More Disney Fun with Social Media (pics included!)

[WDW1974]

Ever notice you don't see some people in the same room at the same time?? And some people seem to alternate their stays??

As for 'sleeper accounts' they are used by spammers but it takes such an investment you don't see it as much anymore. I don't question those as much for corporate use but maybe old sock puppets people drag out again. But there are certainly a lot of people who simply drop off fans sites for awhile and hearing about a topic brings them back temporarily.

I think I see the Clark kent syndrome here quite a bit with the obvious %##^ stirrers.

I just put them all on ignore to rob them of what they feed on. If everyone would the world would get so much better..

Well, I'm glad others see what I think is very obvious ...I don't ignore anyone though, unless I do so in the adult fashion. If a discussion is going on, it's important to read whatever is being said and by whomever is doing the saying.

 

[flynnibus]

If a discussion is going on, it's important to read whatever is being said and by whomever is doing the saying.

Not if they don't say anything of value Don't worry, your experience isn't hindered when the useless noise is filtered. It's actually far more enjoyable - less distractions.

 

[WDW1974]

Not if they don't say anything of value Don't worry, your experience isn't hindered when the useless noise is filtered. It's actually far more enjoyable - less distractions.

I dunno. ... I am getting ready to take a MAGICal sabbatical for a while. Holidays/life/trip to the place I hate the most coming up ... plus the fact I am being told all sorts of troubling stuff that I can't put online yet, so it's probably best if I wrap up my MAGICal 2012 by Turkey Day and see everyone again in 2013!

 

[Atomicmickey]

I dunno. ... I am getting ready to take a MAGICal sabbatical for a while. Holidays/life/trip to the place I hate the most coming up ... plus the fact I am being told all sorts of troubling stuff that I can't put online yet, so it's probably best if I wrap up my MAGICal 2012 by Turkey Day and see everyone again in 2013!

Troubling, again? Even your hard-hearted optimism is fading? I may need to take a sabbatical for a while, as
well. It's too depressing to get so much ugly news in a row. You simply must stay for the "after what's next" discussion, won't you?

 

[roodlesnouter]

I have read the whole of this post and am left scratching my head.

This is a modern day form of advertising Disney paying for people to say great things about them = advertising. I struggle to understand why folk are surprised, shocked and in a lot of cases down right nasty about it.

There are many many choices of Disney sites online if you don''t like how one operates choose another likewise don't read an authors piece if it makes you sore that he/she may have had a meal or 2 on the mouse.

As I said earlier I Just see it as advertising. So on Disneys part I would say they played it well, all that advertising to millions for a fraction of the cost of tv ads. Of course this is all done through rose tinted glasses but name me one other business who would not want a glowing reference of there company against negative views aired by so many. From Disney's POV if they can screen people from seeing the negative then they have done a good job. So I guess they are doing a good job.

I don't post often as I am usually in agreement with most but I wanted to air my views on this one.

Also to add, Im not a frequent visitor annually usually for 3 weeks, Im from the UK, probably more often than JT though LOL. Over the years I have seen decline in restaurants, merch, attractions and most of all value for my money.

What im trying to say is I can see the things that are wrong at Disney and for me "social media whoring" ain't one of them.

 

[janoimagine]

This is a modern day form of advertising Disney paying for people to say great things about them = advertising. I struggle to understand why folk are surprised, shocked and in a lot of cases down right nasty about it.

People (myself included) have issues with it because those currently who 'Say great things about them" are not disclosing the fact that they are getting perks, or worse fiscal gain and in most cases outright denying it, that is wrong and to me would qualify as false advertising.

I have no issue with those doing so under the banner of full disclosure, I work for commercial shooters who photograph and film the majority of the products advertised in the US and abroad, however we get paid to take those pictures and produce those jobs, and are not expected to have to promote, drive or even use the clients products we have been paid to make look appealing, we are hired on talent and reputation and don't expect to get these jobs because were out championing a brand or have a blog or website that champions their products.

Using the media to promote your product is nothing new, Walt did it back in the day to fund projects like Disneyland, the distain is in those who don't do it objectively because they are getting handouts from Disney, and don't want that well to dry up.

