Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[fosse76]

So what is your problem then with someone who only puts out positive stories?

Are people who 'only have nice things to say' about someone wrong in some way? Are they too being bought?

You're being really obtuse, since you know that's not at all what anyone is saying. People look to blogs and online reviews because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are getting someone's genuine feedback. And when you get the review from a fansite, you are obviously getting a somewhat biased review. But it's different when that opinion is being swayed by freebies from the company. Because now that somewhat-biased opinion has an undercurrent of being paid for, which is hard to shake. That opinion becomes questionable, because now you have to wonder what is informing that opinion. Does the person genuinely love Disney? Or is that opinion only positive because of the freebies? If the latter, it doesn't even have to be nefarious. People's opinions are tainted when they aren't paying or are given an advantage, because their experience becomes "better". Of course, there are those who will only write the good opinions because they get freebies. And now they have no credibility. And it doesn't matter if their opinion is right even after be "wined and dined", because now the lack of negative commentary and the disclosure that they've been getting stuff for free has negated that opinion.

Or can you simply not accept the fact that not every person is required to cover every angle. Some people just have no interest in negative energy. That's their choice. If you don't like that type of person... why on earth are you wasting your time reading what they have to say?

And that is true, but as I said above, when it becomes clear the blogger is receiving perks from Disney that seem to only be granted to bloggers who only post positive comments, the credibility of that person's opinion takes a dive, because we don't no what is informing that opinion.

 

[scout68]

I have no background in media ethics, so I have stayed out of the sub-plot that derails the news items in this thread. I see no value in defining what is a legit or non-legit source of information. To me, this subject matter buries real content beneath by focusing on a tangential aside. Perhaps those debating off the topics intended in this thread are satisfied to divert attention away from the concerns about the operations of Disney in Orlando.

There are other outlets where one can participate in mockery of others. Those outlets hold no interest for me. To plainly say that "reality" TV and it's ilk are disgusting refuse, is not placing refuse in high enough regard. If that is one's choice of distraction however, so be it. I'll stick with sites such as this one and it's similar brethren.

In an effort to return to topic, I have (in the past) shared my positive observations about the revitalization of the Disneyland resort and the many negative observations about the goings on in Walt Disney World. I have some hope that George Kalogridis will bring some spit and polish back to Florida offerings. Additionally, he may push harder on attraction development and construction for the 43 square mile bubble.

The greatest concern should be that the competition down the road is attempting to leverage away guests by offering a continually evolving and improving product. The pace of their development is to be further increased and their desire to become a stand alone family destination is ominous. The articles posted over the last couple of days spell that all out quite clearly and the tone of the transcript of the conference call all but throws down a gauntlet.

The current observable path at Walt Disney World is short sighted. This path makes short term investors happy but will make long term investors very angry. @ParentsOf4 has posted eloquently along these lines with specific notables pulled from various publicly available sources. The current management is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This can't continue for much longer.

Everyone on this forum can walk the parks and make observations about maintenance, janitorial, and food operations. We can speak to the lack of investment in the three step-children at Walt Disney World. We can form our opinions about our observations and we can gather information from various sources. What we shouldn't do, is insult or characterize unjustly others for expressing an opposing view.

I hope we can disengage from the current excursus and find our way back to the concerns noted above.

*1023*

Well put. Sometimes filling the gaps leads to wider ones.

 

[Darth Sidious]

Anyone seen this yet? Bloomberg Article

Going to hard to shake any Capital loose for P&R with these plans in the works. I love this quote from Rasulo: “Based on the investment we have been doing, we will see an increase in cash flow,” Rasulo said. “We just worked our way through a huge capital cycle.”

I understand that this is a normal thing for them and they don't put any kind of dates for the buyback. It just kind of gives you a peek into their thinking....all is good, no need for all that expensive capital investment in any of our other parks or resorts.

It's a good thing that the money they use to grease the Internets is probably accounted for as an expense and not a capital investment.

