Disney's Punishment of Honest Media/Reviews

[JIMINYCR]

No business welcomes bad reviews. Its been shown statistically that the public using the internet will be more likely to post something negative than positive when dealing with a business theyve had an experience with. Especially when they can post anonymously. So many businesses now pay little attention to bad reviews online.
The best journalists and reporters, now bloggers and vloggers, have always been those who do their job investigating and reporting their findings without taking sides. Historically there has been few the public could count on doing that. The difficult thing is to stay that way and not allow yourself to become influenced by perks and rewards that come your way, knowing its meant to alter future stories.
I'd rather hear from a blogger who doesnt take a Disney perk and maybe doesnt get in on an attraction or event first off but stays true to themselves and can tell the tale unbiased. They may not be the first to tell the review but I'm going to listen to them knowing they are accurate in what they see and arent selling me the tale a company is paying for.
And even reading or watching those reviews, I wait until I personally take in an event to get my own opinion validated.

 

[OrlandoRising]

I didn't read through this thread, because the whole idea that Vlog media is the same as news media puzzles me. These sites were established by Disney Fans and as such Disney found it cost affective to use them to spread positive views of anything Disney. These people aren't non-biased individuals, they are using their "media" to achieve free perks from Disney. Perks like admission to the parks, first experience on new attractions, meals, travel and accommodations free from Disney. In exchange Disney expects them to shed a good light on whatever they are doing and are considered employees of Disney. Free agents that provide a PR service for Disney.

Like any other jobber, they are expected to be positive and give Disney what they are paying for via perks, positivity, etc. If they start to badmouth the guy paying their way they lose their value. If they can't or won't provide what Disney needs to have happen, they simply stop paying those people for that service. Again Disney Vloggers are not news people that should be reporting good and bad, they are paid to make Disney look almost flawless. Their vlogs attract hits from other Disney Fans and the more hits they get the more the vlog is able to attract advertisers to their sites which is money in the vloggers pockets. They need access to Disney far more then Disney needs them. So if they can no longer provide what Disney wants then they get replaced. Simple and not wrong. It is what the Vloggers signed up for either in writing or implied agreements.

I think you're missing the larger point by saying it's "simple and not wrong."

I own my site, no one is going to fire me since Disney stopped inviting me to media events. However, it's entirely possible that a reporter for some other outlet could lose their job if Disney refuses to grant them access as revenge for writing anything but glowing reviews. I would hope a news organization would stand by a reporter in that situation, but that's far from guaranteed if the org values their privileged access to Disney events more than the individual reporter.

By Disney closing off access to more journalists to allow for more sycophantic vloggers, they've essentially made those vloggers seem like the media -- only it's media they now control more closely and will punish if they step out of line. It may be what vloggers are willing to do, but it pressures actual reporters to act more like those vloggers and sacrifice their ethics or else they may also lose access.

That, in my view, is far from being "simple and not wrong."

 

[OrlandoRising]

It isn't a revenge situation, it is a fact of life and business. If someone accepts a payment either in cash or in bling, they are doing so to get something out of it and Disney expects something in return. If you have a 9-5 job and you are expected to deliver a product or system and you don't live up to your end of the agreement then you will be fired. It is basic life. Just because you have a presence on the internet it doesn't mean that there is no responsibility to the entity that is footing your expense account. If you are not giving them what they want then you will be removed. It is fact! If you don't want to be subject to that rule then you shouldn't have taken the bling. That was a prepayment for good will reports. What is so difficult about that to understand? It's not evil, it is reciprocity and very common.

Think of it like early movie screenings for film critics. The film studios certainly hope that critics give the movie a favorable review and therefore provide some inexpensive publicity. But that access is not "prepayment for good will reports," as you ignorantly asserted. The studios are assuming the risk that the reviews will be negative.

Here, Disney and Universal and others are attempting to remove the risk, allow only positive reviews, and punish news outlets that don't deliver them -- when we didn't agree to that.

Also: "Taken the bling?" What the heck are you talking about? The only perk I got when I attended a Disney media event was the early access to the ride. Disney wasn't paying for my travel, my lodging, or for my time. In short, I was there to do my job.

