Splitsville Blog Meet-Up

[cdunbar]

In the case of those who have been to the media events, they know they went to the media event. They could choose to let somebody else get the free experience.

They could... Yes. But I'm going to quote a friend who I know is reading this: "... but they still go because people that are going are their... Wait for it... Friends, and hey enjoy hanging out." It's really just that simple.

 

[cdunbar]

Have you looked at the Twitter accounts of some of these people? Some have a few hundred followers, some have a couple of thousand, some have maybe 2000 followers and follow 2400, which gives them a -400 real follower count. I look at something like WDWMAGIC, they have 15000 followers, and follow about 10, giving a real follower count in the region of 15000. Which do you think can get the message out to more?

Ok, just answer this question for me: Do you live within at least an hours drive from Walt Disney World? It's a yes or no question.

 

[dreamfinder]

Excellent point.
Disney set the bar way too low the last few years, which has led to an overabundance of self-important bloggers that try to attend every possible function, and milk every perk they can get off the Mouse. Elbowing each other for a spot on the gravy train.

Now, Disney seems to be trying to pull back a bit. Good for them. I hope they can do it.
My suggestion: If you don't work for a newspaper, television or other established media...you're SOL.
(No, just having a website, podcast, or blog won't do.)

And for those they do let in...no plus ones. No real business need for it, and the ability to bring the whole family makes it too attractive for the ...umm...(for lack of a better term)...undesirables.

While agreeing that there are way to many Disney related sites that seem to be doing it as motivation for perks, I don't think that eliminating them all from functions is a wise move. By definition media is

( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely

so if a site/blog/twitter account has a large audience, then by definition they could be considered media. Now if a given site (gonna stay generic here) happens to specialize in Disney or even WDW, and happens to do a good job of it, why should they be penalized? Just because someone is in MSM doesn't mean that they are an authoritative expert on a given subject. Case in point, Marilyn Hagerty, the food writer for the Grand Forks Herald with 30 years of food reviews under her belt, rose to some level of fame due to a recent Olive Garden review (read here -> http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231419/). It wasn't necessarily a bad food review, but would you expect her to be able to do a good job of writing a review of the latest New York hot spot? The same can easily apply to many MSM who attend these Disney functions. They may not be able to provide any real "reporting" on WDW other than essentially regurgitating the copy that WDW PR provides them, and shooting footage from the spot that WDW tells them too. I highly doubt that any press who flew in for the grand opening (of anything recently, never mind Splitsville) knows much about the history of WDW, its current management, or the issues that we bemoan on here on a daily basis. Not that most of the Disney fan sites in question would challenge the mouse on anything substantive, but they can at least carry on a knowledgeable conversation instead of saying things like "Universal Studios opened their new Harry Potter themepark this week......"

Disney's credentialling everyone isnt a new phenomena. Holy crap, you should see all the alleged"professional" photographers on the sidelines of a college football game. Thats another rant for another time tho.

Welcome to the new normal. Remember that the customer is always right. Well, now it is getting taken a step further, and they don't want to risk alienating someone who has a mouthpiece to a few hundred fans. Admittedly these same "pros" help to provide coverage for places like patch.com on local issues that would never get 10 lines of copy in a newspaper, never mind a photographer dispatched, but I agree, not everyone belongs on the sidelines. That said, the quality of some of the images I see in legit publications leave a bit to be desired.

In both situations, there needs to be a balance. There is no reason why a publication that has a large pile of money to buy a chunk of the public airwaves has any more right to be heard than Joe fanboi on their blog. By all means, invite both, but come to some compromise. Maybe a formula that takes into account readership, the bigger the paper, the more events you can go to in a year, or maybe even just the more changes you get. Joe fanboi's blog only gets 1 entry in the random draw, but someone from the Huffington Post gets 500 based on their larger reader base. Joe still has a chance, but it greatly reduced the number of repeats. And I'm sure that Disney's digital media group would love to be able to stick a tracker on the fan sites, imagine that data mining? I believe that places like Huffington Post have to provide reader numbers as part of their ad package already.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They could... Yes. But I'm going to quote a friend who I know is reading this: "... but they still go because people that are going are their... Wait for it... Friends, and hey enjoy hanging out." It's really just that simple.

