A Spirited Perfect Ten

[*Q*]

Gosh, is this what happens when there are no park rumours? It resorts to this.

That does tangentially bring up a good point, if Disney offered as high a quality a product nowadays as they had in the past, then there wouldn't be a need to glad hand all of these social media "influencers" and this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[indyumd]

So what if the actual objective to reporting the info was to knock down Hill? Why is that necessarily evil?

Because everything you say here:

Obviously, you don't have a problem with what Hill did 20 years ago on Disney property, nor his current symbiotic relationship with Disney, even in light of what happened 20 years ago. But many of us do have a problem with it, especially given how Disney historically treats former employees who've been caught doing far less questionable activity, be it legal or otherwise.

Giving Hill an official blessing as an online advocate is a slap in the face to former employees with permanently toasted Disney careers who made stupid immature one-time mistakes. Hill's "mistakes" were neither born from youth nor one-time incidents. Yes, they were stupid. And he paid the price. But why is he continuing to be rewarded by the same company he committed multiple instances of fraud against when single acts of minor infractions by others continue to garner lifetime professional punishment?

Frankly, this entire incident reeks of TWDC fiefdom. Burbank more than likely has no clue about Hill's past, which his consumer products handler has kept mum about in order to exploit his knowledge and online popularity. It will be interesting to see if his role as Disney advocate ultimately survives, now that the cat's out of the bag.

Are problems with Disney, not Jim Hill. What exactly would you like Jim to do? Disclose at the start of every article and every podcast he was arrested 20+ years ago? Give up his career? Self-deport? What? Your problems are with Disney, yet all the action here is to embarrass and punish Jim. If you actually gave a about this issue and Disney's reaction, you'd be rallying to get them to treat the OTHER former employees better, and use Jim as an example of how forgiving them has benefitted the company. But that's not really your angle.

 

[indyumd]

That does tangentially bring up a good point, if Disney offered as high a quality a product nowadays as they had in the past, then there wouldn't be a need to glad hand all of these social media "influencers" and this wouldn't even be an issue.

Can you name me a company that has a product so good it doesn't have to "glad hand" social media influencers?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Can you name me a company that has a product so good it doesn't have to "glad hand" social media influencers?

Federal Government?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Therein lies the problem: the so-called news that people are digesting now is little more than opinion disguised to appear as news.

Traditional journalism a la Walter Cronkite is dead. As a result, objective fact-based reporting has been replaced with partisan opinionated propaganda. Who cares if that's what media consumers want. Adopting the "new media" keeps them ill-informed and beholden to truthiness instead of well vetted facts based in reality.

Well-respected professional travel journalists writing about trips to Disney resorts have far more objectivity at their core than the mommy blogger crowd working their angles for free family vacations. The professional travel journalist is completely dependent upon truthful reporting in order to maintain a viable career. Mommy bloggers are completely dependent upon Disney's approval in order to maintain low cost travel and entertainment for their families.

The truthiness of the mommy blogger/online fan advocate reports will satisfy the casual Disney consumer, much to the delight of TWDC. Just as folks don't want to spend their downtime researching the truth behind mainstream media news reports, they don't want to spend dozens of hours researching various resorts for the annual family vacation. They're satisfied with the mommy blogger/online fan advocate reports that essentially tell them where to go and what to do when they get there. And there are plenty of unethical "journalists" online who will gladly spoon-feed them the truthiness they seek in exchange for free passes and invites to special events, whether or not that compensation is ever fully disclosed.

There never was objective news. Just deciding what to cover is an act of bias. Each word chosen is an act of bias. Before it was television that was the nonsense medium. Before that it was newspapers. Before that pamphlets. Each new paradigm is the death of an objectivity that never existed.

 

[*Q*]

Can you name me a company that has a product so good it doesn't have to "glad hand" social media influencers?

Apple?

 

[indyumd]

Apple?

That's hilarious. Do you know how many bloggers and social media influencers are sitting front and center at Apple Keynotes? Do you think they pay to get all those new devices to review weeks before the public gets them? Walt Mossberg was legendary for his consecutive streak of giving Apple positive reviews.