 

[dreamfinder]

I have read the whole of this post and am left scratching my head.

This is a modern day form of advertising Disney paying for people to say great things about them = advertising. I struggle to understand why folk are surprised, shocked and in a lot of cases down right nasty about it.

There are many many choices of Disney sites online if you don''t like how one operates choose another likewise don't read an authors piece if it makes you sore that he/she may have had a meal or 2 on the mouse.

As I said earlier I Just see it as advertising. So on Disneys part I would say they played it well, all that advertising to millions for a fraction of the cost of tv ads. Of course this is all done through rose tinted glasses but name me one other business who would not want a glowing reference of there company against negative views aired by so many. From Disney's POV if they can screen people from seeing the negative then they have done a good job. So I guess they are doing a good job.

Except advertising is typically declared as such. Look in a magazine or newspaper. Anything that isn't obviously an AD will typically have "Advertisement" or "Special Advertising Section" at the top/bottom of the page. Read a computer magazine, and you see a full page spread for Microsoft, you know immediately it's an AD. If you see a full page "article" about how great Windows 8 is and how it revolutionized someones life with no negative mentions, typically it will have the "Advertising" header, as it's not an unbiased story. This is why most editorial and advertising staffs are clearly separated to help ensure no cross over.

Social media, often has no such declaration. And this can lead to a biased viewpoint. Much in the same way that food critics often strive for anonymity, would you trust a restaurant review where the reviewer was known in advance so the restaurant could ensure that his meal was perfect and he received a non-standard experience that he didn't need to pay for? So why would a blog posting/WDW article/review whatever be any different? When being presented with a viewpoint, if that viewpoint is in a situation where they could feel biased or beholden to someone who compensated them for the viewpoint, isn't it important to know as such?

If something is as ad, declare it as such. Even in guerrilla marketing, it's easy to determine that it is an ad pretty quickly. How many people would walk down the street with cases of an energy drink out of the goodness of their heart? Or setup some waterslide temporarily downtown to advertise a new product. Stuff like this happens, but because people know it is out of the ordinary it is easy to assume it is advertising.

Social media marketing/whoring/plants/whatever aren't outside the norm. Someone on a WDW board pontificating about their favorite ride, completely normal and expected. So no way to know that a new poster is really a plant or someone astroturfing on behalf of WDW. Or on tumblr, there are tons and tons of tumblr's dedicated to WDW/DLR, where people post their own pictures, others pictures, etc. So there is no way to know that a given tumblr is really paid for and curated by the mouse, and not Joe Blogger in his basement. For instance, the tumblr this thread initially started about. Several of the pictures posted are in situations that a normal guest would never experience. Cinderella posing in the dream suite, or the shot of several characters just chilling on a planter. Since a guest may not know that those are not normal situations, they could go to WDW expecting being able to have time with Cinderella in a gorgeous setting, and not a cheap backdrop. Or the chance to get their kids picture with 6 characters at once. If these are clearly presented as advertising, most people would realize that this may not be a normal situation in the parks. But by posting it on a social media site, in a way that doesn't scream "Official" or "Advertisement", people may be mislead about the experience they will get to have in park. Admittedly this is a weak example, but it ties the whole social media debate back into the thread in hand. And I do believe that companies have been sued in the UK for less, things like indicated a electronic device turns on much faster than it really does.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Except advertising is typically declared as such. Look in a magazine or newspaper. Anything that isn't obviously an AD will typically have "Advertisement" or "Special Advertising Section" at the top/bottom of the page. Read a computer magazine, and you see a full page spread for Microsoft, you know immediately it's an AD. If you see a full page "article" about how great Windows 8 is and how it revolutionized someones life with no negative mentions, typically it will have the "Advertising" header, as it's not an unbiased story. This is why most editorial and advertising staffs are clearly separated to help ensure no cross over.

