Disney's Punishment of Honest Media/Reviews

[MichWolv]

Here is the one to watch out for. Link to FTC Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
It is a Federal law so of course it is 12 pages.... If you skip all of the examples provided, then it is not that difficult to get through.

Generally speaking, if a person is being compensated (in any way) to endorse or be a spokesperson for a product, service, etc, then that person must take reasonable steps to tell the audience that their POV was paid for. #ad #sponsored etc would work.

I am picking and choosing some of the fun language in the law. I am not a legal expert, this is not legal advice, and I am not presenting the whole law (see the link above for that).

-Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the
endorser. Furthermore, an endorsement may not convey any express or implied representation that
would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser. [See §§ 255.2(a) and (b) regarding
substantiation of representations conveyed by consumer endorsements.

-Endorsements by organizations, especially expert ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of
a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member, and whose judgments
are generally free of the sort of subjective factors that vary from individual to individual.
Therefore, an organization’s endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that
the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. Moreover, if an
organization is represented as being expert, then, in conjunction with a proper exercise of its
expertise in evaluating the product under § 255.3 (expert endorsements), it must utilize an expert
or experts recognized as such by the organization or standards previously adopted by the
organization and suitable for judging the relevant merits of such products.

-When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed. For example, when an endorser who appears in a television commercial is neither represented in the
advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the
advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of
compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or
had reason to know or to believe that if the endorsement favored the advertised product some
benefit, such as an appearance on television, would be extended to the endorser. Additional
guidance, including guidance concerning endorsements made through other media, is provided by
the examples below.

But these restrictions apply to advertising published/created/made by a company about its products and services that uses "endorsements" in the advertising.

So if Disney were to quote one of the bloggers in its theme park advertising, these regulations would apply. But that's not what's happening.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It's obvious to YOU and ME but it isn't obvious to many people - enough people that it is very profitable for Disney to spend so much cash and effort on manipulating vloggers.

And there IS something different about vloggers. Traditionally, news and reviews have come to people through established gatekeepers who, while inevitably biased (they were humans) made some effort towards maintaining actual journalistic standards. When an ABC program puffed up a Disney product - well, that wasn't great (there are real problems with entertainment monopolies and cross promotion), but the connection between Disney and the show were more obvious and there were still some ethical restraints.

Technology has demolished those gatekeepers and a wave of populism has set fire to whatever ruins might remain. There are some positive consequences of these developments, but there are also a HOST of negatives. New sources of information like vloggers hide behind an entirely manufactured persona of "authenticity" which is tremendously powerful and influential in the current environment. They are "one of the people," the source of all real wisdom - "experts" who want to analyze corporate products critically are elitists, drowned out, and as Len's examples show, can safely be blackballed by Disney. Advertising is as fake as ever, but it is more deeply hidden and obscured then ever before, and countervailing voices are far less influential then ever.

We see in this thread people who are absolutely convinced that they cannot be influenced by the media they consume. That's absurd, but it's a widely held belief. Everyone, very much including myself, can be influenced, usually much more easily then we assume. That's why constant vigilance is required when we consume media, and why we shouldn't turn a blind eye when a company, especially one as massively influential as Disney, engages in deceptive practices.

I really can't disagree with anything you are saying there.

In my wild and crazy youth (before I took the straight and narrow road of the humanities), I started a Business Marketing degree at university and I remember even then (early-2000s) that the mantra was that people don't want to feel like they are being marketed to and so the big challenge is to find ways to reach consumers without it being too obvious. This was before the era of the influencer as such, but I clearly remember classes discussing how to reach people who held influence over other people as one such way to do that. So, I can see the vlogger in the Disney community holding a special appeal to Disney marketing and also that the quasi-personal relationship that develops between a vlogger and their viewers is kind of unique. The dark side of that, depending on your perspective, is the extreme hatred that others develop toward these same people they've never met.