 

[baymenxpac]

Can you name me a company that has a product so good it doesn't have to "glad hand" social media influencers?

these points are getting mixed up.

the problem with "social media influencers" is they're inherently for sale. most don't disclose the perks the get (something journalists do), and don't necessarily see themselves bound to the same code of ethics journalists are. now, when you're a consumer who pays attention to the product closely and can cut through the bull, who cares, right? except the more prevalent and prominent social media brand advocates become, the less disney has to interact with the real media. and that allows them to pawn off an inferior product, or cover up stories with big real world implications, etc.

 

[*Q*]

these points are getting mixed up.

the problem with "social media influencers" is they're inherently for sale. most don't disclose the perks the get (something journalists do), and don't necessarily see themselves bound to the same code of ethics journalists are. now, when you're a consumer who pays attention to the product closely and can cut through the bull, who cares, right? except the more prevalent and prominent social media brand advocates become, the less disney has to interact with the real media. and that allows them to pawn off an inferior product, or cover up stories with big real world implications, etc.

Yes, thank you, that was really what I was trying to get at.

 

[indyumd]

these points are getting mixed up.

the problem with "social media influencers" is they're inherently for sale. most don't disclose the perks the get (something journalists do), and don't necessarily see themselves bound to the same code of ethics journalists are. now, when you're a consumer who pays attention to the product closely and can cut through the bull, who cares, right? except the more prevalent and prominent social media brand advocates become, the less disney has to interact with the real media. and that allows them to pawn off an inferior product, or cover up stories with big real world implications, etc.

That's not Disney's job to worry about until the point the distrust of those people hurt the Disney brand.

That problem is on the consumer to decide the trustworthiness of the source. If you feel like a Mommy blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about their trip to Disney, stop reading them. If you feel a food blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about a restaurant or a new toaster, stop reading them.

 

[baymenxpac]

That's not Disney's job to worry about until the point the distrust of those people hurt the Disney brand.

That problem is on the consumer to decide the trustworthiness of the source. If you feel like a Mommy blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about their trip to Disney, stop reading them. If you feel a food blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about a restaurant or a new toaster, stop reading them.

i would tend to agree with you. and as a comms professional, i see the value in disney utilizing and mobilizing these brand advocates. but we can agree that there's something insidious doing so right?

 

[TeriofTerror]

I spent a fair bit of time going over our discussion of Jim, his past crimes, and his connections to present day Disney and Universal. With a bit of perspective behind it, I think I have a better grip on what Jim and his highest profile defenders were saying. The goal of Jim's post here was to place his crimes in a personal context so that any further discussion of the very valid issues, including whether or not he withheld this information from his employers and Celebration Place/D23, as attacks on the character of a private person. But, Jim is not a private individual to be afforded privacy here, he is and has been a public figure for 25-30 years who actively promotes himself as a Walt Disney Company and entertainment industry expert having written for prominent Disney-centric online publications like Mouse Planet and Laughing Place as well as his current position as an credentialed journalist at the Huffington Post.

Len and Jim's ex, Fabby, have clear financial interests, revenue generated by the podcast and the unofficial guide's reputation and a chunk of Jim Hill Media respectively, to see this story go away. Those posts both advance the narrative established by Jim that any scrutiny of his past crimes are an attack on him as a person. Len specifically greets questions over whether he had known about Jim's past prior to last week with a non answer even suggesting he can speak on behalf of Disney on this matter.

But enough about that, the core of the issue remains; The Walt Disney Company's relationship with social media personalities. For at least the past five years, Jim has chosen to cover Disney by closely hewing to the PR message of the day, no matter the subject. Jim's writing on Universal can be characterized much the same way as well. In exchange, Jim receives generous perks from both Disney and Universal. While most top shelf media organizations receive these freebies/comps as well, writer for these organizations have to explicitly say they received them and many legitimate media organizations refuse them or reimburse these gifts/comps. It is as if Jim's con has changed, only it's a quid pro quo and legal.

However, Jim isn't the only individual who does this with Disney or Universal. Lou Mongello can go on and on about the wonderful time he had at Aulani and how all of his listeners must go and experience it like he did. Whilst he bloviates, he fails to mention that his vacation to Aulani, including airfare, room, and meals, cost $6000-7000 for which he was comped by Disney. And no, having a disclosure statement hidden on your website barely meeting legal compliance is simply not good enough.

