More Disney Fun with Social Media (pics included!)

[RSoxNo1]

What perspective (pro or con) they provide is irrelevant to the issue of disclosure and the FTC.

This thread also assumes the photographers are the ones who pick what images get posted... when it's likely submissions to a editor who picks and publishes the works they want to be seen on the feed.

Disney makes it obvious right on the front page...
"Disney parks as seen through the eyes of selected photographers from around the world"

Where is it inferring anything but a selection from the artistic eye of a selected group of photographers - It doesn't say 'fans', it doesn't say 'recent vacationers who just now discovered the internet', it doesn't say "highlights of recent trip reports..." - there is no misleading or deception here.

It's a Disney sanctioned feed of pictures taken from a hand picked list of contributors. Its painfully obvious that this is a DISNEY feed, not a 'community' feed.

If Disney hid who was behind the feed... or where the images came from... there might be a point to be made. But they do neither. It's very clearly a Disney sanctioned feed, and if anyone thinks things from Disney, are not controlled by Disney... well then they need help.

I don't have an issue with Disney having fan photos compiled on an official site. I too am curious as to what the arrangement is. Whatever the arrangement may be though the photos aren't being used without the photographers permission. For that reason, I can only assume that the photographers are being compensated somehow, or recognize that getting their name out there, promoted by a company like Disney also has value.

 

[asianway]

If folks are paid to disrupt discussions, I'm pretty sure they are committing a crime. I work for a company that (I'm pretty sure) is a larger company than Disney. Every now and again I must acknoledge that I am aware of our Social Media Policy. It basically tells me that if I am to comment/join a discussion of one of our products or services, I need to mention who I work for and that my opinions are my own and not those of my employer or I might face criminal charges.

Disneys social media policy is a colossal joke, someone posted it a while back on one of the boards-it has no teeth. They have lifestyling CMs blogging on the clock about how awful their job is for gods sake

 

[Atomicmickey]

Can I be a social media ?

You're on the list!

I guess you're not. 'Cause you seem to be the sort of guy that would have
brought everyone who posts here on a Disney Cruise if you had truly
sold out.

I feel like I'm in the movie "The Thing", where you don't know who has
been absorbed by the thing. Is there some sort of blood test that will
cause the true sell-outs to explode in a grotesque multi-headed amalgam of Mickey,
Ursula, Duffy, and Malefecent?

'Cause that would be cool.

 

[asianway]

You're on the list!

I guess you're not. 'Cause you seem to be the sort of guy that would have
brought everyone who posts here on a Disney Cruise if you had truly
sold out.

I feel like I'm in the movie "The Thing", where you don't know who has
been absorbed by the thing. Is there some sort of blood test that will
cause the true sell-outs to explode in a grotesque multi-headed amalgam of Mickey,
Ursula, Duffy, and Malefecent?

'Cause that would be cool.

I prefer They Live myself, with Spirit in the Rowdy Roddy Piper role

 

[TalkingHead]

I prefer They Live myself, with Spirit in the Rowdy Roddy Piper role

I'll supply the bubblegum.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

I'm SO not getting in the middle of all this, but it is very odd to me that Tom hasn't posted here.

The silence feels deafening.

 

[Atomicmickey]

I prefer They Live myself, with Spirit in the Rowdy Roddy Piper role

Now you're talkin.

 

[WDW1974]

For real? I always thought we were just a blip on Disney's radar, I find it hard to believe they would spend money to employ people to mess with us and our discussion!?!
Interesting job, though! "So what do you do for a living?" "I'm a professional internet troll, and you?"

It's not simply Disney. MANY corporations do the same thing.

One of the worst I've seen is Royal Caribbean Cruise Line. They have people on all the cruise forums who shout down and have posts critical of the product ridiculed and removed. Many of the folks doing so get paid simply by cruising for free or vastly reduced prices on a monthly basis. (Google Royal Champions for an appetizer to the world of paid shills on 'independent' forums)

If you don't think that some of our discussions and some posters in particular get attention from Disney to where they would want to intervene, then all I can say is welcome to the bold new MAGICal world of social media.

 

[WDW1974]

I am far from a conspiracy theorist. And I typically don't think too seriously about a corporation's defense strategy when it comes to negative feedback or criticism on forums or social media platforms like this.

But I will say - I have been a member of this site for years now. And a reader of it years before that. And I have never witnessed the kind of pro-Disney, anti-criticism campaigning that has been occuring just within the last few months. It is almost as if there has been a flood of these individuals within a relatively short period of time. I don't presume to know what has prompted this. Perhaps Disney acknowledges that certain members on here have connections and may leak information (a lot is happening after all), so they wish to badger and attempt to drive them out of certain websites and forums. Or it could be something as simple as a group(?) of cast members going rogue and wanting to defend their new employer.

Whatever it is...it seems very fishy and convenient. We have always had the occasional jt, or bulls, etc. But this is becoming a bit overwhelming. There seems to be very intentional distraction from topics, and very abrasive reactions and comments toward very certain individuals who not only give us a lot of the information we discuss, but also question the corporate strategy and culture of Disney. Just sayin...