Clearly you don't understand what media access actually entails or how entertainment journalism works.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No business welcomes bad reviews. Its been shown statistically that the public using the internet will be more likely to post something negative than positive when dealing with a business theyve had an experience with. Especially when they can post anonymously. So many businesses now pay little attention to bad reviews online.
The best journalists and reporters, now bloggers and vloggers, have always been those who do their job investigating and reporting their findings without taking sides. Historically there has been few the public could count on doing that. The difficult thing is to stay that way and not allow yourself to become influenced by perks and rewards that come your way, knowing its meant to alter future stories.
I'd rather hear from a blogger who doesnt take a Disney perk and maybe doesnt get in on an attraction or event first off but stays true to themselves and can tell the tale unbiased. They may not be the first to tell the review but I'm going to listen to them knowing they are accurate in what they see and arent selling me the tale a company is paying for.
And even reading or watching those reviews, I wait until I personally take in an event to get my own opinion validated.

I agree…there’s a lot of naivety here…

But you can’t put vloggers in the category of “reporters” at all. They literally started trying to make money off playing. At the end of the day…right or wrong…that is a fact.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think you're missing the larger point by saying it's "simple and not wrong."

I own my site, no one is going to fire me since Disney stopped inviting me to media events. However, it's entirely possible that a reporter for some other outlet could lose their job if Disney refuses to grant them access as revenge for writing anything but glowing reviews. I would hope a news organization would stand by a reporter in that situation, but that's far from guaranteed if the org values their privileged access to Disney events more than the individual reporter.

By Disney closing off access to more journalists to allow for more sycophantic vloggers, they've essentially made those vloggers seem like the media -- only it's media they now control more closely and will punish if they step out of line. It may be what vloggers are willing to do, but it pressures actual reporters to act more like those vloggers and sacrifice their ethics or else they may also lose access.

That, in my view, is far from being "simple and not wrong."

I appreciate your perspective.

 

[Ldno]

Disney loves Vloggers since it’s free PR for them. Interestingly enough I have begun to see a downward trend of negative reviews, something changed, the same vloggers who were snorting lines of pixie dust are now doing the completely oppostive, even DFBlog sounds a bit let down on some videos.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney loves Vloggers since it’s free PR for them. Interestingly enough I have begun to see a downward trend of negative reviews, something changed, the same vloggers who were snorting lines of pixie dust are now doing the completely oppostive, even DFBlog sounds a bit let down on some videos.

The situation on the ground has been horrific (relatively spreaking) in Orlando in real time. Even “good” sounds terrible.

Maybe even the vloggers aren’t trying to sell it so hard. They are in the bag…but have to at least be able to claim some credibility…no?

 

[Ldno]

The situation on the ground has been horrific (relatively spreaking) in Orlando in real time. Even “good” sounds terrible.

Maybe even the vloggers aren’t trying to sell it so hard. They are in the bag…but have to at least be able to claim some credibility…no?

I just wish there was some transparency, I wish we knew who actually paid for their trips and hotel stays versus the ones who might get comped by Disney? If there’s such a thing haha, it might help with the honesty of the reviews I think.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I just wish there was some transparency, I wish we knew who actually paid for their trips and hotel stays versus the ones who might get comped by Disney? If there’s such a thing haha, it might help with the honesty of the reviews I think.

Generally speaking, I would think those who paid (or whose employer paid) for their trips would be up front about it. It's the ones who don't say either way that I tend to be skeptical about. You could always ask if it's not particularly clear.

 

[GimpYancIent]

I just wish there was some transparency, I wish we knew who actually paid for their trips and hotel stays versus the ones who might get comped by Disney? If there’s such a thing haha, it might help with the honesty of the reviews I think.

You and the IRS would love full disclosure requirements.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

You and the IRS would love full disclosure requirements.

The requirements are there...there's just an enormous lack of enforcement.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I will paraphrase his overall comments.

The Positive - The Starcruiser experience is a unique and creative, it sets a new standard in theme park entertainment; the WDW creative folks did an excellent job putting the guest IN STAR WARS and the talented cast members did an excellent job all around.

An observation - To get the best experience, you can't be passive and just watch, you must get involved with the missions and make it a point to interact with the cast members.

The Negative - The food could have been better.

The verdict - Is it worth the money? The person who shall remain nameless said No. Not at the current price.

I will add my two cents, no one can answer for YOU what's worth the money and what's not. 5 or 6 thousand dollars may mean nothing to one person but another person may need to scrimp and save for the money, so it's hard to say if "it's worth the money"

I guess its true, if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it....

 

[OrlandoRising]

Generally speaking, I would think those who paid (or whose employer paid) for their trips would be up front about it. It's the ones who don't say either way that I tend to be skeptical about. You could always ask if it's not particularly clear.