Social media, often has no such declaration. And this can lead to a biased viewpoint. Much in the same way that food critics often strive for anonymity, would you trust a restaurant review where the reviewer was known in advance so the restaurant could ensure that his meal was perfect and he received a non-standard experience that he didn't need to pay for? So why would a blog posting/WDW article/review whatever be any different? When being presented with a viewpoint, if that viewpoint is in a situation where they could feel biased or beholden to someone who compensated them for the viewpoint, isn't it important to know as such?

If something is as ad, declare it as such. Even in guerrilla marketing, it's easy to determine that it is an ad pretty quickly. How many people would walk down the street with cases of an energy drink out of the goodness of their heart? Or setup some waterslide temporarily downtown to advertise a new product. Stuff like this happens, but because people know it is out of the ordinary it is easy to assume it is advertising.

Social media marketing/whoring/plants/whatever aren't outside the norm. Someone on a WDW board pontificating about their favorite ride, completely normal and expected. So no way to know that a new poster is really a plant or someone astroturfing on behalf of WDW. Or on tumblr, there are tons and tons of tumblr's dedicated to WDW/DLR, where people post their own pictures, others pictures, etc. So there is no way to know that a given tumblr is really paid for and curated by the mouse, and not Joe Blogger in his basement. For instance, the tumblr this thread initially started about. Several of the pictures posted are in situations that a normal guest would never experience. Cinderella posing in the dream suite, or the shot of several characters just chilling on a planter. Since a guest may not know that those are not normal situations, they could go to WDW expecting being able to have time with Cinderella in a gorgeous setting, and not a cheap backdrop. Or the chance to get their kids picture with 6 characters at once. If these are clearly presented as advertising, most people would realize that this may not be a normal situation in the parks. But by posting it on a social media site, in a way that doesn't scream "Official" or "Advertisement", people may be mislead about the experience they will get to have in park. Admittedly this is a weak example, but it ties the whole social media debate back into the thread in hand. And I do believe that companies have been sued in the UK for less, things like indicated a electronic device turns on much faster than it really does.

Have you ever taken a marketing class? Really the trick to marketing anything is to convince the person being marketed to that they need/want the product. Whether this is Reese's Pieces in E.T., a celebrity shilling something on Twitter, a pop up ad, an add in a magazine, or a Super Bowl ad, the goal is all the same. The problem is people haven't quite learned how social media marketing works yet and people that are getting paid to advertise for a product don't make this abundantly clear. This learning curve will eventually go away. I suspect that similar marketing phenomena also had a learning curve before people realized that they were being advertised to. The goal of the advertiser is to remain ahead of the public.

 

[dreamfinder]

Have you ever taken a marketing class? Really the trick to marketing anything is to convince the person being marketed to that they need/want the product. Whether this is Reese's Pieces in E.T., a celebrity shilling something on Twitter, a pop up ad, an add in a magazine, or a Super Bowl ad, the goal is all the same. The problem is people haven't quite learned how social media marketing works yet and people that are getting paid to advertise for a product don't make this abundantly clear. This learning curve will eventually go away. I suspect that similar marketing phenomena also had a learning curve before people realized that they were being advertised to. The goal of the advertiser is to remain ahead of the public.

A legitimate class persay, nope. But I have worked doing marketing and promotions for a half dozen different agencies for Fortune 50 clients for the last 15 years on the side. And it definitely is about staying ahead of the curve. It's funny seeing some of the stuff we did 5-6 years ago that was cutting edge, now showing up at your local Dunkin Donuts or car dealer.

I agree that there is a definite learning curve to social media. When we see an ad on TV, we know that there is a cost associated with that ad, and that the average person can't just walk to the TV station and say "Here are my thoughts, give me an ad" so when viewing the ad, we know that it is an ad, and not necessarily 100% factual. With Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter et al, anyone can log into that medium and create a platform to promote their thoughts. Until people realize that they need to disclose any sources of bias, it's gonna be a slippery slope. And the FTC needs some teeth to back up their rules.

 

[Clever Name]

Social media has a tremendous number of shills, plants and stooges among their ranks. As a result few people trust or rely upon social media for accurate or worthwhile information. Social media is dirty as well as corrupt and its members are not worth the air they breathe. They get no respect for good reasons.