You've noticed that, have ya?

 

[WDW1974]

Has anyone read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rodent-Disney-Devours-World/dp/0345422805

Disney buying off reporters with free trips and perks is not new. It's been going on for a long time. Not surprising that they're doing the same with the "new media"

No one has ever said that it hasn't been done. I've attended Disney parties/events/junkets dating back to 1990, so I have a very up close view of what goes on.

There is a huge chasm behind professional journalists though and Disney Lifestyle Bloggers/Podcasters/Webmasters ... that is the KEY.

 

[WDW1974]

What is so unethical about it? Anyone can run there website/blog the way they feel fit. Those other sites/blogs state they are Disney fan sites and nothing more. If they are given perks from Disney to cover topics the mouse wants covered so be it, as it is there website/blog.

I only feel it is unethical when they aren't disclosing that they in fact are being given a product or service and if they opt to lie and say everything is MAGICal while ignoring real issues. They claim to be fans and if they are they should be amongst the most demanding consumers ... not the type that say 'who cares whether the yeti is working, my eyes are closed most of the time and you go by so fast' or 'who cares whether they clean the walkways or carpeting, I never look down' etc.

They should also disclose whether they would pay with their own money for the products or services they are getting for free or discounted. If you are eating a $40 a la carte theme park steak then you should state whether you've done so with your own money and whether you would again. If you were comped a week at the Grand Flo that would cost you $4,000 if you had to pay for it, then you should be honest in telling people whether it's truly worth that, not that they should just stay there when you didn't pay a penny for the room.

It's all about transparency (something I keep hearing about politics). If everything is in the open, then there isn't any issue beyond whether some shareholders (like myself) think Disney should be spending this money in this capacity.

Very simple.

 

[WDW1974]

Right. I'd just like to know who they are.
And, WDW1974 seems to be plugged into reliable information. So, I wouldn't
doubt what he says.

So, let's take a different tack. Here are some sites I go to.

Which are unreliable because they're being paid off, and which aren't?
Who are the social media whores in this list?

www.wdwmagic.com
www.************.com
www.orlandothemeparknews.com
www.wdwinfo.com
www.wdwtoday.com
www.jimhillmedia.com
www.allears.net
www.laughingplace.com
www.blueskydisney.com
www.disneyreport.com
www.wdwfanboys.com
www.stitchkingdom.com
www.thedisneyblog.com
www.screamscape.com
www.
www.mouseplanet.com
www.micechat.com
www.imaginerding.com
www.************.com
www.disneytouristblog.com
www.touringplans.com
www.intercot.com

I'm just not gonna get into a site by site review, many of which I am not even familiar with. And in many cases it would be against the rules here and my posts would disappear. If you read what I say and do some research, you'll find plenty of info out there ... there's a wonderful 1200 post thread from LaughingPlace.com from summer 2011 that ought to be a great starting point.

 

[WDW1974]

I just read this whole thread. Whew! Contentious. Lots of personal attacks.

If Spirit has a common thread in his posts, it's this. In ye olden days of newspapers, there was the concept of full disclosure. When a journalist was compensated by a company, or had a business relationship with a company, he or she would say so in order to disclose possible bias. I think Spirit is just saying that Disney bloggers and other genres of bloggers (such as the maligned "mommies") need to comport themselves as professional journalists, by disclosing when they have been compensated by Disney. And any sort of freebie should count as compensation.

This seems like common sense to me... why it's a basis for attacking Spirit I don't know.

You attack me, you derail the discussion ... it becomes an internet flame war and nothing really gets taken seriously. That IS the purpose of those who play the same tired game (and I don't mean disagree with my points, that certainly can be done ... the attacking of me and looking for an agenda beyond what I state is the problem).

 

[WDW1974]

I was thinking overnight. Why am I thinking about this so much, I don't know.
But, obviously others are as well.

I know why I'm thinking about it now instead of sleeping. And that's my incredible nervousness over the election tomorrow ... so why not stay up as late as possible talking Disney?

So, thinking about movies. I read a lot of movie websites and movie reviewers.
The "press junket", "press kit", "premiere screening" culture is now and always
has been pervasive. Generally from top reviewers on down, people get swag,
free screenings, and sometimes trips to huge premieres. Across the board, you
rarely read "I got in to see this movie for free, got a cool shirt, and free hors
d'oeuvres", even more rarely "they flew me out to see the movie", but we know
this goes on all the time. Disclosure is sporadic at best.

Movie critics are paid to review films. Obviously, they need to see them before the public does. Seeing a film at a free screening does nothing to influence them (here's a Spirited secret: one of my first jobs ever was as a print media film critic) because it's part of the job, and if they rip a Disney film or a Paramount film or a Fox film, they don't have to worry that they'll be removed from the list. ... And film critics don't get flown out to premieres at all unless you're talking about maybe 2-3 of the biggest (and, usually, their company pays for that).