A buy back is just another form of dividend. However it does say something... It says they don't see anything more valuable to shareholders in terms of investing that money. Disney should see a better margin for domestic P&R though. If they don't then NGE was a total and utter disaster and even they will panic... Badly.

 

[flynnibus]

- clever tactic employed yet again!
- continues to tell me what I am telling him -
yer a peach

Like I said.. you want to keep your own alternate reality .. go for it. But don't expect others to accept it.

 

[flynnibus]

A buy back is just another form of dividend.

Meh! A dividend is guaranteed return that is liquid 'now'... buybacks favor the company more than shareholders. They can boost EPS (no direct return to the shareholder.. but looks good for the execs), lets the company flip the shares or redistribute shares, and maybe... helps stabilize the share price (only thing shareholders may get some value from).

A dividend to benefit the shareholders would be just that... a straight cash dividend. Buybacks are voodoo IMO.

 

[scout68]

Like I said.. you want to keep your own alternate reality .. go for it. But don't expect others to accept it.

While this was fun (and I sincerely mean it) I will bow out as I have broken my own rule of engagement with you.
I have been mired in the flynni vortex that can only be exited by leaving the last word to you sir...

 

[Goofyernmost]

I never discussed oaths, network or cable TV. But if one runs a Disney site purporting to be a "leading source" of information, and that information is tainted by the freebies being doled out by Disney, the yes, it should be disclosed. If the product being discussed is strong enough, there shouldn't be any problem letting people know what they were given.....

OK, I know that's how you feel about it. To me you are putting importance on something that not only is unimportant, but has no real consequences. What those bloggers are doing is setting people up with expectations to have a good time. Somehow that just doesn't seem criminal to me. Even if they are intentionally exaggerating just how good it is, will people show up and think...well this place is garbage...they lied to me? No, this isn't a life and death, spend your life savings type of deal. This is a vacation that people were thinking seriously about going on with or without the blog to read. No one is breaking into their house at night and forcing them on a plane bound for WDW/DL. It is a non-issue.

 

[Clamman73]

Who counts as a real journalist?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4...ia-shield-bill-but-who-counts-as-a-journalist

 

[Darth Sidious]

Meh! A dividend is guaranteed return that is liquid 'now'... buybacks favor the company more than shareholders. They can boost EPS (no direct return to the shareholder.. but looks good for the execs), lets the company flip the shares or redistribute shares, and maybe... helps stabilize the share price (only thing shareholders may get some value from).

A dividend to benefit the shareholders would be just that... a straight cash dividend. Buybacks are voodoo IMO.

Buy backs are stupid for investors but rather than offer investment advice I just posted something brief. If you're an investor don't sell in a buy back lol. To clarify though the true difference between a dividend and buy backs are both taxation and the fact that one is mandatory and one is optional to participate. Dividends reduce share price the day after because the company paid out an asset.

 

[wm49rs]

OK, I know that's how you feel about it. To me you are putting importance on something that not only is unimportant, but has no real consequences. What those bloggers are doing is setting people up with expectations to have a good time. Somehow that just doesn't seem criminal to me. Even if they are intentionally exaggerating just how good it is, will people show up and think...well this place is garbage...they lied to me? No, this isn't a life and death, spend your life savings type of deal. This is a vacation that people were thinking seriously about going on with or without the blog to read. No one is breaking into their house at night and forcing them on a plane bound for WDW/DL. It is a non-issue.

If it has no real consequences, then why not disclose the gifts? If the product being reviewed is that superior, it shouldn't make a difference. And if one is comfortable enough in his site being a "leading source" of information on WDW, disclosing was was given out shouldn't impact traffic one bit. Give a full as picture as possible; nothing wrong with that.....

 

[Goofyernmost]

Not really. I actually have no problem with bloggers taking whatever they can from Disney. Don't hate the player, hate the game and all that jazz. It's actually nice to see someone taking advantage of the Mouse, and not the other way around. But if you are going to do it, just be honest about it. Own up to it. Admit they you give good reviews because you get free stuff.

