WDW Cracking Down on Third-Party Businesses

[DisneyHead123]

I mean this with no ill will or malice towards whoever might have used this service before, but the door decorating service is one of those modern day businesses that I learned about and my immediate reaction was “how in the hell have we found ourselves here as a society?”

That might sound dumb coming from me since I’m only like 28 but it’s also how I feel about services like DoorDash. You’re paying over double for bad fast food to arrive on your door instead of getting in the car? You’re paying someone to show up and stick .25c decorations on your hotel door?

If people enjoyed it and could afford it, so be it and sorry to stir the pot, it’s just one of those frugality things where I just can’t understand the value prop

I’m looking to get in on the “pumpkin decorating services” trend. For the low low price of $1,000 (per entryway, not per house) I will chuck some gourds on your walkway.

 

[larryz]

Way to once again completely miss the point.

I believe my salient point was right on target: owners get to determine what's permissible on private property. Just as Disney isn't allowing 3rd parties to make money on their land, neither would you want me conducting commercial activity on your front lawn.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Let this be a lesson for all the vloggers live streaming and grifting through the parks, that some day Disney may decide they don’t want them around anymore either, for now “the Company” likes them, but it would be very easy to shut that down when they no longer feel it’s needed.

 

[peter11435]

Way to once again completely miss the point.

You didn’t have a very good point

 

[DisneyHead123]

I dont think so... One doesnt walk into a restaurant that doesnt sell desserts and says "im going to bring my own desserts to sell here since they dont offer them." If thats not what the business wants to do, they are not obligated to sell desserts.

Selling desserts is an extreme example. I think most people are in agreement at the far ends, on either side of the discussion. To my mind the “grey area” stuff would be akin to bringing a birthday cake to a restaurant that doesn’t sell birthday cakes, or wine to a restaurant with no liquor license. Some restaurants allow it, some don’t.

 

[JD80]

Let this be a lesson for all the vloggers live streaming and grifting through the parks, that some day Disney may decide they don’t want them around anymore either, for now “the Company” likes them, but it would be very easy to shut that down when they no longer feel it’s needed.

Who are you accusing of grifting? Are there bloggers now making money off of lying and cheating people?

 

[CAV]

Everyone knows this. But that’s not the discussion.

Everybody doesn't. Yes, it is.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Let this be a lesson for all the vloggers live streaming and grifting through the parks, that some day Disney may decide they don’t want them around anymore either, for now “the Company” likes them, but it would be very easy to shut that down when they no longer feel it’s needed.

Vloggers live streaming is going to be a bit different than anyone offering goods/services on property. Vloggers are usually just broadcasting themselves in public spaces. Disney doesn’t own the rights to the images of its parks, so taking a picture/movie/live stream is the park doesn’t violate a trademark or a copyright. They could arguably prevent live streaming in the parks as a matter of policy, and trespass people who violate it. But enforcement of it, who is live streaming vs a FaceTime call vs taking a video ect, becomes a pain in the enforcement wise

 

[SamusAranX]

If Disney wanted to ban vloggers they’d find a way. They were after all able to find those abusing DAS for tours

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You can not selectively choose to enforce your trademarks/copyrights. You either do so, or run the risk of losing the trademark, through acquiescence/failure to police. You can make strategic decisions to let things go, but to minimize risk you enforce the trademark’s rights uniformly, not based on the user

As to harm, the risk is always there. Once the harm happens it’s too late. It takes a person eating something harmful, or a photographer doing something inappropriate to either the person they are taking pictures of, or the pictures themselves to create major issues. A single photographer manipulating a young kids pictures and using of for something horrible, that’s a stain that doesn’t wash out easily even if Disney argues they weren’t our photographers.

No one really cares about your agreement or not personally liking the law. The law is what it is. But it’s absurd to say a business shouldn’t act in its legal best interests, big business or otherwise.

They absolutely pick and choose when they enforce things…and have for about 50 years. It’s not a police state…at least…not yet

 

[castlecake2.0]

Who are you accusing of grifting? Are there bloggers now making money off of lying and cheating people?

