The Mouse and as a tool to show how the Internet (technology and its intrusion) allows such a remarkably targeted message, where can you smoke a joint in Mickey's place, to be accessed right there in the parks. By anyone with the desire.

Yes, we've got an APP for that ... just like one that will tell you wait times at EPCOT or dining options for tonight.

Speaking, quite loudly, to the polar opposite of what TWDC is interested in ... must be focused on ... control. Always. Of the message, of the product, of the BRAND.

And making WDW Co's Social Media Dept's current scheme a nullity in so many ways. Instead of gaining control, which is what they believe they are doing, they're hacking away at what they have and ceding ... both to mainstream media and the Blogosphere and Twitterverse (then again, as I've said, this is what happens when you take a BRAND and Walmart and make it generic).

Or, if you think the Times is written for a more basic reader, maybe the author was saying that to get through a MAGICal WDW vacation you need to be high on something beyond the MAGIC being sold by WDW media and marketing apparatus. Cue the cannabis. Enter NextGen?

... Maybe. That really wasn't the point though. We can enjoy ourselves as much as we want here in the LP, but we live in the real world. That article appears in the real world. And speaks to a real world WDW vacation. Maybe not one of ours, but that doesn't matter. Sorry, but true.

To all those who continue to question the relevancy of traditional media, how did you access that article? Yeah, thought so ... right here on the Internet.

Again, when the NY Times devotes 8000 words in its magazine (where placing a story is very difficult) to a smackdown of WDW, that gets attention. Lots of it ... from important (think decision making) eyes.

Pixie dust emporiums in a virtual world, those Disney-centric blogs and other echo chambers, they get lots of attention too. From addicts.

>>>It’s no longer communicating that idea; the idea is no longer intelligible. I don't know what it’s communicating. The old virtues are gone, the new ones unidentifiable. <<<

The above from my UK Duffy Bear Dave pointed out ... before adding ...

<<And there for me is the cruxt of the problem with modern Disney. Of course Social Media (with official persuasions) would never entertain such a notion. Quite facinating.>>

And Bolna absolutely nailed where I was coming from in posting the story below:

<<However, one can argue the merits of that article a lot. But I don't think that that was the Spirit's point.

I think we can agree on that this article does not paint a picture of WDW which fits with the way that the company wants to be seen. It would not be the kind of press they want, but the piece will have a wide distribution and reach lots of people. And it will shape their opinions. I am sure a lot of people who have enjoyed WDW before will not think less of it because of that article. But it will reconfirm the opinions of those who already are not overly positive about that place. Just think of a family with a 5-year-old, who is consider to do just what the writer did: take part in that thing which he calls "disneying". They aren't really keen on it, but think it might be nice for the kid. Wouldn't that article rather make it easier for them to just let it be? And that's what's the difference to all the social media which mainly reaches those who already are fans: the real media can reach potentially new customers and influence them.>>

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>Only around five years ago, this article would never have appeared anywhere in mainstream media. And might be found in some obscure corner of the web, if even there.<<

I am sure that isn't true. I have been reading this sort of "Disney Kinda Sucks But I'm a Dad and the Fam Forces Me to Go" first hand account stuff for 20 years in local travel sections and the like. Disney has been a favorite juicy punching bag by a lot of writers who think Disney fans are mostly ignorant rubes and Disney The Company is evil. This is not a new tale, nor really a new perspective.

At the end of each of these tales (this one as well) is a sort of grudging acknowledgement that it all ain't so bad after all, some magical little family moment shines through all the expense, crowds, lines, transportation, hotels, etc.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

Also been meaning to comment on this post by Bolna before it got lost in the discussion:

<<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. >>

Yes, and you often hear (even years ago when media wasn't as fragmented and you didn't have one network that makes things up for one side of the political spectrum and another network that does like for the other side, which we do here in the States) that 'you have to take that with a grain of salt'. Meaning you had to do some thinking of your own and couldn't simply take one report in the media as gospel.