The cornerstone of Disney's social media strategy relies upon BRAND advocates to evangelize the company and its various products, be it movies, tv shows, toys and of course theme parks. Lou, Ricky and Jim are at the top of the Disney/Universal BRAND Advocate food chain, they effectively operate with a seal of approval from these companies. Thanks to the access and approval they have received, Jim, Ricky and Lou have been able to cross over to gigs in media as journalists or paid experts; Jim writes for Huffington Post, Ricky at Fox News, and Lou for the local Fox TV affiliate in Central Florida.

This is the central problem with Jim's past and current behavior, he operates as if the ethics of his position do not apply to him. Jim may consider himself a changed man from the man of twenty years ago, but just because his behavior is not illegal does not make it ethical. For a company like Disney with a reputation for protecting its image, the decision to have people like Jim, Ricky and Lou blur the line between compensated BRAND Advocate and Journalist reeks of unethical and dishonest behavior towards their media employers and readers/listeners.

I am truly amazed that this conversation is still ongoing. To quote the Joker, "This town needs an enema!"
I'm with @PhotoDave219 - my entire focus is on the Star Wars premiere. And once I've seen that on Thursday, I'll begin my holiday baking in earnest on Friday. (@Jim Hill, @lentesta , and @fabdisbabe - let me know if you'd like me to send you some, just as an apology for all of the internet trolls.)

 

[indyumd]

i would tend to agree with you. and as a comms professional, i see the value in disney utilizing and mobilizing these brand advocates. but we can agree that there's something insidious doing so right?

Like everything else in life, its shades of gray and depends on the specific actions.

I doubt many people would have an issue with a person opening a new restaurant inviting bloggers to a free preview night to try to build excitement and buzz around the opening.

Likewise, Disney trying to build loyal advocates for the company to help spread their message and help spin announcements is the job of a PR professional. I'd even say offering to bring certain people to the parks to show them a good time is fine.

Now, when you get into the specific tit-for-tat type relationships or you act in a punitive way to punish anyone who disagress with the message, that I have a problem with.

But ultimately, most of the responsibility falls on the news source. Much was made of the disappearing article on Shanghai in the HuffPo earlier this year. I'm sure Disney pulled some with them, but 99% of the blame goes to HuffPo. Its HuffPo's job to maintain their journalistic standards and our job as readers to hold them accountable.

When it comes to the bloggers, I think its pretty easy to discriminate who the brand sluts are and who maintain a sense of credibility, regardless of the topic of the blog. Do you guys equate a Destination America special on the Parks that feels like an infomercial with a story on PBS Frontline? Of course not.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I think a lot of us have said that the Disney social Media are in it for the freebies and frankly couldn't stand alone as a sole business.

Disney doesn't need them. They need Disney to further their own addictions.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Are problems with Disney, not Jim Hill. What exactly would you like Jim to do? Disclose at the start of every article and every podcast he was arrested 20+ years ago? Give up his career? Self-deport? What? Your problems are with Disney, yet all the action here is to embarrass and punish Jim.

I guess the question I'm actually asking is, "Why shouldn't Hill be punished in the same vein as others who did illegal activity against the Mouse?"

You obviously don't have a problem with individuals achieving financial gains through unethical means, at least when that individual is Jim Hill. In your view, I'm supposed to give Jim a free pass and an "Attaboy!" for getting his Disney handlers to discharge his lifetime property bans and hire him to speak on D23 discussion panels, all the while former employees without criminal records are treated far, far worse, decades after the fact?

And while we're at it, what about the for-profit unauthorized Disneyland tours Jim was giving just 10 years ago? If I recall, that resulted in a property ban as well. Is that now also gone? Why?

Seriously, I question whether or not Hill has actually changed at all. There are plenty of ethical individuals reporting on Disney events as fan attendees or writing history blogs as amateur authors who aren't working the system for financial gain. But there are those individuals who attempt to take their knowledge and parlay it into some kind of "alternate career" because their lack of ethics doesn't preclude them from working the system to their ultimate advantage.

Again, you obviously don't have a problem with individuals like this. I do. And when honest and ethical individuals are kept out of the professional loop because of people like Hill being utilized instead, that diminishes the authorized information being made available and taints the brand overall.

And regarding changing Disney from within... you don't actually believe that's possible any more than I do.

As Disney continues to fight a group of animators suing TWDC for conspiring with other studios in illegal "anti-poaching" agreements, what makes you think terminated former employees will have any effect on changing Disney's future hiring practices? Ain't gonna happen. But getting Disney to better vet their officially blessed spokespeople is actually something that's possible as well as necessary.

