Social Media Conference Coming to WDW ...

[The Mom]

It's more of a win-win because the whole group/conference exists to justify the growing desire by companies like Disney to attract Social Media/Social Networking platforms and the Disney Social Media team is sponsoring an event where the conclusions of everyone in attendance are already known and fit with the direction the company has opted to take ...

I think I'll make a copy of this post because even though there's nothing untrue being said above, I can see it disappearing.

And you would be correct.

 

[montyz81]

This is interesting. This is one week after IBM's Social Collaboration Event at the Swan and Dolphin. Bet Disney planned it like that on purpose due to the fact that the same type of people will be at IBM Connect (formally Lotusphere)

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Anyone here want to pay $1,100 to hear folks pretend they know what they are talking about?

http://store.ragan.com/ProductDetai...8A1F9FA27EA225E6B&promo=219854344611&grfr=Yes

For $1050... ABSOLUTELY. But $1100? Come on. That's just pushing it too far.

 

[nytimez]

The irony of course is that Disney was dragged kicking and screaming into the social media age...

 

[montyz81]

The irony of course is that Disney was dragged kicking and screaming into the social media age...

Most companies are. Nobody gets Social business. IBM does... see latest Gartner Magic Quadrant.

 

[flynnibus]

The most telling statement on that page is found in the list "You will learn how to" -- "Identify escalating crises on social networks and control them fast."

Because we all know controling the message is more important than improving the product you're selling.

PR has been around forever... You can't live without it.

 

[c-one]

They hold the Mashable conference at the Contemporary too, don't they? I'm also on the "nothing particularly sinister" side. Although if you want a real steal, I'll bet I know just as much about Pinterest as half the "experts" at this conference, and I'll only charge you $750 to watch my Powerpoint presentation!

 

[Tigger1988]

They hold the Mashable conference at the Contemporary too, don't they? I'm also on the "nothing particularly sinister" side. Although if you want a real steal, I'll bet I know just as much about Pinterest as half the "experts" at this conference, and I'll only charge you $750 to watch my Powerpoint presentation!

Yup and they have for years. Nothing ground breaking here.

 

[ChrisFL]

Social Media can potentially help companies, but so many companies have no clue how to utilize it. Some of the thing I've seen my employer do are downright hilarious (but I won't get into it here)

 

[TalkingHead]

PR has been around forever... You can't live without it.

It's not just the presence of PR. Obviously WDW has engaged in PR since day 1. But in the past, *I would argue*, there were substantial improvements to the parks that warranted the PR. In the last ten years, the amount of substantial improvements to the parks has decreased while the amount of PR (annual marketing strategies, for instance) has seemingly increased. That's a problem from a consumer standpoint.

Exactly. I'm not sure what the fuss is about with this thread. The message is the same, the medium has changed.

In this case the medium has the appearance of being democratic (anyone can participate in social media and add their voice to the mix), and yet we see that corporations obviously want to control what those voices say. They don't want to respond to criticism, they want to silence it. I think that's different than GE or Coke or Lucky Strike running commercials in the 1950s.

 

[SirNim]

In the last ten years, the amount of substantial improvements to the parks has decreased while the amount of PR (annual marketing strategies, for instance) has seemingly increased.

Let's start the parade of publicity! It's...(wait for it)...LE FOU'S BREW!! Wooo!

 

[flynnibus]

It's not just the presence of PR. Obviously WDW has engaged in PR since day 1. But in the past, *I would argue*, there were substantial improvements to the parks that warranted the PR

PR is more than just promotion though. And when you are upset about

The most telling statement on that page is found in the list "You will learn how to" -- "Identify escalating crises on social networks and control them fast."

Because we all know controling the message is more important than improving the product you're selling.

That is a function of PR - trying to control and influence the impression of the company or product during crisis. It's not an 'either or' thing with improving the product. Handling public perception is a full time responsibility regardless of if you are rolling out new additions or not.

You pointed out this session as if it's some new evil or focusing on the wrong things - this has been a function of a PR team always. This is a session about handling those types of situations with social networks vs fixed press. In other words.. entirely legit and on topic.

In the last ten years, the amount of substantial improvements to the parks has decreased while the amount of PR (annual marketing strategies, for instance) has seemingly increased. That's a problem from a consumer standpoint.

Product Marketing != Public/Press Relations

In this case the medium has the appearance of being democratic (anyone can participate in social media and add their voice to the mix), and yet we see that corporations obviously want to control what those voices say. They don't want to respond to criticism, they want to silence it. I think that's different than GE or Coke or Lucky Strike running commercials in the 1950s.

You continue to confuse marketing with PR - they are different things. Of course corporations want to influence or control what is out there in social media -- exactly the same as they want to influence or control the message in traditional media and have tried to do so for centuries. It's no different -- just the players involved and how one handles them. The game hasn't changed -- purely who is on the game board and how the pieces see themselves.

 

[maxairmike]

In this case the medium has the appearance of being democratic (anyone can participate in social media and add their voice to the mix), and yet we see that corporations obviously want to control what those voices say. They don't want to respond to criticism, they want to silence it. I think that's different than GE or Coke or Lucky Strike running commercials in the 1950s.

I bolded the relevant part. The companies who "get" social media understand that you don't silence the criticism, you use the criticism to show potential and current customers that you are responsive, want to understand your customers, and use it as a chance to maybe educate about your products/services if the criticism was caused by an inadequate understanding or poor communication. The moment you take the stance of silencing is the moment that you lose the entire community. Its interesting if you watch Disney's social media, because of how they approach criticism. It isn't blatantly trying to silence the critics, per se, but they're still trying to use "older" media methods to deflect and distract, and it isn't always working.