It's always hard to judge how other people consume media, but I do agree that of course we need to be open-eyed about that. It just seems so obvious to me and, if I'm honest, I don't find what Disney and the vloggers are doing in terms of an implicit quid-pro-quo of access in exchange for favourable coverage as more than a fairly banal example of how marketing works in 2022: Disney gives the vloggers something they need (content) and in return they give something Disney needs (promotion). I'm also not sure Disney was ever much better in allowing access to critics. Still, I take your point that all of this may not be entirely self-evident to everyone watching. If that's the case, though, I think that is really a bigger cultural issue that has to do with an erosion of critical thinking abilities.

 

[OrlandoRising]

You must have never watched Pete Werner (of WDWInfo) go off on one of his rants against Disney. His company is a travel agency primarily focused on Disney.

You seem like a fan of DFB. That's cool. I have bought their books in the past, so you can say the same for me. But I am not going to agree that AJ has ever given a (gloves off) negative review of anything Disney. Except maybe when they removed plastic cheese from its menus.

I don't think Pete considers himself or his team journalists, but I admire that they adhere to some ethics about reviews and not shying away from criticism. The fact that he runs a travel agency heavily focused on Disney vacations may seem a troublesome conflict if he didn't disclose it very clearly. That's not to say he's not without his ethical lapses that I feel are meant to promote his business. See his recent rant about the CDC not recommending cruises during the omicron surge, when he's no public health expert.

But let's be clear that "honesty" is not a synonym for "negative" here. It's also unethical to be setting an agenda rooting for Disney theme park projects to fail and injecting that bias into all your content. (I think it's obvious which site I'm talking about)

Doesn't anyone even question the fact that Disney feels a need to strong-arm people who are commenting on their product in the first place? That alone should be setting off alarm bells in people's heads...if Disney were confident in their product, they wouldn't care what anyone said.

I think from their point of view, they're smartly taking advantage of the influencer culture. It's a lot easier and potentially more fruitful to focus on influencers who are willing to play ball than to deal with more journalists who have a sense of ethics.

The only way that will change is if the audience, the consumers that this content is meant to influence, tunes it out en masse. I have my doubts that theme parks fans would actually want to do that, considering some of the reactions I've gotten to my reporting.

But it instills the same emotion in someone. Free gift that a corporation isnt required to give, makes people want to continue to get free gifts. And many are afraid (legitimately or not) that they will stop getting free gifts if they say disparaging things. Is there any proof of Disney or Universal, removing that person from the next round of freebies, punishing dissenters, or even telling them they have to be positive. I have never seen proof of that. Most people removed from the freebies list has been for other reasons.

Count me with Len and WDW Magic, as I don't think I did anything that warranted being taken off the media invite list. You're right that I'm not entitled to it -- I never said I was -- nor would I have accepted access with strings attached to dictate the tone of my coverage anyway.

Disney and Universal aren't dumb enough to email any media outlet telling them they have to be positive or they'll lose access, but the expectation is implicit. Did you think we all made up these individual instances where we report on Disney in a way that reflected negatively on the company and then suddenly we stopped getting press releases, media invites, etc.?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I don't think Pete considers himself or his team journalists, but I admire that they adhere to some ethics about reviews and not shying away from criticism. The fact that he runs a travel agency heavily focused on Disney vacations may seem a troublesome conflict if he didn't disclose it very clearly. That's not to say he's not without his ethical lapses that I feel are meant to promote his business. See his recent rant about the CDC not recommending cruises during the omicron surge, when he's no public health expert.

But let's be clear that "honesty" is not a synonym for "negative" here. It's also unethical to be setting an agenda rooting for Disney theme park projects to fail and injecting that bias into all your content. (I think it's obvious which site I'm talking about)


I think from their point of view, they're smartly taking advantage of the influencer culture. It's a lot easier and potentially more fruitful to focus on influencers who are willing to play ball than to deal with more journalists who have a sense of ethics.

The only way that will change is if the audience, the consumers that this content is meant to influence, tunes it out en masse. I have my doubts that theme parks fans would actually want to do that, considering some of the reactions I've gotten to my reporting.



Count me with Len and WDW Magic, as I don't think I did anything that warranted being taken off the media invite list. You're right that I'm not entitled to it -- I never said I was -- nor would I have accepted access with strings attached to dictate the tone of my coverage anyway.

