A Spirited Perfect Ten

matt9112

matt9112

Well-Known Member
*Q* said:
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.
Click to expand...

A great product sells itself.
 
matt9112

matt9112

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
Interesting that some people are trying to shift the focus of the conversation from Jim to Lee.
Click to expand...

The value and volume of things Lee has said in the past leads me to believe pretty much anything he would ever say. I don't think Lee is doing this for any kind of gain what little I know about Lee is that he in no way needs any "gain" so I think he is simply putting info into the Domain.
 
Lee

Lee

Adventurer
BlueSkyDriveBy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said, thank you.

baymenxpac said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Myself and others have been struggling to make that point for years.

PhotoDave219 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
They are, in many cases, obsessive and unable to even imagine a life without Disney. I shudder to think what would happen to some of them if they couldn't get their weekly/daily/hourly fix.

flynnibus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fantastic post, sir.

flynnibus said:
Disney has quite the apple to offer.. and when you mix in the emotional buy-in these people have... it's a drug...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is very much like a drug and many people are addicted to it.

Still waiting for Spirit's Mental Illness and the Disney Fan Community book.

Cesar R M said:
Interesting that some people are trying to shift the focus of the conversation from Jim to Lee.
Click to expand...
Because clearly, I'm the one who committed a crime...:rolleyes:
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
lentesta said:
Wow...my Word Of The Day Calendar doesn't get to obsequious until, like, February.
Click to expand...

Len, I don't always agree with specific efforts or content... But I appreciate you participating with us and sharing your thoughts on things. A community where all can and do participate is the strongest and most enjoyable. I even buy a subscription every now and then based on my touring needs :)

I hope this last day or two feels like connected conversation and not just lunacy :)
 
Lee

Lee

Adventurer
the.dreamfinder said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post.
I wish I had the time to do that much typing...
 
N

nor'easter

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
Interesting that some people are trying to shift the focus of the conversation from Jim to Lee.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Jim Hill is a public figure in the Disney community. He uses Disney, and Disney uses him, both for monetary gain. Turns out the man has actually done time for certain illegal activities linked to Disney...that is legitimate news in the Disney fan community. It raises issues about both him and Disney.

Personally, I feel Jim Hill is a blowhard who has managed to convince some that he is an "insider" of sorts. Contrast his monetization of his so-called "insider" information with that of accurate information posted here by Lee and a few others, who actually make this Board worthwhile to those of us interested in WDW. I'd say Lee has done this Board a public service.
 
fillerup

fillerup

Well-Known Member
A couple of things, though I don't know why I'm bothering since I don't care all that much about the Jim Hill thing.

I keep reading that he did jail time for his crimes. It seems to me from the court records that he did time because he couldn't make bail. He filed an indigence status with the court after his arrest and got a PD for a lawyer. When he plead no contest on a couple of matters and was adjudicated guilty on another, he was sentenced to time served and a fine. i.e. He served time before he was convicted - not exactly the way it works. No one can ever know if he would have gotten jail time for a second degree misdemeanor but it seems unlikely to me.

I've also read 3 or 4 times that he plead the charges down from something worse. I couldn't find any record of this. Can somebody point me in the right direction?

Finally, the six month trespass ban imposed by the court has know been turned into a lifetime ban in this discussion. Accuracy matters.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
fillerup said:
A couple of things, though I don't know why I'm bothering since I don't care all that much about the Jim Hill thing.

I keep reading that he did jail time for his crimes. It seems to me from the court records that he did time because he couldn't make bail. He filed an indigence status with the court after his arrest and got a PD for a lawyer. When he plead no contest on a couple of matters and was adjudicated guilty on another, he was sentenced to time served and a fine. i.e. He served time before he was convicted - not exactly the way it works. No one can ever know if he would have gotten jail time for a second degree misdemeanor but it seems unlikely to me.

I've also read 3 or 4 times that he plead the charges down from something worse. I couldn't find any record of this. Can somebody point me in the right direction?

Finally, the six month trespass ban imposed by the court has know been turned into a lifetime ban in this discussion. Accuracy matters.
Click to expand...
Just like graft in Shanghai becomes Disney paying graft in Shanghai. Or hotels fined become hotels shut down. With each immediate retelling the fish gets bigger to try and show the "real" point.
 
Last edited:
xdan0920

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Puts on rubber boots...wades into the ****

ChrisM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

The stated goal here is to expose Disney's duplicity by attacking one dude. An interesting tactic. Probably not real effective though. Disney has no liability when it comes to these brand advocates(that's the right buzz word?) they invite them to openings, or events or whatever, and these people write about the events. That's a pretty far stones throw from TWDC employing them.

Meanwhile, TWDC actually employs MANY ex-cons. That's a fact. Not sure why a guy who writes about Disney but doesn't receive a paycheck from TWDC is somehow worse then the ex-cons who do get their checks signed by Mickey Mouse.



Lee said:
The question I raised there relates more to how long would this have gone unnoticed by Disney and others had it not been posted here. I think that's a fair question.
Click to expand...

My question in return is, why does it matter? Be clear, because I legit don't understand. Here's why I don't understand...

How many convicts has Disney actually cut checks to? How many individuals with sketchy pasts has Disney thrown in movies or park attractions?

Jim is a dude who writes about Disney. He's not employed by Disney. What's their liability here? What should they do differently?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom