WDW Cracking Down on Third-Party Businesses

[Tha Realest]

Could - but they won't. They want the amplication of 'hey, we're having fun in the parks!' message.. same reason they want their stuff trending in general on social media.

But that's not the same as people who come up with product offers or sell services linked to or in the parks.

This is nothing new and has been the status quo for a decade plus. It's just a matter of how much enforcement ebbs and flows.

You also can't be soliciting using Disney's TMs

But they’re essentially shaking a digital tip jar while in the parks, while displaying Disney’s copyrighted and TM’ed works.

 

[ToTBellHop]

But they’re essentially shaking a digital tip jar while in the parks, while displaying Disney’s copyrighted and TM’ed works.

And providing advertising Disney doesn’t need to fund.

 

[CaptJackSparrow]

As long as rules are followed, most companies want the advertising / publicity.

Not sure why there is so much hate for live streamers / vloggers.

Bc they are incredibly annoying inside the parks

 

[lazyboy97o]

Does anyone know how the legal liability would differ for these types of companies vs., say, DoorDash?

Hotels (in general) not allowing deliveries is not new or unusual, even when the delivery is directly by the restaurant.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Bc they are incredibly annoying inside the parks

I certainly don’t know everyone’s experiences but streamers have never annoyed me at all.

Trying to think of anytime it’s been an issue.

And I’m easily annoyed

 

[DisneyHead123]

They could set a standard. They certainly have rules for third party restaurants in the parks and DS. But, they would be unlikely to do this with a small business. If they felt they needed to outsource something, they’d find a larger vendor. When they decided to outsource valet parking, they didn’t invite random former CMs to park BMWs at the Grand Floridian.

Ok. I’m trying to understand what the issue is here from Disney’s POV (are they mainly concerned about liability, copyright, is this just bureaucracy at play, etc.) Since DoorDash, Dominos, etc. have a fairly similar business model with no issues, looking for where there may be meaningful differences between what they’re doing and what a smaller company is doing. If insurance is the primary issue, for example, seems easy enough to pass a rule saying any onsite delivery based vendor needs proof of insurance up to X amount.

Looking into it a bit more, I get the impression that they are mainly looking at businesses who have direct, personal contact either with guests or their personal belongings (like room decorators, who often have access to rooms unattended). People doing makeovers, chefs, massage therapists, etc. It’s still early so that may be incorrect - but if that is indeed the pattern I think I can understand the thinking there. It wouldn’t take much for someone with very bad intentions to slide into a niche like that, so maybe better to get guests used to the idea that it’s not going to be a thing at all.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Hotels (in general) not allowing deliveries is not new or unusual, even when the delivery is directly by the restaurant.

I think it’s more common that delivery people have to stay in the lobby so they’re not wandering around guest room areas. I haven’t heard of a hotel banning delivery outright but maybe that’s just the places I’ve frequented.

 

[Andrew C]

I’m torn on this one. I don’t like the argument, “their property, their rules.” Well obviously, but if it’s a stupid rule that will impact guest satisfaction, why do it? And if you don’t provide those services yourself, and there is demand for it, you are leaving opportunity on the table. But do I think these new rules are actually stupid and will impact guest satisfaction? I dunno…I guess I feel like there was a middle ground and they overshot a bit.

 

[Andrew C]

I think it’s more common that delivery people have to stay in the lobby so they’re not wandering around guest room areas. I haven’t heard of a hotel banning delivery outright but maybe that’s just the places I’ve frequented.

I never stayed at a hotel in the US where I couldn’t have food delivery. But it was always either a lobby or front drive meet (at least in the last 25 years).

Trying to recall resorts I have stayed at that were gated, but I don’t have any recollection of actually attempting food delivery in those cases.

 

[easyrowrdw]

This is an article I saw that provided some good details on the topic, including one of the letters that Disney sent. That company was providing in-room catering/cooking for guests.

 

[flynnibus]

But they’re essentially shaking a digital tip jar while in the parks, while displaying Disney’s copyrighted and TM’ed works.

Honestly that portion of vlogger stuff is so small in comparison to the general audience it's not even worth mentioning most of the time. You're trying to bait here over stuff that doesn't really matter in the big picture.

Disney doesn't care a bunch of lifestylers can live off their mouse content as long as it's still doing the mouse's work and serving their objectives.