Disney and Universal aren't dumb enough to email any media outlet telling them they have to be positive or they'll lose access, but the expectation is implicit. Did you think we all made up these individual instances where we report on Disney in a way that reflected negatively on the company and then suddenly we stopped getting press releases, media invites, etc.?

That's the inherent problem with influencer culture though...it's not for the best interests of consumers...it's so Joe Schmoe can make a living off of YouTube and companies get their marketing.

 

[OrlandoRising]

That's the inherent problem with influencer culture though...it's not for the best interests of consumers...it's so Joe Schmoe can make a living off of YouTube and companies get their marketing.

I'm not defending the culture at all, I just see why it makes sense from Disney's perspective. I'd welcome an end to influencer culture, but that requires the audience tuning out. It wouldn't be valuable marketing for Disney if no one was watching.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I'm not defending the culture at all, I just see why it makes sense from Disney's perspective. I'd welcome an end to influencer culture, but that requires the audience tuning out. It wouldn't be valuable marketing for Disney if no one was watching.

I realize that...and I would welcome the end of it, too.

 

[TalkingHead]

By chance I was looking up reviews of the Drawn to Life Cirque show, and noticed it has a TripAdvisor average showing it’s gotten mixed user reviews. Also skimmed some of the Disney/vacation blog reviews, and it seems they were (almost? all?) universal in their praise for it.

A somewhat average crowdsourced user score vs. the soaring praise of the bloggers might make you question what’s going on there as well. I haven’t seen the show, so I don’t have a dog in the fight, but seeing those reviews reminded me of this thread.

 

[cranbiz]

They aren't that strict. Pete himself is highly critical. I myself was a mod there for 4-5 years. Granted I myself am not banned there.

They have got worse since you left there Ryan.

 

[mergatroid]

By chance I was looking up reviews of the Drawn to Life Cirque show, and noticed it has a TripAdvisor average showing it’s gotten mixed user reviews. Also skimmed some of the Disney/vacation blog reviews, and it seems they were (almost? all?) universal in their praise for it.

A somewhat average crowdsourced user score vs. the soaring praise of the bloggers might make you question what’s going on there as well. I haven’t seen the show, so I don’t have a dog in the fight, but seeing those reviews reminded me of this thread.

Perhaps that's because the Disney aspect and story line adds nostalgia and emotion to it that none Disney fans won't get? So some of the Tripadviser reviews might be more cirque fans who don't get that bit that Disney fans do? I'm hoping it's great as we're going later this month.

 

[TalkingHead]

Perhaps that's because the Disney aspect and story line adds nostalgia and emotion to it that none Disney fans won't get? So some of the Tripadviser reviews might be more cirque fans who don't get that bit that Disney fans do? I'm hoping it's great as we're going later this month.

Could be; definitely seemed like a lot of the lukewarm comments came from people familiar with other Cirque shows, including La Nouba. I’d hope that Disney bloggers could compare the current show to what was there before, but that might not be desirable from a publicity standpoint. Either way, hope you enjoy it!

 

[larryz]

They aren't that strict. Pete himself is highly critical.

Pete and his buddies are allowed to be critical -- he hires the mods.

I myself was a mod there for 4-5 years. Granted I myself am not banned there.

Then you must not have "an Agenda." My "agenda" was forecasting issues related to FP+ and how it impacted spontaneity.

 

[Rteetz]

Pete and his buddies are allowed to be critical -- he hires the mods.

Then you must not have "an Agenda." My "agenda" was forecasting issues related to FP+ and how it impacted spontaneity.

Pete doesn't hire mods. I can 100% tell you that and Pete barely even cares about the boards. Mods there are all 100% volunteer.

 

[larryz]

Pete doesn't hire mods. I can 100% tell you that and Pete barely even cares about the boards. Mods there are all 100% volunteer.

Volunteer or not, I can't imagine the board's owner not signing off on the mods. Seems like a liability issue...

 

[eliza61nyc]

That's the inherent problem with influencer culture though...it's not for the best interests of consumers...it's so Joe Schmoe can make a living off of YouTube and companies get their marketing.