Sorry, instinctively went back to my previous desk job mindset and had to get that out there. Return to mocking the bloggers.

 

[TalkingHead]

PR is more than just promotion though. And when you are upset about



That is a function of PR - trying to control and influence the impression of the company or product during crisis. It's not an 'either or' thing with improving the product. Handling public perception is a full time responsibility regardless of if you are rolling out new additions or not.

You pointed out this session as if it's some new evil or focusing on the wrong things - this has been a function of a PR team always. This is a session about handling those types of situations with social networks vs fixed press. In other words.. entirely legit and on topic.



Product Marketing != Public/Press Relations



You continue to confuse marketing with PR - they are different things. Of course corporations want to influence or control what is out there in social media -- exactly the same as they want to influence or control the message in traditional media and have tried to do so for centuries. It's no different -- just the players involved and how one handles them. The game hasn't changed -- purely who is on the game board and how the pieces see themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess Disney's manipulation of public opinion is nothing new. And WDW has never been better! A Disney-subsidized blogger told me so.

 

[WDW1974]

Ehhh...I still don't see this as them "pushing" anything, they just get their name attached to a big conference. If Disney were actually hosting and providing the majority of speakers for it, I could maybe see Spirit's angle. What if it were being sponsored by any other park/resort with large conference space? Its a non-issue in my book.

What exactly is my 'angle'?

I'm trying to figure that out. I have an opinion regarding the way WDW Co. handles its Social Media Department, and I have lots of info that I can toss out to back up that opinion.

I started this thread because somene passed on the info on the convention and I thought it was interesting.

 

[WDW1974]

I know who you're talking about

And while I understand most people on this board have a deep, inner hatred for social media, I must defend my profession (yes, I get paid to tweet.) It can drive business goals, especially with a travel/entertainment brand like Disney. There's a reason they are pumping money & time into this. (That being said, I got a media pass to a fancy Disney event in another country, and the way they treated the mommy-bloggers there was shocking and unnecessarily expensive.)

And, to get back on thread topic, this is hardly news. Social media conferences happen at Disney all the time. Mashable (perhaps the most famous social media blog turned major news site) holds their biggest conference in WDW every year (and charges a pretty three thousand dollars to attend.)

I bolded what was a very key point. You get PAID to Tweet. I have no idea about what. And I doubt you'll tell anyone here what it is (which again speaks to the dirty, slimy way that social media is being used/abused by many companies).

What if people get paid to post here? What if Disney has someone who is paid to derail every serious discussion here that paints Disney in an unfavorable light? You must notice how serious intellectual debate often gets buried by one or two individuals. What if every post puts another $100 into their bank account?

You attended a DLP (assuming here, but based on how Disney handles social media and controls it in Paris, unlike HK or Tokyo, I think I'm right) event for free where you watched them pay off Mommy Bloggers? And even as a paid '' (sorry, just using the old dictionary for the defininition), you found Disney's efforts excessive?
Well, so do I here in the USA.

The money being spent and the freebies being lavished on nobodies with blogs is simply astounding and it is bad business. It isn't growing new guests, new audiences. It is preaching to the choir and throwing large sums of money away in doing so. Yes, in case you wondered, I'd fire almost everyone at Celebration Place and start from scratch.

 

[WDW1974]

wannab@dis, post: 5169001, member: 8408[/EMAIL]]
For someone who hates social media so much, '74 sure loves to use it (this site) to spread his agenda and attack people he doesn't like by name while doing so anonymously.

Wannabe, I don't hate social media. It has great value. I see it being misused by TWDC and at great cost and that's forgetting the negative implications of them getting into bed with some very low character individuals.

I don't have an 'agenda' ... if you think I do, I'd love to hear what you think it is.




I am not a public figure, much like you wannabe. I don't have a blog. I don't ask Disney for anything beyond what I pay for. ... I am not comparable (THANK GOD!) to any of these folks, nor would I wish to be.

EDIT: I'd really like an answer to the question I posed that disappeared almost immediately after being posted whether here or in private. There IS a difference between private people and public figures such as media. I understand that people here may not want a ing match with other bloggers ... but why can they not be discussed at all and why is it dependent on who they are ... Jim Hill and Lou Mongello seem to be OK targets (certainly Al Lutz) yet others are like He Who Shall Not be Named from Potter? I'd sorta like to know what rules we're playing under. Thanks.

 

[WDW1974]

PR has been around forever... You can't live without it.

I've worked in PR. It is needed. No one is saying otherwise.

How Disney is using Social Media is a different matter. ... Much like business models in running WDW, there are more than one way to run a social media program.

 

[WDW1974]

Social Media can potentially help companies, but so many companies have no clue how to utilize it. Some of the thing I've seen my employer do are downright hilarious (but I won't get into it here)

Exactly.

This is what I've seen from Disney. They are clueless, largely ... no difference than a decade ago when the current Prez of the DLR took me out to dinner for advice on 'neutralizing Al Lutz' ... they didn't get it then and they don't get it now.

 

[WDW1974]

In this case the medium has the appearance of being democratic (anyone can participate in social media and add their voice to the mix), and yet we see that corporations obviously want to control what those voices say. They don't want to respond to criticism, they want to silence it. I think that's different than GE or Coke or Lucky Strike running commercials in the 1950s.

It really is that simple.

Social media should be a two way street that benefits everyone, the consumer and the corporation.

Now, it's all BS ... it's one way shoveling of marketing talking points to addicts.