Disney is not the only company who gives bloggers stuff. Check out any blog with a lot of traffic, and you will see reviews of freebies all the time. It's a pretty common practice. Just don't pretend to be something you're not (real media) and the act morally outraged when you get called on. It is so disingenuous.

Or using almost exactly the same words but with differences that are worlds apart. Admit that they got free stuff because they gave/give good reviews! It is all a matter of the position of the horse. I think everyone is putting the cart in front of the horse.

What is disingenuous is worrying about what someone else got that you didn't and then making up moral rules that don't exist to justify the outrage.

 

[flynnibus]

You're being really obtuse, since you know that's not at all what anyone is saying. People look to blogs and online reviews because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are getting someone's genuine feedback. And when you get the review from a fansite, you are obviously getting a somewhat biased review. But it's different when that opinion is being swayed by freebies from the company

Here in lies the logic fail... above you already conclude the bias exists. 'when the opinion is being swayed' - you've already concluded purely on the presence of freebies that the opinion of the person is compromised. Not based on anything but the presence of freebies.

And then...

Because now that somewhat-biased opinion has an undercurrent of being paid for, which is hard to shake. That opinion becomes questionable, because now you have to wonder what is informing that opinion. Does the person genuinely love Disney? Or is that opinion only positive because of the freebies?

You get back to reality.. 'you have to wonder'? That's right.. we don't know... back to reality. But you've assumed up front it must be biased. This is logic fail.

And that is true, but as I said above, when it becomes clear the blogger is receiving perks from Disney that seem to only be granted to bloggers who only post positive comments, the credibility of that person's opinion takes a dive, because we don't no what is informing that opinion.

Credibility? Or just lack of objectivity?

The Disney park blog is as slanted as they come... but the info they post is largely credible. Are they one-sided? Absolutely. But the objective reader sees that and qualifies the information themselves as they consume it.

Ultimately the credibility of someone is weighed by their accuracy - not by their biases. Disclosures are intended to add transparency so the objective reader can make their own determinations. They are not marks that say 'This review has been BOUGHT!'

It is perfectly possible (and it happens all the time) for people to get comps, access, or freebies and remain objective. It is also perfectly possible, and it happens all the time as well, where people sacrifice their objectivity to gain advantage with someone. That alone will not necessarily destroy their credibility... that is a matter of the topic at hand and what they are covering.

We would never consider the Disney Park's Blog a credible source of 'top 5 issues' at WDW. However, we would consider it a credible source for opening dates of attractions.

A man may say his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world... he may say that to gain favor with said woman. Does that make him a non-credible source in World Currency Trading?

That's why all these absolutes are crap. Independence, objectivity, credibility, are all issues that are more complex than simply 'taking perks'. The existence of perks in itself does not taint. It's the inability of the receiver to remain independent that does.

Policies about no gifts exist to prevent abuse and save people from themselves. It's alot easier to prevent the big slips if there is a zero tolerance policy up front.

 

[crispy]

Or using almost exactly the same words but with differences that are worlds apart. Admit that they got free stuff because they gave/give good reviews! It is all a matter of the position of the horse. I think everyone is putting the cart in front of the horse.

What is disingenuous is worrying about what someone else got that you didn't and then making up moral rules that don't exist to justify the outrage.

I am not outraged. I would totally take free stuff and write reviews if I had a blog and it was offered, but I'm too lazy so that's not going to happen. I would also admit that I did it. To take stuff, write good reviews without mentioning said free stuff, and then act outraged when you get called on it is silly.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I know! That same thing happened to me too! I lived in Rome and didn't speak any Italian and so the locals sometimes ignored me! Likewise in Stockholm, I didn't speak any Swedish and for this trivial issue I was sometimes left out of conversations, like when I entered a shop and all the people didn't suddenly start to converse in English!

What's wrong with these people speaking their own language in their own country!?

(Vive Le Québec! Vive le Québec libre!

)

Nothing is wrong with it, except when you are surrounded by millions of people that do not just happen to speak that language and are ignoring you just to tell you to go to hell. Then I take it personally. I wasn't being obnoxious or a pushy American. I was just politely, quietly standing in line waiting to get service.