I'm not sure an employer paying for a trip would need disclosing. In my view, that's not really a conflict where the reviewer would then be more likely to give a trip or experience a positive review, which is point of the disclosure.

Maybe if the employer was able to access some discount that wasn't publicly available, like a rate specifically for travel agents, I could see the need for it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I'm not sure an employer paying for a trip would need disclosing. In my view, that's not really a conflict where the reviewer would then be more likely to give a trip or experience a positive review, which is point of the disclosure.

Maybe if the employer was able to access some discount that wasn't publicly available, like a rate specifically for travel agents, I could see the need for it.

Employers may have connections to Disney though...and thus may pressure their employees to give positive reviews.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm not sure an employer paying for a trip would need disclosing. In my view, that's not really a conflict where the reviewer would then be more likely to give a trip or experience a positive review, which is point of the disclosure.

Maybe if the employer was able to access some discount that wasn't publicly available, like a rate specifically for travel agents, I could see the need for it.

I agree that it's not a conflict, but I do think when a person doesn't have to pay for an experience it affects the overall calculus. Value is generally a significant part of the consideration for something like this and it's harder to accurately gauge that value when the reviewer didn't have to pay anything.

That's the case for almost all major media reviews of a wide variety of experiences, though, so it's not anything unique to the Starcruiser.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I will paraphrase his overall comments.

The Positive - The Starcruiser experience is a unique and creative, it sets a new standard in theme park entertainment; the WDW creative folks did an excellent job putting the guest IN STAR WARS and the talented cast members did an excellent job all around.

An observation - To get the best experience, you can't be passive and just watch, you must get involved with the missions and make it a point to interact with the cast members.

The Negative - The food could have been better.

The verdict - Is it worth the money? The person who shall remain nameless said No. Not at the current price.

I will add my two cents, no one can answer for YOU what's worth the money and what's not. 5 or 6 thousand dollars may mean nothing to one person but another person may need to scrimp and save for the money, so it's hard to say if "it's worth the money"

I guess its true, if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it....

This is the problem in this review for Disney…

A lot of people paying the price won’t be keen on this.

 

[sedati]

Travel reviews seem tricky because you can't give out free review copies as you would a game, film, book, album, etc. The in-person trip is a heck of a freebie and a considerable expense for the company.

What if there was a neutral third-party organization who could be given access to record an experience and package it for review? While not the same as an in-person experience, the "review copy" would be as complete as feasible and unguided by the company so as to not unduly skew, highlight, or omit.

Every outlet could then have early (but limited) access. The schmoozefests could continue, but the distinction made clear. Maybe as I've seen with some gamers, the invited influencers are designated "Brand Ambassadors" to avoid any confusion.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is the problem in this review for Disney…

A lot of people paying the price won’t be keen on this.

So true, the average guest won't know how important this is and that's a big problem; its a very expensive "do over".
Some visitors may have the mindset, "I paid you Disney, now you entertain me, I don't want to have to do anything".

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So true, the average guest won't know how important this is and that's a big problem; its a very expensive "do over".
Some visitors may have the mindset, "I paid you Disney, now you entertain me, I don't want to have to do anything".

There’s a reason why 6,000,000 don’t attend comic con and cosplay zombie night…

Because most of us grew up - sometimes to our detriment - but still a fact. The cost of this means they’re gonna burn through that pool rather quickly and what will be next is adults paying for their kids and tagging along.
It really makes me wonder what the longterm plan is?

I have my suspicions on what it is…

And you know…that was by design

 

[lentesta]

And yet, The Dis was invited to the full 2-day experience? So doesn't that kind of invalidate the perception that you can't criticize Disney too hard for fear of not getting invited back?

The DIS' Dreams Unlimited is one of the 2 or 3 largest Disney-specific travel agencies in the world. They bring at least $25 million in business to Disney every year. And if you told me it was $40 million or $60 million or more, I'd believe it. They are enormous.

I spoke with Pete Werner when we started our travel agency, because I value his experience and counsel. And Pete will tell you exactly what he's thinking. I wanted to know how to deal with Disney. Pete's advice, which I'll paraphrase here, was "Generate enough revenue for them, and Disney won't care what you say about them."

So yeah, $25 to $60 million in business per year (plus a mandatory 10% increase year-over-year) buys you a lot of free speech. Credit Pete for everything he and his team did to get to that point.

I'll say this again: everyone on both sides of this equation knows the role money plays in these things.