Flash forward to now and our discussion. People in the fan community want to believe that these bloggers/podcasters/webmasters are 'one of us' ... that they view Disney thru that same pixie-dusted prism that we all do. So, if someone says 'Mermaid is PURE DISNEY MAGIC' or 'A true E-Ticket for the entire family' or 'More MAGICal than Potter' ... well, the common reaction in the fan community has always been to buy into the hype.

But now truth has raised its ugly little head. And if people are being paid for coverage, people already predisposed to love any/everything Disney does, how can one believe anything?

They're not one of us from that point forward, they are part of a newish subculture/cottage industry based on the Disney Lifestyle. The difference is, though, they are making money off of it while telling you how to spend yours. They can live in the parks on a weekly basis because YOU are helping to subsidize their lives. How could you possibly trust what they are saying? If they don't spread the pixie dust, they have to get real jobs ... and who's going to pay for the pixie dust withdrawal clinic?

When you've lost trust in a relationship, you've lost everything. That should concern TWDC, and I think deep in the bowels of the corporate mindset, it does.

<<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?>>

Shot coming: I try and know as few 'online personalities' as possible. They scare me ...

It all comes down to trust. Who can you trust? How do you build trust? For TWDC that used to be an irrelevant question because they had the trust of the people. Globally. Completely.

The BRAND was golden. Now, some marketing hacks will point to some polls (like the self-serving one recently in Forbes) that shows Disney's inherent BRAND strength hasn't weakened. Anyone who lives in the real world or works in media, marketing and advertising circles would likely tell a different tale.

I would never go on an all-expenses paid trip to WDW and tell anyone the place isn't as stale as it used to be. WDW has been a stale product for many years now, and it's worse annually, ... even with something opening here or there every few years. A free trip wouldn't alter my opinions, but I am fairly certain I wouldn't take one where any writing was involved. Integrity comes first.

But when you start going down the path of freebies for people from 'unofficial' websites, again these are people not used to being treated 'special' (in any good sense) who are already predisposed to love whatever Disney is doing. How can anyone trust them? How many fansites have you seen rip Star Tours or Mermaid after taking freebies? Even if they're awesome and amazing and, of course, MAGICal, it stands to reason that someone is going to not like them, right?

<<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.>>

Not sure whether I totally agree with this or not. I think intelligent, ethical people can make determinations of whether something is worth spending money on, even if they haven't had to pay. I do admit, though, that a great many can not. And certainly, in the Disney fan community, I'd say the majority can not.

 

Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer

Yeah, Spirit, the message was good, and all, but the presentation was very, very sketchy. He didn't expand on his idea, and the veil of his own choices made it a bit tedious.

 

Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer

>>>Not sure whether I totally agree with this or not. I think intelligent, ethical people can make determinations of whether something is worth spending money on, even if they haven't had to pay. I do admit, though, that a great many can not. And certainly, in the Disney fan community, I'd say the majority can not.<<<<

Oh, of course they can. But if they tell people not to buy, how or why would people continue to listen to them? To be popular and get swag from Disney, they have to play both sides.

The only time I see a negative opinion on some sites are when the rest of the fan community is enraged, too. Like a certain Lights of Winter event.


Left you a message, BTW. ;-) LOL

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

>>Only around five years ago, this article would never have appeared anywhere in mainstream media. And might be found in some obscure corner of the web, if even there.<<

<<I am sure that isn't true. I have been reading this sort of "Disney Kinda Sucks But I'm a Dad and the Fam Forces Me to Go" first hand account stuff for 20 years in local travel sections and the like. Disney has been a favorite juicy punching bag by a lot of writers who think Disney fans are mostly ignorant rubes and Disney The Company is evil. This is not a new tale, nor really a new perspective.>>

While I agree there have been stories such as you say, those have never been the stuff of 8,000 word NY Times Magazine pieces. It's an entirely different animal than a 'I went, I suffered and, you know it wasn't that bad, think we'll be going back ... in a few years' sidebar in a local travel section.