This seems to be a similar situation, building on an established model. I'm sure
this goes on in other industries as well. Actually, I've been the beneficiary of
exclusive tickets n' stuff before in my career, in both the film industry and the
games industry. I didn't blab about it on the internet, but I don't think anyone
would have cared . . .

You're comparing apples to bananas here. It's not similar at all and it's a trap that many fall into when having this discussion.

Here's the deal. I don't doubt that this is happening. So many times I have
visited these sites and blogs and gone "they're there AGAIN?" "they're cruising AGAIN"?
I've been on a Disney cruise. It's a wallet emptying exercise. I have wondered how
these people with their non-1 percenter lives manage to get to the parks every six
weeks or so. It only makes sense that they're being subsidized.

Please, it's worse than that. I know Lifetylers who were thinking of living in their cars a few years ago ... people who would order a Big Mac without cheese at McD's because they'd demand the 40 cents off ... people who didn't travel to DL for eight years and suddenly have been to Club 33 almost as many times since ... people who defaulted on credit ... people who would never have paid to spend one night at the Grand Flo ... and suddenly they're living at WDW 5-6 days a week, dining there, purchasing merchandise. The question to ask, really, is where is that money coming from?

So where should the pressure be applied, and to what end? There may be, probably
is, an agreement between the two, "if you talk about being subsidized, you no longer
will be". I don't know.

Is the point to stop the subsidizing? Or is the point just disclosure? Why should either
part of that arrangement consider this? I'd almost think the bloggers have the most
to lose. Disney will find other ways to market. These people would have their lifestyle
crashed, big time. It would be interesting.

You'd think that. But what if one of these high profile bloggers does something illegal or embarrasing to Disney?
People have a problem when I use the example of pedophilia, but really ... does that thought not come even slightly through the brains reading this? How many of these folks even have families?

As for me, I'd still like to sort out which sites and people are being discussed.

And, I'd like to know more about the website that Disney tried to shut down and how
they would do that.

All I'm saying is the information is out there.

Last time I used the words 'Disney', child' and 'exploitation' in a social media post, with evidence that backed my claims, I was basically asked to either post about what character breakfast was my favorite or leave a site I considered my home for years. ... Of course, now it's dying and they want me back (but I have no intention of returning!)

 

[WDW1974]

And on the topic of the thread.. when we are looking at a DISNEY created feed... who should Disney be making disclosures about?

When you see a byline on an article in a newspaper... what sort of disclosure are you looking for regarding the person being the source the article? Is the author a freelancer? A contractor? An employee? Unless done under Editorial - isn't it assumed the article is published under the authority of the publication we are reading? Does the employement status of the author come into that much question?

This tangent about blogger disclosure doesn't apply to Disney's own feeds... this is a DISNEY feed, not 3rd party.

Ah, flynnibus, you do like to pick wings off of flies.

When bloggers work for Disney, disclosure is a key on their own sites. I couldn't help but notice that Tom Bricker indeed changed his FTC disclosure notice on his site to specifically mention that he had worked as freelancer for Disney, which means he was paid. He simply did the correct and ethical and classy thing.

I would guess as part of whatever contract he signed that he isn't able to discuss it or he'd be here, but at least he isn't hiding and pretending that wasn't paid or didn't receive perks for his 'work'.

Good for Tom. Personally, I think Disney's staff photogs suck and the company could do a lot worse than hiring Mr. Bricker as he has an incredible eye for detail. But that's just one Spirit's opinion.

 

[WDW1974]

You have to be a Redneck to use it.

Ain't got any worries there, my friend, do ya?

Shoot anything lately? Skin anything lately? Got the still working? (Mrs. Lee could use your help on that one!)

 

[WDW1974]

Can I be a social media ?

If you can dream it, then you can do it ... yes you can, yes you can ...

 

[WDW1974]

I'm SO not getting in the middle of all this, but it is very odd to me that Tom hasn't posted here.

The silence feels deafening.

Coward.

And I don't wish to speak for Tom, but I think he is between a rock and a hard (Disney) place.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Can I be a social media ?

If you can dream it, then you can do it ... yes you can, yes you can ...

Somehow seems to fit well with both of your comments (in different ways). I'll let that sink in a little bit.

I'm going to get modded aren't I?

 

[The Mom]

You need to understand that if 74 or a couple of other people here start naming names "The Mom" would be on that post like a duck on a June bug. The post would be removed. Just ask "The Mom".

I will repeat it one more time. I do not want other websites and their webmasters/moderators being "bad-mouthed" here because I wouldn't appreciate the same being done to this website/me elsewhere. Does it happen? Of course, but, as my mother would say, "My house, my rules, and I don't think that behavior is very nice. What other mothers (moderators) allow is up to them."

So, please keep the accusations in PMs. Take anything you read on the net with a grain of salt.
I will also state that I receive no compensation from anyone for what I do, EXCEPT, that I no longer pay a subscription for access to the PML. In case anyone thinks I'm a Disney "plant."