Hey Imperfect, I don't think it's from the "influencer" culture. long, long, long time ago some smart guy gave us a quote in Latin , "Caveat emptor". It means let the buyer beware. Advertising/media/influencers were never our friends.
Now sure some will throw around buzz words like "honesty", "integrity" and other slogans but trust and believe the end result is to get you to part from your dollars.
Heck Car sales men use to tell you how much of a "friend" you were and every year Nordstroms has the "friends and family" sale that they swear they are giving you the deals that only "employees and their family" get.
My point being that none of it has ever been for the best interest of the consumer. that's how these watchdog agencies came into being

. Seriously?? has anyone seen what banks do if you post a negative comment? heck I had a contractor offer me a couple hundred books to take down a negative review I did on him.

I haven't read past the 3rd page, is chapek doing something illegal to these vloggers., lol anybody found swimming with the fishes?

 

[Lilofan]

FTC rules are guaranteed to cause one thing - me to drink. Hi, I'm mightynine and I'd like to talk about grain alcohol.

(This post contains a paid promotion)

Exit 21 I-95S South Carolina , wood signage on trees by exit off ramp , Moonshine for sale.

 

[Rteetz]

Volunteer or not, I can't imagine the board's owner not signing off on the mods. Seems like a liability issue...

He delegates people for that. He has very little care for the boards. He would rather sell DVC contracts and Orlando area homes.

 

[Mr. Moderate]

Pete doesn't hire mods. I can 100% tell you that and Pete barely even cares about the boards. Mods there are all 100% volunteer.

You're right and Pete could care less.

Many years ago I was a longtime member of that board and wasted way too much of my time and energy there. It was volunteers for being mods and you had to be in the clique and ignore the shady stuff that Pete himself was famous for.

 

[lewisc]

Pete doesn't hire mods. I can 100% tell you that and Pete barely even cares about the boards. Mods there are all 100% volunteer.

I thought many, most?, of the mods are gone with Webmasters handling banning.

DIS is a commercial board. Posters who directly (posts on the board), or indirectly (references to blogs, videos) who get paid via affiliate links, sponsored by a TA etc tend to get banned. Posters who are critical of stupid posters are gone. Face it. The purpose the DIS is to create interest in people booking vacations with their Pete's travel agency.

Rteetz, and a few other posters, helped guide us in getting Preview Reservations for MF and insight as to how Rise of the Resistance operated the first few weeks.

Much thanks to Rteetz and Julie (don't remember screen name)

 

[Ayla]

Pete and his buddies are allowed to be critical -- he hires the mods.

Then you must not have "an Agenda." My "agenda" was forecasting issues related to FP+ and how it impacted spontaneity.

I think Ryan has a typo in his post. IIRC, he *is* banned from there.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Hey Imperfect, I don't think it's from the "influencer" culture. long, long, long time ago some smart guy gave us a quote in Latin , "Caveat emptor". It means let the buyer beware. Advertising/media/influencers were never our friends.
Now sure some will throw around buzz words like "honesty", "integrity" and other slogans but trust and believe the end result is to get you to part from your dollars.
Heck Car sales men use to tell you how much of a "friend" you were and every year Nordstroms has the "friends and family" sale that they swear they are giving you the deals that only "employees and their family" get.
My point being that none of it has ever been for the best interest of the consumer. that's how these watchdog agencies came into being

. Seriously?? has anyone seen what banks do if you post a negative comment? heck I had a contractor offer me a couple hundred books to take down a negative review I did on him.

I haven't read past the 3rd page, is chapek doing something illegal to these vloggers., lol anybody found swimming with the fishes?

What makes "influencer culture" so detestable is that it took something that had the potential to work FOR consumers (product reviews) and turned it against them. This goes way beyond sale prices that aren't really less than usual prices or other sleazy practices.

The watchdog agencies are always a step behind the times...just wait until they start cracking down on influencers for deceptive practices.

Disney is known for strong-arming bloggers/vloggers/media who aren't toeing the company line by cutting off access to media events/discontinuing freebies.