Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[PhotoDave219]

Dave, I totally got and followed your points about her mis-representing herself on her Linked-In (and most likely professionally, though I've seen no proof of that outside of her Linked-In). She is in the wrong, she is mis-representing herself, and it is horrid.

However, I've watched two people who I enjoy on the forum sit here and bash on this worthless blogger over and over again, and I'm not sure I see the point.

Lets say you go to hire me to mow your lawn, and I say I have extensive experience with landscaping and have even worked for Disney (even though I was just a subcontractor).

After a few months, your lawn is green and well kept, and you are happy with my results. Then you find out that I was merely a subcontractor who did nothing in the actual Parks, but rather mowed the lawn near the BP. However, your lawn is green and well kept, and you are happy with my results.

Does my misrepresentation to you mean that you will fire me? Because I lied? Or do you overlook it because you are pleased with the results you are paying for?

Interesting question. In that particular instance, because of the role the landscaping plays I would use it as an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement or find someone else. Landscapers are a dime a dozen. So are PR people.

However. A landscaper is not the public social media face of an international theme park destination resort. Disney is supposed to represent certain ideals (honesty, being nice to other people, doing the right things, WWWD, etc., or such is my view) and when you are the face of the company in that role and it comes out that you misrepresented yourself rather badly, then the company has to rethink its relationship with you. Its a company of 65,000 roles and I think they can find JFB a less public role where she can continue to be an asset for the company where she wont be in the spotlight.

I've been pretty firm in my views here and nothing anyone will say will change my mind. I'm pretty adamant in not debating the issue either.

 

[englanddg]

Interesting question. In that particular instance, because of the role the landscaping plays I would use it as an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement or find someone else. Landscapers are a dime a dozen. So are PR people.

However. A landscaper is not the public social media face of an international theme park destination resort. Disney is supposed to represent certain ideals (honesty, being nice to other people, doing the right things, WWWD, etc., or such is my view) and when you are the face of the company in that role and it comes out that you misrepresented yourself rather badly, then the company has to rethink its relationship with you. Its a company of 65,000 roles and I think they can find JFB a less public role where she can continue to be an asset for the company where she wont be in the spotlight.

I've been pretty firm in my views here and nothing anyone will say will change my mind. I'm pretty adamant in not debating the issue either.

I'd prefer not to debate the issue, not the intent of my query...

Merely to UNDERSTAND the issue.

Are you claiming that Disney is a company immune from politics and political maneuvering?

Are you saying that Disney has a perfect track record of not employing poorly qualified individuals into management or PR roles?

Has Disney as a company, never made a bad decision? And even stuck with that decision?

I really am not sure what the issue is. She's a crap blogger who pretty much no one pays attention to, and yet, she is the topic of this thread.

So, I wish to be clear, I'm not attacking any standpoint on the issue, as I clearly am not informed enough to debate it. I want to UNDERSTAND the issue...

I just don't see it.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'd prefer not to debate the issue, not the intent of my query...

Merely to UNDERSTAND the issue.

Are you claiming that Disney is a company immune from politics and political maneuvering?

Are you saying that Disney has a perfect track record of not employing poorly qualified individuals into management or PR roles?

Has Disney as a company, never made a bad decision? And even stuck with that decision?

I really am not sure what the issue is. She's a crap blogger who pretty much no one pays attention to, and yet, she is the topic of this thread.

So, I wish to be clear, I'm not attacking any standpoint on the issue, as I clearly am not informed enough to debate it. I want to UNDERSTAND the issue...

I just don't see it.

When you have someone who is the public social media face of the company and it turns out that she's been misrepresenting herself, its something that the company cant have. The company cant have its credibility questioned when that person represents it for their primary international destination resort.

Thats the best I can explain it, it comes down to credibility. You cant have someone representing your company to the press when they've been shown to misrepresent themselves. IMO anyways.

The rest of the points are many pages ago when people were nit-picking semantics and splitting hairs. Read through it if you want.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'd prefer not to debate the issue, not the intent of my query...

Merely to UNDERSTAND the issue.

Are you claiming that Disney is a company immune from politics and political maneuvering?

Are you saying that Disney has a perfect track record of not employing poorly qualified individuals into management or PR roles?

Has Disney as a company, never made a bad decision? And even stuck with that decision?

I really am not sure what the issue is. She's a crap blogger who pretty much no one pays attention to, and yet, she is the topic of this thread.

So, I wish to be clear, I'm not attacking any standpoint on the issue, as I clearly am not informed enough to debate it. I want to UNDERSTAND the issue...

I just don't see it.

And thank you for taking a respectful and mature tone with this. Others have not.

 

[englanddg]

When you have someone who is the public social media face of the company and it turns out that she's been misrepresenting herself, its something that the company cant have. The company cant have its credibility questioned when that person represents it for their primary international destination resort.

Thats the best I can explain it, it comes down to credibility. You cant have someone representing your company to the press when they've been shown to misrepresent themselves. IMO anyways.

The rest of the points are many pages ago when people were nit-picking semantics and splitting hairs. Read through it if you want.

I appreciate your comment, as I wasn't meaning to attack you or WDW1974, I just wanted to join the convo as it's been going on for a few days now and I'm curious (and don't understand it)...

I've been following it for days. I expected when WDW1974 dropper her name that I'd google her name, and find a blog that relayed important information about the parks.

Instead, her stuff reads even worse than a Food Network special on WDW...

It just leaves me a bit confused. I'm very much into Disney, never heard of her until this started coming about. She's a silly marketing blogger at best. And for that, I discount pretty much everything she writes as crap.

So, that leads to my confusion. I don't see the issue...if it's not her, they'll find someone else to spew out nonsense to those who don't know the parks.

It's marketing, clear as day.

 

[WDW1974]

I suggested no agenda for you to proceed, I have however questioned your motives. I just don't see the reason for your vitriol. You've both been very vague about it, and very hostile to anyone who questions why. But since this thread is so popular, it comes up a lot in the stream. So...lets move on...

OK, semantics. Agenda vs. motives. And, no, I haven't been hostile to anyone. I am annoyed at two regulars here who are doing a tour de force defense of the indefensible behavior of a public Disney PR figure's incredibly unethical behavior.

I have a lot of agendas. Just so we're crystal clear. Seeing Social Media at WDW reorganized and seeing unethical liars lose their jobs most certainly is one. Again, so we're clear. I want to see poor Blondie fired ... canned ... shown the door. She has earned it.

As I said, this is a suspicion. I have no idea who you are, or who he is. I just know you keep ranting night after night about this blonde blogger who mis-represented herself. I am merely trying to grasp what the distaste over her (versus plenty of other "Disney Bloggers") is. My best guess is fiscal loss, hence my use of the words "Meh, this sounds" vs "Meh, this IS". I don't know, and I increasingly don't care.

Well, to me (and likely Dave as well considering his acclaimed body of work) it is VERY insulting to suggest this. I have never met Jenn. I have never worked for TWDC. I have never applied for a job with WDW Co, let alone its social media dept. I won't speak for Dave as he is very capable of speaking for himself. But my pay grade is quite a bit removed from anyone at Celebration Place.

Yes, people do lie, cheat and steal. Don't tell me you've never in your career said you didn't with all confidence imply you can 100% do something you were not able to do at the time and then learned on the job and done it. If everything requires experience, no one would ever get jobs or opportunities. That is part of success.

I have never mispresented my abilities, sorry. I have a significant and unique skill set and it speaks for itself. I have never lied to gain employment. I have never even embellished. Often I've even played somethings down so I wouldn't be considered 'too good' for the position or someone who would jump and leave six weeks into the job.

With respect to her lying on her Linked-In, I am not going to defend that, because I think you and Dave have that covered. She flat out lied. But, what difference does it make considering her position?

Ethics in journalism and PR are pretty set in stone. It makes plenty of difference. Do you even know who she is (she's the Social Media Manager for Disney Parks, not a Mommy that blogs from home in Iowa about Disney while her hubby works and her kids go to school!) Her job may well involve fluff, but it isn't.

That is just sheer arrogance. And, I know I'm addressing two people who have been here a long time when I'm new, but it really seems like it's worthless to the forum. I don't care what you "bring" to the forum, I didn't come here because of you, and I could just as easily go to other forums and get interactions that are not as petty.

No, it isn't arrogance. It's telling you that if you don't like the discussion then why not find one that you do like. I don't join theads here on subjects that don't interest me ... I can't understand why some folks love to do so with my threads.

There is nothing 'petty' going on, but, again, if you feel otherwise ... well what did you say?

Now, you will invite me to leave, I suspect.

Ah, that's it ...

And with respect to the thread, since it's long since been a popular one, you didn't start the thread with "This blondie lady is horrid"...

All the bitterness...that's what I don't get.

No, I didn't. I wasn't aware of what she had done until a late last week, so it's safe to say most of this thread has very little to do with Blondie.

The bitterness comes when people are being purposely obtuse/ignorant or playing semantics games to distract from the important points being made.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Dear oh dear...what ill temper, what name calling in the last few pages. Manners and decorum, people, thank you very much.

With respect to her lying on her Linked-In

She flat out lied.

Now just a minute there...

Let us not get too carried away by the vehemence by which absolutes are presented. Are we positive that she lied? Reality has a tendency to be more complex. One might forget that many a prospective employer actually appreciates LinkedIn profiles that state a clear function and a large corporation. There is more at work than just association with the large entity for its prestige.

Nobody knows what a Ledger is, but everybody knows what the NYTC is. Nobody is connected with the Ledger, but thousands and thousands are with the NYTC. LinkedIn is a social network site at heart. Networks are grouped around large corporations. NYTC yields enormous results, you can find anybody you want, for any function. The Ledger will find you no-one.
If I need a manager for my new restaurant in San Fransisco, then I don't scour LinkedIn for 'Manager, Fulton'. No, I enter the search terms for major restaurant chains, such as Levy, the parent company of Fulton. This will yield useful results such as 'Local Manager, Levy Corporation'.

It may come as a complete surprise, but many prospective employers are not interested in what business unit or local division you worked at. They want to know the parent company. They really do would rather read 'Cook, The Walt Disney Company', than 'Cook, Via Napoli'. It is more useful information, more professional.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I find this thread and these forums will be much easier to navigate now that there is an ignore button.

 

[englanddg]

Dear oh dear...what ill temper, what name calling in the last few pages. Manners and decorum, people, thank you very much.


Now just a minute there...

Don't get carried away by the vehemence by which absolutes are presented. Reality has a tendency to be more complex. One might forget that many a prospective employer actually appreciates LinkedIn profiles that state a clear function and a large corporation. There is more at work than just association with the large entity for its prestige.

Nobody knows what a Ledger is, but everybody knows what the NYTC is. Nobody is connected with the Ledger, but thousands and thousands are with the NYTC. LinkedIn is a social network site at heart. Networks are grouped around large corporations. NYTC yields enormous results, you can find anybody you want, for any function. The Ledger will find you no-one.
If I need a manager for my new restaurant in San Fransisco, then I don't scour LinkedIn for 'Manager, Fulton'. No, I enter the search terms for major restaurant chains, such as Levy, the parent company of Fulton. This will yield useful results such as 'Local Manager, Levy Corporation'.

It may come as a complete surprise, but many prospective employers are not interested in what business unit or local division you worked at. They want to know the parent company. They really do would rather read 'Cook, The Walt Disney Company', than 'Cook, Via Napoli'. It is more useful information, more professional.

That's a fair point. Also, until VERY recently, Linked-In wasn't seen as the be all end all of Resumes (or CVs, choose your term)...

It's what you put on your actual application / Resume that matters.

 

[WDW1974]

Standards of Business Conduct (TWDC, all employees):

This is the intro to the handbook, written by Bob Iger himself (or one of his PR folks with his signature!):

"Integrity, honesty, trust, respect, playing by the rules, and teamwork – these define not only the operating principles of our Company, but also the spirit of our diverse global workforce and how we function."

That should deadend any questions on the behavior of JFB. Oh, and there are rules for PR and Social Media that go further ... but none of that is needed.

 

[englanddg]

I find this thread and these forums will be much easier to navigate now that there is an ignore button.

I'd agree, except for the fact that it is just as easy to "not respond" than to "ignore"...

Ignore should be used not to dilute your own self-righteous opinion, but rather to ignore trolls.

Once you start viewing those who have different opinions, and defend them, as trolls, you lose overall. If you can't explain your reasoning, and defend it, then perhaps you should review your reasoning.

I use the proverbial "you", and didn't mean that to direct it at you...I just hate users on other channels I op on (not this forum obviously) using "ignore" to dodge honest discussion.

So, I hope this post isn't taken personally, because it wasn't directed at you specifically...outside of using ignore.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

She's a silly marketing blogger at best. And for that, I discount pretty much everything she writes as crap.

