Dozens Displaced by Hotel Fire Given Shelter at Walt Disney World

[raven]

Right, when corporate social responsibility (CSR) is recognized and there is an economic benefit (because people want to support companies who engage in it), the result is that companies are encouraged to continue doing it.

IMHO corporations should be publicizing good deeds done. There are plenty of investors who want to invest in companies that do the right thing and help others. By keeping these actions quiet companies would be making it harder for investors. There is also a symbiotic relationship between most corporations and the communities they are located in. Aside from the thousands of people working directly for the mouse in Orlando there are many more people who indirectly support the company. Those people want to know that the company they work for (directly or indirectly) is giving back to the community it relies on.

What about the displacement of employees and employee hours being cut by Disney recently and also this past year to send money to Shanghai? That certainly isn't "giving back" to the community and these are their own employees. Sometimes the public sees publicized "good deeds" as actually covering up other wrong doings. Example? Downsizing cup sizes while keeping the prices the same at MK for the Holidays. Some will argue it's just an economic move but is it really? Sounds more like to me that the Grinch took over.

 

[GoofGoof]

What about the displacement of employees and employee hours being cut by Disney recently and also this past year to send money to Shanghai? That certainly isn't "giving back" to the community and these are their own employees. Sometimes the public sees publicized "good deeds" as actually covering up other wrong doings. Example? Downsizing cup sizes while keeping the prices the same at MK for the Holidays. Some will argue it's just an economic move but is it really? Sounds more like to me that the Grinch took over.

I don't think the cup thing has any bearing here. That's purely a business decision on a product being offered. The treatment of employees is a valid part of the equation.

I'm not trying to argue that everything TWDC does is right or good. The victims of this fire probably don't care if Disney did this to cover for other wrong doings or out of the goodness of their "heart". TWDC still did something good in this case and it should be publicized...just like it should be made public when they do something wrong.

 

[wdisney9000]

Lol I can think of quite a few things to be critical about. This is far from being one of them.

This is exactly what you should want ALL companies to do. Do good things in the community. Be a part of the community.

Disney has a loud voice. So anything they can do to get the word out about this is a great thing.

Who is being "critical"? A few people have simply mentioned how the positive PR is most likely a strong motivational factor in helping the displaced families. There is nothing wrong with that either. The families have a good holiday, Disney gains positive publicity. Being able to admit that TWDC is motivated to help due to the public perception they can capitalize on is not being critical, its just understanding how large companies work.

Im sure ill get replies claiming Im a horrible person who has nothing better to do than complain about Disney. Im not complaining, im glad they did it. I just personally believe they did not STRICTLY do this to help out displaced families. They saw and angle and they worked it. And they know people will eat it up and fawn over how classy Disney is. I would do the same thing if I was an exec who had to make the call.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It's simply mind boggling how some can compare, charging, even excess, money to people that can afford it, for items that they can do without to someone that just lost everything in a fire. These people have nothing left. It isn't a case of, gee, I had to spend an extra 10 bucks because Disney up'd their prices once again.

What has happened to this country that has completely pulled out the hearts of so many people. People with no reason to be angry, because for the most part they have everything they need to survive comfortably, are angry because someone with nothing, gets a helping hand during a time of crisis. As someone said, this thread says a lot more about the poster then anything else. To paraphrase a line from a song in "The Music Man"... "melt them down and you'll reveal, a lump of lead as cold as steel, here, where a persons heart should be."

 

[GoofGoof]

It's simply mind boggling how some can compare, charging, even excess, money to people that can afford it, for items that they can do without to someone that just lost everything in a fire. These people have nothing left. It isn't a case of, gee, I had to spend an extra 10 bucks because Disney up'd their prices once again.

What has happened to this country that has completely pulled out the hearts of so many people. People with no reason to be angry, because for the most part they have everything they need to survive comfortably, are angry because someone with nothing, gets a helping hand during a time of crisis. As someone said, this thread says a lot more about the poster then anything else. To paraphrase a line from a song in "The Music Man"... "melt them down and you'll reveal, a lump of lead as cold as steel, here, where a persons heart should be."

I don't think it's as bad here as you state. Nobody here seems angry that the victims got help. They are just questioning Disney's motives for helping out.

 

[SorcererMC]

Sometimes the public sees publicized "good deeds" as actually covering up other wrong doings.

Yes, that was my point when I stated:

CSR can backfire if a company is perceived as trying to compensate for its 'sins' so to speak, ie when the donation is not perceived as genuine.

I won't add more to it as I agree with @GoofGoof 's response above.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don't think it's as bad here as you state. Nobody here seems angry that the victims got help. They are just questioning Disney's motives for helping out.

I'm aware that they aren't directly mad that those in need, however, to belittle an organization that stepped up and helped when needed indicates some sort of anger someplace. Were these people supposed to just pull themselves up by their boot straps and take care of themselves. If not, where was the help going to come from and what possible difference does it make what the motive was or wasn't. Did it help the people that needed it or didn't it, is the only question here. It is about the first sentence I used. Instead of saying, wow, Disney did a good thing, it's they had a selfish interior motive. If you can tell me why that isn't some form of anger, what is? Is it because someone got something vital to life, while big, bad Disney actually charges them to buy a soft drink or attend a completely unnecessary to life event in a theme park. I'm sorry, but, I does show a lack of concern for other less fortunate then themselves because the are getting something from a company that doesn't do the same thing for them.

 

[draybook]

I'm aware that they aren't directly mad that those in need, however, to belittle an organization that stepped up and helped when needed indicates some sort of anger someplace. Were these people supposed to just pull themselves up by their boot straps and take care of themselves. If not, where was the help going to come from and what possible difference does it make what the motive was or wasn't. Did it help the people that needed it or didn't it, is the only question here. It is about the first sentence I used. Instead of saying, wow, Disney did a good thing, it's they had a selfish interior motive. If you can tell me why that isn't some form of anger, what is? Is it because someone got something vital to life, while big, bad Disney actually charges them to buy a soft drink or attend a completely unnecessary to life event in a theme park. I'm sorry, but, I does show a lack of concern for other less fortunate then themselves because the are getting something from a company that doesn't do the same thing for them.

Look, they did it for the PR and because it adds to their reputation. That's a logical conclusion. Lets get out of our feeling here and just be rational. Big companies like Disney don't just do touchy feely things for the heck of it. That's okay though. People are getting help and Disney is getting PR.

 

[Kman101]

But what purpose or point does it serve to "question their motives"? That's where they lose me. Who cares? They did a good deed. Leave it at that and move on.

Worry about the large cup sizes being some evil scheme or worry about the passholder lines or worry about the $700 Cabanas ...

 

[Kman101]

There's plenty to worry about. The problem people are having is that everything has to be made to be critical. All the time.

 

[21stamps]

Wow. Most of these posts are from yesterday. Was no one in the Christmas Spirit?

Getting good press from a humanitarian effort is fine. It doesn't invalidate the act. Can something just be viewed at face value for once? Do people have such jaded emotions towards Disney that they can't read a heart warming good deed and just move on? (rhetorical questions there). Somewhere in the thread also attacked Mother Teresa.. This is getting crazy.

 

[raven]

There's plenty to worry about. The problem people are having is that everything has to be made to be critical. All the time.

That's gonna happen a lot when they are the most expensive theme park on the planet.

 

[SorcererMC]

I'm aware that they aren't directly mad that those in need, however, to belittle an organization that stepped up and helped when needed indicates some sort of anger someplace. Were these people supposed to just pull themselves up by their boot straps and take care of themselves. If not, where was the help going to come from and what possible difference does it make what the motive was or wasn't. Did it help the people that needed it or didn't it, is the only question here. It is about the first sentence I used. Instead of saying, wow, Disney did a good thing, it's they had a selfish interior motive. If you can tell me why that isn't some form of anger, what is? Is it because someone got something vital to life, while big, bad Disney actually charges them to buy a soft drink or attend a completely unnecessary to life event in a theme park. I'm sorry, but, I does show a lack of concern for other less fortunate then themselves because the are getting something from a company that doesn't do the same thing for them.

I don't think it's anger so much as - issue linkage vs. issue compartmentalization. In terms of corporate behavior, TWDC can do things that support the local economy, support the local community, and sometimes those areas overlap (but not necessarily).
In a zero-sum game, if they take an action that doesn't support the local economy, but then take an action that supports the local community, where's the balance or net gain? I think that's a legitimate question...but the answer is subject to debate. I mean it rhetorically/ food for thought.