I'd also say (and I really don't want to put the focus on this piece, although Bob and Willow enjoyed reading it) that the layered nature of the piece ... from using Social Media to find out the best places for a hit at WDW ... to the author pointing out the difference between EPCOT and what is Epcot ... to the statement on the school boy in Peru's pics from his MAGICal WDW trip ... well, it doesn't fall into the category you mentioned above.

<<At the end of each of these tales (this one as well) is a sort of grudging acknowledgement that it all ain't so bad after all, some magical little family moment shines through all the expense, crowds, lines, transportation, hotels, etc.>>

You read a different ending than I did. A family huddled under ponchos on a tram in a violent thunderstorm speaking to how a company that is all about control, had absolutely no control ... unless you are thinking that the fact the boy's favorite 'ride' of the trip was the tram in a storm somehow changed the previous eight pages of strategically selected positions.

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

I don't want to derail the whole Social Media thing, but the discussion of the article brought all the usual statements about loss of both creativity and a single minded commitment commitment to quality.

I won't deny that has occurred, but it almost ALWAYS DOES when the founder leaves the company. Especially when the founder was a true visionary like Walt was. I believe Disney has done a better job of attempting to maintain Walt's legacy than most do.

Disney cannot have the drive for perfection that Walt had... it would not be allowed. Walt's drive for perfection took the company to the very edge of bankruptcy during the development of Snow White. Walt could do that... he was playing with his own money. He had no shareholders or board of directors to satisfy. Probably the greatest visionary of today, Steve Jobs, was fired from Apple for his single minded drive for perfection and lack of attention to the bottom line.

More in line with a discussion of Disney losing its message, there were comments both in the article and in response to:

<<When Disney World was built, it embodied a shared idea of America as pure capitalist fantasy. It’s no longer communicating that idea; the idea is no longer intelligible. I don’t know what it’s communicating. The old virtues are gone, the new ones unidentifiable.>>

Disney World was originally based on "a shared idea of America as pure capitalist fantasy"? Really? Going back to the beginning of Disneyland the themes have stayed much the same over time. The parks have always been about 'Disneying', about experiencing Magical Gatherings.

<<“It came about when my daughters were very young and Saturday was always daddy’s day with the two daughters. So we’d start out and try to go someplace, you know, different things, and I’d take them to the merry-go-round and I took them to different places and as I’d sit while they rode the merry-go-round and did all these things – sit on a bench, you know, eating peanuts – I felt that there should be something built where the parents and the children could have fun together. So that’s how Disneyland started. Well, it took many years…it was a period of maybe 15 years developing. I started with many ideas, threw them away, started all over again. And eventually it evolved into what you see today at Disneyland. But it all started from a daddy with two daughters wondering where he could take them where he could have a little fun with them, too”>>

 

Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer

>>>Disney cannot have the drive for perfection that Walt had... it would not be allowed. Walt's drive for perfection took the company to the very edge of bankruptcy during the development of Snow White. Walt could do that... he was playing with his own money. He had no shareholders or board of directors to satisfy. Probably the greatest visionary of today, Steve Jobs, was fired from Apple for his single minded drive for perfection and lack of attention to the bottom line.<<<


So? How do you explain the leadership and quality under Walker? Or even Eisner?

While there will never be another Walt, that doesn't mean that the company has to be managed in a way that doesn't have them striving to be the top, and to be creative.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<That was complete dribble!>>

Isn't that what Mrs. Pierce and Winky say when they have to wipe the food off you? ;-)

Seriously, I would disagree with your review (in part as I don't think the story is a great read), but that isn't the point at all.

It's a simple point. What gets placed in real, non-controlled media outlets and what winds up on Disney 'independent' web sites.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<So ya, I bought into Zuckerburg's vision. I know there is a lot of BS on there too, but I ignore it. Although, a lot of my friends that post (90%) post like we were talking together or how I remember when we were closer. Sure, it might be BS, but it might be when face to face too.