Oh there’s been a few

 

[DisneyHead123]

They absolutely pick and choose when they enforce things…and have for about 50 years.

If I remember correctly, the rationale for getting rid of Magic Express was that they wanted guests to have freedom / flexibility to choose from third party providers.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If I remember correctly, the rationale for getting rid of Magic Express was that they wanted guests to have freedom / flexibility to choose from third party providers.

That was just stupidity…anyone named “Bob” is an idiot

 

[Splash4eva]

It seems a bit weird, when they are no longer offering room service, to ban private chef's from catering in suites/DVC rooms with full kitchens and even dining tables. If people are making a living from this, there is clearly demand from guests with money. Let's face it, you are not going to have a private chef cater a meal at Pop Century or one of the Value/Moderate resorts. It's their high-spending clientele they are doing down in blocking this sort of thing.
Similarly, if they are no-longer offering Disney photographers for resort shoots, why prevent people hiring someone who is willing to provide the service?

Its their property and technically liable if anything happens not to mention they dont want other profiting off them (Main reason) whether or not they provide the service or not is irrelevant. Its money from their pocket bc the people willimg to pay a chef or caterer would have no choice but to spend at their restaurants instead.

 

[Splash4eva]

Let this be a lesson for all the vloggers live streaming and grifting through the parks, that some day Disney may decide they don’t want them around anymore either, for now “the Company” likes them, but it would be very easy to shut that down when they no longer feel it’s needed.

Im surprised they havent banner all of them and simply made a select few “official bloggers for WDW” i get thy are receiving free advertisement and for most part these bloggers paint Disney as a perfect place but Disney can easily monetize that as well

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Who are you accusing of grifting? Are there bloggers now making money off of lying and cheating people?

podders and vloggers are guilty of excessive consumption of resources - namely electricity and computer memory…with zero purpose in society.

Eventually The Hague Will come for them

 

[Centauri Space Station]

Some might think it’s taken long enough for a clampdown to happen. Some might think it’s too strict. But at the end of the day it’s private property. I might think Disney don’t do a tour of Epcot that covers the parks history thoroughly enough. But I wouldn’t dream of taking money to do one myself. It’s not my property.

They really ought to bring back the UnDISCOVERed Future World tour, i took it back in 2008.

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

Stand by while I open up my news kiosk/lemonade stand on your front lawn...

I believe my salient point was right on target: owners get to determine what's permissible on private property. Just as Disney isn't allowing 3rd parties to make money on their land, neither would you want me conducting commercial activity on your front lawn.

I would allow your news stand on one condition. You must be set up facing the fence so only the back yard birds can hear you yelling “extra, extra”…..additionally I will commit to starting a rumor every decade or so about remodeling the landscaping and moving you to a prime spot by the cars passing in the street. (However don’t expect that to ever happen)

 

[flynnibus]

And to be clear - I am not wholly negative on vloggers. I follow a handful of them. I am just trying to reconcile the sorts of decision making that aggressively cuts off a photographer or makeup artist providing an actual service that Disney doesn’t (currently) provide from operating within property, while permitting others to continue to solicit digital money for streaming in the parks (and selling TM-infringing clothing on their socials as well). It just all feels icky and fickle.

you and others keep coming back to this 'service disney doesn't offer...' point. That really isn't material and I bet it has almost nothing to do with their decision making except in cases where they have conflicts (like contracts).

Disney is a control freak - they don't want activity going on they aren't in control of and are balancing guest interruption. I'm sure when things get blatant or people start pushing new boundaries (like how they advertise) it causes then to stand up and make a point for a bit.

Businesses don't need to be 'squashing potential competition' vs simply wanting to stop people skimming off their draw/popularity.

What they should be doing is working to lobby Disney into having a marketplace where they could coexist instead of acting like WDW is just the city park ...

 

[peter11435]

you and others keep coming back to this 'service disney doesn't offer...' point. That really isn't material and I bet it has almost nothing to do with their decision making except in cases where they have conflicts (like contracts).

Exactly! It’s such a silly argument.

It would be like setting up a table selling sunglasses in the produce section of a grocery store and expecting them to be ok with that because they don’t sell sunglasses.