I personally think Montreal is way better then it was when the English had their strangle hold on it, but, I was just there trying to help support THEIR economy, not take over the government. It was rude and I fixed that by not spending another nickle in the place for over 10 years. Yes, they survived but two can play the go to hell game. And I felt better. It wasn't a matter of I didn't understand the language, which admittedly I didn't, it was a matter of we don't want to have you around here because you don't speak our language. I wasn't left out because I didn't understand. I was left out because I was looked at as sewer scum at that time because I didn't speak French.

 

[nytimez]

But when one uses the tidbit to CONCLUDE they are biased/bought/etc.. they have already made the leap from 'can' to 'has'.

If people were saying 'they are suspect' - then your 'can influence' logic is in play. When people say 'they are bought because of the gift' - they are past 'can' and have concluded 'has' been influenced.

and worse, they take that conclusion about the relationship and try to apply it to other cases... so the idea of 'can influence' is abandoned and we go leaping case to case with logicaly fallacies concluding 'because A.. we have B'... all along missing C, D, E, and F

No, you're making the leap, not them. You're also pulling all the nuance out of the opposing argument and attacking the caricature that's left.

 

[flynnibus]

No, you're making the leap, not them. You're also pulling all the nuance out of the opposing argument and attacking the caricature that's left.

You're simply defending a claim that is "right some of the time..." or "close enough" as good enough to take as fact be reapplicable. I'm pointing out that there are far more holes in it that make it unusable.

Again.. if we were to apply these standards universally... people would have to change their tune dramatically. That right there says the standards are garbage.

 

[ford91exploder]

Or using almost exactly the same words but with differences that are worlds apart. Admit that they got free stuff because they gave/give good reviews! It is all a matter of the position of the horse. I think everyone is putting the cart in front of the horse.

What is disingenuous is worrying about what someone else got that you didn't and then making up moral rules that don't exist to justify the outrage.

I don't think many of us commenting care that bloggers got swag that we did not, Speaking for myself I care about the payola aspect much more, Kevin Yee is hardly a 'doom-n-gloom' guy yet he was the only one with the INTEGRITY to report that Disney was giving away Alcohol/Food/Swag at their blogger event.

When I was a press photographer at many press events sandwiches and soft drinks were served and the reporters dutifully mentioned 'light refreshments were served at the event' no biggie and the food and drink was bait to get the reporters and photogs to show up,

Lets face it if you have two presser's and one is known for having food and soft drinks which one are you going to attend as opposed to the one held outdoors with no shade or water.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If it has no real consequences, then why not disclose the gifts? If the product being reviewed is that superior, it shouldn't make a difference. And if one is comfortable enough in his site being a "leading source" of information on WDW, disclosing was was given out shouldn't impact traffic one bit. Give a full as picture as possible; nothing wrong with that.....

OK, why isn't the video we saw considered a disclosure. I didn't see anyone diving under tables when the camera scanned them. I agree that there may not be anything wrong with it, but I also don't see what is accomplished by doing it. It doesn't change anything, no one other then a very few will even connect the dots or have it mean anything to them. As I have been stating over and over...it is a non-issue that has no ill effect at all. It's a hobby that people tend to occasionally look at but if they were free to see those they were also free to look at some other more negative approach. Why do we need to babysit every adult in the world.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I never discussed oaths, network or cable TV. But if one runs a Disney site purporting to be a "leading source" of information, and that information is tainted by the freebies being doled out by Disney, the yes, it should be disclosed. If the product being discussed is strong enough, there shouldn't be any problem letting people know what they were given.....

I can't speak to others, but Ricky Brigante (who came up specifically) tends to say on his podcast if he paid, was comped, received a free review copy, etc.

 

[nytimez]

You're simply defending a claim that is "right some of the time..." or "close enough" as good enough to take as fact be reapplicable.

No, but I'm not going to get into the Flynnibus circle of simply repeating everything, but with more words - so I'll let you have whatever last word you want. But, no. No. And no.