I went to school, having our home taken away when I was a boy, not a soul knew at school. How is that different?>>

OK, back to the FB tangent here ... like I said, this might make a great book! ;-)

I know you listed all the great things you feel FB brings/provides you with, Dave. And they aren't unlike many of the reasons I hear from many of my esteemed pals. I can't disagree with your reasons for using FB.

But I need to point out there are many equally (if not worse) issues that come along with FB. Not the least of which is nothing you put out there is truly protected. FB is creating the largest database in the history of mankind, even if much of it is drivel and more of it is lies. FB isn't any more honourable (notice the 'u' for you!) than Zuckerberg is or his employees. They make billions off of trading in your telling the world (or just your circle) everything from how work was today to who you (NOT YOU) are having a sexual liaison with to what kind of sandwich you like best at Subway to what concert you just bought tickets for.

Moving beyond the whole 'FB depression' issue ... and the people lie online (whether or not you do) issue ... there have been major implications for people in the USA who place their lives on FB. People have lost jobs based on what they place out there or what a potential employer reads or infers from their network. I firmly believe you would be unhireable in the US today based on what you place out as innocent chatter to your friends. And you are not nearly as vocal as many others over things like religion, politics, government policies etc. Before FB just about the only 'bad' thing you could ever do on the Internet would be of a sexual nature ... not now.

People have been victimized by crimes due to stalkers or telling the world when they're going on vacation and the like. All sorts of issues come with replacing real communication with 'corporatized' communication.

You have a very innocent view of FB, many people do. Kind of like a pure DL of the late 1950s vs today. the difference is you knew what you were getting with DL of the 1950s ... not so sure about FB ... or WDW of 2011 ;-)

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<Spirit, posts 638-640 are a great read and they really sum up the whole thread very well. Nearly so good that one doesn't dare to add anything...>>

Thanks! ... But that doesn't stopped anyone, INCLUDING ME, from going on!

<<The whole discussion about social media is much more than just about Disney. But just as you say, Disney is trying to play with the new possibilities and unfortunately isn't doing a very good job at it.

The micro-targetting you mentioned might even have its next step in the much talked about Next Gen initiative. Isn't that supposed to create an experience that is tailored to your own preferences? It seems like there might be the vision in the future that through technology they will be able to offer a diversity of experiences. But wouldn't it be much simpler to just put the diversity out there in the real world and let people pick and chose. They might end up experiencing something that they don't know about yet and find out that they really like it. From a business perspective wouldn't that make more sense? Wouldn't most customers be more likely to come back if they found something new to experience than for the same stuff over and over again?>>

Exactly.

Somewhere along the way many of the people involved in the highest levels of mass media simply forgot the meaning of the word 'mass'.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

Thinking/typing aloud ... whoever thought you could make more money by breaking up your marketshare ... really, taking a hammer?

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

But as a historian, I actually do not mind records being kept. I actually do keep in mind what I am and am not posting (though I do not believe I have lied about anything yet, too much of a fan of Mark Twain and my memory sucks).

Also, it is interesting, professionally I am quite reckless. I have made a name on the back of it. People who buy my services know what they get - honesty, integrety and a bit of creative madness with a lot of passioon. That is almost a USP for me.

But yes, I have seen colleague post some hideous things that have made me rethink referrences and the sort.

But you know what? Rightly or wrongly, I am not worried about privacy issues. Because of my public sector life, it is easier to be open. I have even had politicians say "did you really....." My answer has been "yep". Often that is followed by, "can we have dinner/talk?"

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

>>>Thinking/typing aloud ... whoever thought you could make more money by breaking up your marketshare ... really, taking a hammer?<<<

Sadly the way of the modern world? Or simply what people have always wanted as a form of liberty? Depends on which way you are looking at the glass.

 

Originally Posted By Bolna

<<But as a historian, I actually do not mind records being kept.>>

And I thought history has taught us the danger of records. No wonder why we have a huge public debate about Facebook and even Google Streetview here in Germany - we have the experience of two separate regimes hoarding information and abusing it.