Hill has known about the possibility of his ugly past with TWDC coming to light for years. Yet he chose to play the game, anyway. And unlike others who've rolled the dice and come up with snake eyes, Hill has managed to successfully work the system and achieve some notoriety as a Disney historian and online personality, thanks to his handlers' ability to successfully sweep his ugly past under the rug. He played the odds and won. If you want to keep defending him and praise him for pulling the wool over Burbank's eyes, go for it. Personally, I don't find this applause worthy. It's just another reason to justify spending my online time elsewhere.

As Bruce Gordon was often heard claiming, "It is better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission."

Gee... I wonder how many other Disney online personalities like Hill have also made this their professional mantra? Yeah. Too many. And that's the problem.

 

[asianway]

In other news, they are finally bringing back brunch at California grill after what? 25 years? $80 for a couple poached eggs

 

[ChrisM]

So what if the actual objective to reporting the info was to knock down Hill? Why is that necessarily evil?

Obviously, you don't have a problem with what Hill did 20 years ago on Disney property, nor his current symbiotic relationship with Disney, even in light of what happened 20 years ago. But many of us do have a problem with it, especially given how Disney historically treats former employees who've been caught doing far less questionable activity, be it legal or otherwise.

Giving Hill an official blessing as an online advocate is a slap in the face to former employees with permanently toasted Disney careers who made stupid immature one-time mistakes. Hill's "mistakes" were neither born from youth nor one-time incidents. Yes, they were stupid. And he paid the price. But why is he continuing to be rewarded by the same company he committed multiple instances of fraud against when single acts of minor infractions by others continue to garner lifetime professional punishment?

Frankly, this entire incident reeks of TWDC fiefdom. Burbank more than likely has no clue about Hill's past, which his consumer products handler has kept mum about in order to exploit his knowledge and online popularity. It will be interesting to see if his role as Disney advocate ultimately survives, now that the cat's out of the bag.

First, it's worth mentioning that I have no dog in this hunt save a peculiar interest in pointing out bull when I see it. I have no relationship with the Walt Disney Company and have no particular affinity for Mr. Hill. It is worth noting that life isn't fair. And hearing that there are political machinations, favoritism, agendas, and poor communication within a large company? Wow. Knock me over with a feather.

But your post is insightful: further underscoring that this is all based on agendas and axe-grinding...all the while being touted as the opposite. Which is effectively the same duplicitous and self-serving behavior we are supposed to be so scandalized by.

To have several folks with either (A) former or current connections to a company or (B) relationships with those in group A, fighting some sort of political proxy battle on an enthusiast website is one of the most mindbogglingly strange online phenomena I've ever witnessed. I suppose it sort of makes sense given the size of the company in question and the audience here (captive, eager to be fed any morsels of inside information, overwhelmingly easy to manipulate, eager to suck up) but that makes it no less disconcerting. I never really thought about the overall strategy but it's effectively the mirror image of the social media strategy employed by DisneyCo that 74 and pals pillory so often.

Strange times.

 

[Quinnmac000]

In the words Elsa, let it go. What is done is done? What has happened has happened and nothing will change. Right now, these media bloggers are too valuable to Disney to give up despite their past. However, this is a great example of screening individuals who become reps of a brand. What happened with Jim happened many many many years ago so there was definitely time to heal the wounds of his crimes but its leads to a new question? What would happened if a registered *** offender managed to get into the park as a member of the press and became the social media brand advocate? That is my personal question and what I could see arising from scenarios like this as it seems there is no legitimate screening process.

 

[SYRIK2000]

If you can get Disney to give you stuff, I applaud you. Well Done.

 

[flynnibus]

That's not Disney's job to worry about until the point the distrust of those people hurt the Disney brand.

That problem is on the consumer to decide the trustworthiness of the source. If you feel like a Mommy blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about their trip to Disney, stop reading them. If you feel a food blogger is for sale and not telling the truth about a restaurant or a new toaster, stop reading them.

What you gloss over here (or miss entirely) is that when you do this systematically... you can shout down the opposing opinion. With the ideas of volume, linking, prominance, etc.. you can keep pounding to ensure YOUR message is the one people are likely to find everywhere. That's when it's no longer about one shill - but about shaping what the public is most likely to see and believe. When you get your army of slaves to link and pump your spiel... it will be the dominate message people find online.