So, that leads to my confusion. I don't see the issue...if it's not her, they'll find someone else to spew out nonsense to those who don't know the parks.

It's marketing, clear as day.

She gets paid to write marketing nonsense. The entire Disney Parks blog is mostly a waste of time for those with more than a passing interest in Disney Parks. It's short articles with fun pictures for casual fans. I never read it unless somebody links to it here.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'd agree, except for the fact that it is just as easy to "not respond" than to "ignore"...

Ignore should be used not to dilute your own self-righteous opinion, but rather to ignore trolls.

Once you start viewing those who have different opinions, and defend them, as trolls, you lose overall. If you can't explain your reasoning, and defend it, then perhaps you should review your reasoning.

I use the proverbial "you", and didn't mean that to direct it at you...I just hate users on other channels I op on (not this forum obviously) using "ignore" to dodge honest discussion.

So, I hope this post isn't taken personally, because it wasn't directed at you specifically...outside of using ignore.

No worries.

It wasnt you. I just dont have the time and effort to explain every time some argumentative person (again, not you) want to split hairs or argue about semantics.

I just expect the posters I engage with to have the basic understanding and conforms to right and wrong. I will choose not to engage the ones that dont.

 

[WDW1974]

It may come as a complete surprise, but many prospective employers are not interested in what business unit or local division you worked at. They want to know the parent company. They really do would rather read 'Cook, The Walt Disney Company', than 'Cook, Via Napoli'. It is more useful information, more professional.

Really? ... It is more useful for a perspective employer to know its next potential cook may have worked at any of the hundreds of food locations at WDW from a turkey leg stand to a QSR like Pecos Bill's to a Five Diamond establishment like V&A's ... really?

You are so trolling buddy ...

To go back to your example, you're right it's so much better to know that your new hire was 'cook, TWDC'

Why oh why would you ever want to know that your new cook was actually employed at a high end Italian eatery?

Like I said, no matter how I look at it, you're totally trolling now and you damn well know it.

 

[englanddg]

OK, semantics. Agenda vs. motives. And, no, I haven't been hostile to anyone. I am annoyed at two regulars here who are doing a tour de force defense of the indefensible behavior of a public Disney PR figure's incredibly unethical behavior.

Her last post was stupid, please don't make me look it up. Her blog as a whole is silly...it tells future visitors nothing, and offers nothing outside of useless drivel. What are you so concerned about? Obviously, Disney likes what they are getting, otherwise they wouldn't be cutting checks.

So, as I said in a previous post, none of your business.

I have a lot of agendas. Just so we're crystal clear. Seeing Social Media at WDW reorganized and seeing unethical liars lose their jobs most certainly is one. Again, so we're clear. I want to see poor Blondie fired ... canned ... shown the door. She has earned it.

Why? It's not like she is reporting on anything well...she isn't reporting at all. She's just blogging stuff straight from Disney marketing...and since she's a reasonably (though not all that) attractive middle aged white woman, she appeals to the demographic who has the money and time to take Disney trips and convince Daddy to help pay for them...the eternal soccer mom.

Well, to me (and likely Dave as well considering his acclaimed body of work) it is VERY insulting to suggest this. I have never met Jenn. I have never worked for TWDC. I have never applied for a job with WDW Co, let alone its social media dept. I won't speak for Dave as he is very capable of speaking for himself. But my pay grade is quite a bit removed from anyone at Celebration Place.

Again, with the arrogance. My pay grade is also quite removed from anyone at Celebration Place, I suspect, but I don't consider myself superior because of it.

I have never mispresented my abilities, sorry. I have a significant and unique skill set and it speaks for itself. I have never lied to gain employment. I have never even embellished. Often I've even played somethings down so I wouldn't be considered 'too good' for the position or someone who would jump and leave six weeks into the job.

So, you've never taken a job where you haven't done that exact job before with success. I doubt that.

Ethics in journalism and PR are pretty set in stone. It makes plenty of difference. Do you even know who she is (she's the Social Media Manager for Disney Parks, not a Mommy that blogs from home in Iowa about Disney while her hubby works and her kids go to school!) Her job may well involve fluff, but it isn't.

Ethics in journalism? Hahaha, do you even watch the news anymore? And, as far as PR, even Walt himself "embellished". Just read about the opening days of Disneyland. Or really, many of Walt's ventures. Embellishment is part of selling. And selling bring money, and money means results.