 

[flynnibus]

I never stayed at a hotel in the US where I couldn’t have food delivery. But it was always either a lobby or front drive meet (at least in the last 25 years).

Trying to recall resorts I have stayed at that were gated, but I don’t have any recollection of actually attempting food delivery in those cases.

Just think of any of the gazillion hotels that are keycard access to guest hallways or elevators. Deliveries going to the lobby (vs to a room) are more the norm than the other way around.

 

[lewisc]

Why on earth would you make this connection?

You could ask "will they block these services from their property" - but that is different from the idea of telling 3rd parties to stop using disney IP and to stop operating on their property without permission.

The above already operate within Disney's rules, don't claim association, and don't abuse Disney trademarks and IP.

Private Chefs cooking in DVC kitchens isn't abusing Disney IP or trademarks. Disney got rid of in room dining, except GF. Not competing with Disney.

 

[invader]

Private Chefs cooking in DVC kitchens isn't abusing Disney IP or trademarks. Disney got rid of in room dining, except GF. Not competing with Disney.

Except that family booking “Disney worlds private chef” is doing that instead of all going to Ohana for dinner.

The bigger issue is people making their entire business model based on the access and ability to be at Disney. There’s a difference between a photographer who occasionally does shoots at a resort and a photographer who gets their business because they primarily do shoots at Disney and brand themselves that way.

 

[peter11435]

Private Chefs cooking in DVC kitchens isn't abusing Disney IP or trademarks. Disney got rid of in room dining, except GF. Not competing with Disney.

Some are using Disney IP and trademarks on their websites and marketing.

It’s still competing with Disney because that family is not eating elsewhere on property.

No business would or should be expected to allow others to operate unapproved businesses on their property.

And again there is significant liability for the property owner here.

 

[BrianLo]

It's not everywhere. But plenty of instances where I can see their big phone grips and lit up screen in Haunted Mansion in the Leota room and on other rides. Enough to irritate

Odds are better those are regular guests engaging in their own social media circles.

My biggest pet peeve is medium or large parties. Trying to gather their party at the start of queues while blocking them; or people taking pictures across entire guest vestibules. You can do that, but I have 5 seconds of sympathy.

 

[castlecake2.0]

This would be like me setting up a lemonade stand, then someone showing up selling cookies at my stand. So now maybe instead of me selling two lemonades now I’m selling one and the third party grifter is selling that person a cookie. I’m the one who did all the work creating a business and then someone moves in and starts taking a slice. "But you don’t sell cookies so you should let that person do it!". But it’s my business on my property and maybe I do not want to sell cookies. If my lemonade stand rules state no third party vendors then I have a right to enforce.

Yes I feel bad for the cast that were furloughed (I was one of them) and I’m glad some found a new calling and were able to become their own bosses. However, eventually every single ft/pt cm was called back and offered employment, if they chose not to return that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean the mouse owes them anything further and also doesn’t mean they should be able to set up shop on private property.

 

[ToTBellHop]

This would be like me setting up a lemonade stand, then someone showing up selling cookies at my stand. So now maybe instead of me selling two lemonades now I’m selling one and the third party grifter is selling that person a cookie. I’m the one who did all the work creating a business and then someone moves in and starts taking a slice. "But you don’t sell cookies so you should let that person do it!". But it’s my business on my property and maybe I do not want to sell cookies. If my lemonade stand rules state no third party vendors then I have a right to enforce.

Yes I feel bad for the cast that were furloughed (I was one of them) and I’m glad some found a new calling and were able to become their own bosses. However, eventually every single ft/pt cm was called back and offered employment, if they chose not to return that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean the mouse owes them anything further and also doesn’t mean they should be able to set up shop on private property.

From my understanding, it shouldn’t be that hard for them to find a job in Central Florida. If they’re interested.

 

[danlb_2000]

Because they’re intrusive, loud, film rides with bright screens, and disrupt my enjoyment of the park experience. Not all of them but plenty

... and plenty of regular guests to those things to.

 

[flynnibus]

Private Chefs cooking in DVC kitchens isn't abusing Disney IP or trademarks. Disney got rid of in room dining, except GF. Not competing with Disney.

Private chefs aren’t ride share or delivery either. So, flip much?

Private chefs being targeted are likely marketing themselves using disney TMs and promoting their ability to service disney properties. In addition to the problem of them operating on someone else’s property. Operating in a hotel room is not the same as a private residence and the business owners know this… even if disney fans don’t