I hear what you're saying, though. Quite frankly, I'm grateful for any story that seems to give the Christmas Spirit a boost this year.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Let me try to put things in perspective as to how some people view this: (this should be good):

Some Disney fans are like crack addicts. Disney is the supplier of said crack. Some addicts get angry when the supplier increases the cost of the crack when demand goes up. These addicts stay in a perpetual state of anger towards the supplier. In this case, the supplier was charitable and helped out those in need who may or may not be customers of the supplier. Because of the perpetual ed off state of the addict, they lash out and question motive.

 

[21stamps]

Let me try to put things in perspective as to how some people view this: (this should be good):

Some Disney fans are like crack addicts. Disney is the supplier of said crack. Some addicts get angry when the supplier increases the cost of the crack when demand goes up. These addicts stay in a perpetual state of anger towards the supplier. In this case, the supplier was charitable and helped out those in need who may or may not be customers of the supplier. Because of the perpetual ****ed off state of the addict, they lash out and question motive.

This is probably correct. Still I have to wonder if this perpetual state of anger is directed at Disney, or at life in general.

 

[Andrew C]

Look, they did it for the PR and because it adds to their reputation. That's a logical conclusion. Lets get out of our feeling here and just be rational. Big companies like Disney don't just do touchy feely things for the heck of it. That's okay though. People are getting help and Disney is getting PR.

Sometimes big companies just do something because it is the right thing to do. Because it's a culture within their company they want to build...that all within the company should help others when they can.

And of course positive PR can be a byproduct of this type of behavior.

But you know what else is a byproduct? Getting the word out so others will help as well

 

[Goofyernmost]

Look, they did it for the PR and because it adds to their reputation. That's a logical conclusion. Lets get out of our feeling here and just be rational. Big companies like Disney don't just do touchy feely things for the heck of it. That's okay though. People are getting help and Disney is getting PR.

Well, that would apply to everyone that has ever made a charitable contribution. It's a human thing. For both Humans and Corporations, it is also a tax break. So can it be said that the only reason we ever help anyone else is because it makes us feel good or we get a tax break from it. We can say that, because it is true, but, is that really the motivation. Would Disney, for example have any negative thing happen if they didn't do anything about it? Does most of the world, even with the release of the information (regardless of who released it) even know about it? Would we, if not on the boards know anything about it at all? How much gain would be realized by this in an individual sense? Would everyone just be happier if those victims had to spend their time on the sidewalks because no one said OK, we'll take you in? Would Disney be considered cheap and uncaring for not helping out. If that is the case, how can they be bad people for helping. Their has to be a balance there in order for anyone to react with such vile contempt when they do something nice. Is everyone only going to Disney now because of the large financial contributions that they have made to so many other recent disasters? What contributions? You mean we already forgot those? I guess that's not why we go there is it?

I agree that the motivation does not matter even a stitch, what is important is that someone got help when they needed it, by an organization that can afford to do so and really isn't going to gain much from it except maybe that someone might say it was nice of them to do so. This idea that the PR will have people flocking to the doors is utterly ridiculous.

 

[JohnD]

Let me try to put things in perspective as to how some people view this: (this should be good):

Some Disney fans are like crack addicts. Disney is the supplier of said crack. Some addicts get angry when the supplier increases the cost of the crack when demand goes up. These addicts stay in a perpetual state of anger towards the supplier. In this case, the supplier was charitable and helped out those in need who may or may not be customers of the supplier. Because of the perpetual ****ed off state of the addict, they lash out and question motive.

That about sums it up. It was a wonderful gesture on Disney's part. Why can't some people accept it at face value? Plenty of things to criticize. This isn't one of them.

 

[Bob]

Let me try to put things in perspective as to how some people view this: (this should be good):

Some Disney fans are like crack addicts. Disney is the supplier of said crack. Some addicts get angry when the supplier increases the cost of the crack when demand goes up. These addicts stay in a perpetual state of anger towards the supplier. In this case, the supplier was charitable and helped out those in need who may or may not be customers of the supplier. Because of the perpetual ****ed off state of the addict, they lash out and question motive.

Crack is so 1980's. To put it into proper perspective, the Disney fans are meth heads.

 

[MinnieM123]

Saw a story about this on the national news yesterday. I felt sad for the families, and especially the children. Fire in a dwelling is a tragic experience for all involved, but even more upsetting during the holidays.

Once the the families were informed that they would get to spend a few days in Disney, I saw the smiles on the faces of the children. Hope and goodwill are precious gifts to extend to those in need; and in my opinion, they reflect the true meaning of Christmas.