No, it isn't arrogance. It's telling you that if you don't like the discussion then why not find one that you do like. I don't join theads here on subjects that don't interest me ... I can't understand why some folks love to do so with my threads.

There is nothing 'petty' going on, but, again, if you feel otherwise ... well what did you say?

Ah, that's it ...

If you are willing you have an honest discussion about what you've been ranting about for a week, do so. Otherwise, leave it alone. The whole thread is turning into a rant.

No, I didn't. I wasn't aware of what she had done until a late last week, so it's safe to say most of this thread has very little to do with Blondie.

I'd agree, that was my point.

The bitterness comes when people are being purposely obtuse/ignorant or playing semantics games to distract from the important points being made.

Who is playing semantics? I chose my words very carefully, as I respect both you and Dave, and merely wish to understand why this upsets you so much.

 

[englanddg]

No worries.

It wasnt you. I just dont have the time and effort to explain every time some argumentative person (again, not you) want to split hairs or argue about semantics.

I just expect the posters I engage with to have the basic understanding and conforms to right and wrong. I will choose not to engage the ones that dont.

Quite fair. I completely respect that.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

You are so trolling buddy ...


Like I said, no matter how I look at it, you're totally trolling now and you damn well know it.

Actually, I am engaging in serious and respectful conversation and am continually being subjected to ghastly insults over it by you and Dave. I find it quite painful, and even a bit embarrassing.


I'm sorry, but if I may allow myself a slight retort for once: perhaps you two want to rethink that conduct, especially in a conversation in which you both claim to be standing up for respect, ethics, and 'knowing right from wrong'.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Standards of Business Conduct (TWDC, all employees):

This is the intro to the handbook, written by Bob Iger himself (or one of his PR folks with his signature!):

"Integrity, honesty, trust, respect, playing by the rules, and teamwork – these define not only the operating principles of our Company, but also the spirit of our diverse global workforce and how we function."

That should deadend any questions on the behavior of JFB. Oh, and there are rules for PR and Social Media that go further ... but none of that is needed.

With this whole back and forth over the weekend into today, I've been thinking about spirit's dearly departed colleague at WDW Co. PR. While I don't have the link to his excellent interview, it reminded me, as I so often am, that it's people not the tools who do great things. Disney has wasted millions of dollars on CMPC, be it no name mommy bloggers getting all expense paid trips or comped bar tabs to leaking concept art to a certain petulant rich man boy. The people are obviously the problem and the lack of understanding when it comes to social media is quite appalling. It's the same job you've always done, just delivered a little differently. But in Disney's blindness to technology, they've hired shady people who don't do PR well because they told you they "get" social media. All the while the old timers who understand how to do PR well are getting casted aside instead of teaching the next generation.

Oh… the yeti is still broken and ticket prices will be going up soon. Lets not mention what's going on up the interstate.

 

[HenryMystic]

Pretending for a moment that the evil fanboi hating, magic killing, dream crushing Spirit doesn't exist in this argument, PhotoDave has actually worked for (and continues to do so?) newspapers. It seems to me, that his opinion should carry a great deal of weight in a discussion about ethics in the newspaper industry. But maybe, that's just me.

As for Spirit, his track record speaks for itself. I don't understand why folks feel the need to fight him. Embrace Spirited Change, it is good for the soul.


So Spirit, you were saying something about dropping some Uni news? :looksaroun:

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Pretending for a moment that the evil fanboi hating, magic killing, dream crushing Spirit doesn't exist in this argument, PhotoDave has actually worked for (and continues to do so?) newspapers. It seems to me, that his opinion should carry a great deal of weight in a discussion about ethics in the newspaper industry. But maybe, that's just me.

As for Spirit, his track record speaks for itself. I don't understand why folks feel the need to fight him. Embrace Spirited Change, it is good for the soul.


So Spirit, you were saying something about dropping some Uni news? :looksaroun:

Surprisingly, I have worked in many print media too. For any serious media, a reporter needs the highest standards of integrity. However - apart from an authority argument being a logical fallacy in itself - ms. JFB isn't employed in print media, nor in serious media, nor is she a reporter, which renders all of that a bit moot.

Nobody is fighting Spirit. People have different opinions about the (mis?)representation of work experience on a resumé of a Disney employee. Nothing to get worked up about.

Dropping UNI news would be good though!