And this is the only way they can spends time with friends? They can't go together during normal hours? Go someplace else? It also seems there is also a lot of animosity between some of those attending.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not sure you're looking at this correctly, if you're doing it automatically your process is not working as you think. Names with different spacing or slight variation will not match up algorithmically (usually). I manually looked at the lists for the last three events and matched them up by hand.

It's a blend of function and manual checking. It's mostly accurate.

There are 35 people that got in for the last two events. The Be Our Guest event had 98 people on the list and the Splitsville event has 125. That means that 35%(!!) of the people that made it into BoG are also going to Splitsville. Of those 35 people 21 also went to the Wreck-It-Ralph event.

The difference is you are comparing a smaller subset - while I compared against all events. The events you compared only represent 223 slots - wreck it ralph alone was a bigger event then those two combined. that's why your numbers are so different.

You compared two events and found 35 people in common between those two events. But when you extend that.. you find that commonality drops to 13 when you go beyond two events. And of those 13, 9 were at both BoG and Splitsville. So if you want to talk habitual repeaters, you need to look beyond just 'one' offense - and at BoG that is 9 out of 98, (~10%) and 9 out of 125 (~7%) at Splitsville. Again - a very small minority.

If you want to look at it event by event...

BoG had 44 out of 98 'first timers' - 44.8%
Splitsville had 67 out of 125 'first timers' - 53.6%
Wreckit had 227 out of 229 'first timers' - 77.2%
Marathon had 39 out of 40 'first timers' - (lifestylers don't run!) - 97.5%
Holloween had 107 out of 150 'first timers' - 71.3%

Now not all is equal.. first, the more events you have, the more potential for overlap you have of course. So later events are more 'prone' to it if you haven't explictly done anything about it. Second, not all events were equally desirable (Marathon for instance).

I didn't do the match up between Wreck-It-Ralph and Splitsville but I'd wager that it's at least 1/3 of them were going to Splitsville.

So 21 people went to the last three events.

Nope - only 13 have made it to more than 2 events. And the drop off between 2 events, and three is huge (70 vs 13)

Looking at the guest list for Splitsville --
28% also attended BoG
17% also attended BoG and Wreck-It

If you just look at BoG --
21% also attended Wreck-It
35% are going to Splitsville

I see 33 names in common between BoG and Splitsville. But if you say BoG, Splitsville, AND WreckIt.. that number drops to 13.

I think it makes it clear - it is not a small minority of people hogging these events. There are a significant percentage of people that are going to repeat events.

You conclusion is weak and flawed. It's not looking at the whole picture and relies too much on extrapolation. It's akin to seeing people working Monday and Tuesday.. so you conclude people work every day of the week because you saw them working both days you sampled.

The last two events had a much higher percentage of repeats compared to previous ones - but by looking beyond those two events, you can see it's not the same people hogging all the slots. And the ones that are only two time repeaters... if they are blogsphere people.. their presence as an individual SUCKS. That doesn't bode well for the theory that the events are dominated by hand-picked people for their social media presence.

 

[Gtovryslf]

Have you looked at the Twitter accounts of some of these people? Some have a few hundred followers, some have a couple of thousand, some have maybe 2000 followers and follow 2400, which gives them a -400 real follower count. I look at something like WDWMAGIC, they have 15000 followers, and follow about 10, giving a real follower count in the region of 15000. Which do you think can get the message out to more?

Have you also viewed some of their websites? Pointless drivel and basic cut and paste from the Disney Blog and other outlets.

 

[flynnibus]

1. Disney as a BIG business picks the people who will serve them the most.

So you agree Disney is misrepresenting the event as a 'meet-up' of people (their supposed community) who simply RSVP before capacity is reached?

Filtering and inviting who you want isn't a 'meet-up' of a online community - It's a media event.

 

[ptaylor]

Have you also viewed some of their websites? Pointless drivel and basic cut and paste from the Disney Blog and other outlets.

I have and I agree

 

[MKCP 1985]

It is fun bringing up the usernames of banned former members, if for no other reason than to recall in our minds the flameouts that led to their departures. As much as I'd like to start going through the alphabet to recite the names of those remembered, that gives them unwarranted credit, as there are good reasons each is no longer here.

And from the public personas of those no longer allowed forum privileges, it would likely stoke their egos to be named for being remembered. "Gone but not forgotten." And yet the website continues, so apparently their presence and membership was not so essential. As it turns out, many people are able and eager to post photos of goings-on in the parks and to provide news updates.

 

[tahqa]

It's a blend of function and manual checking. It's mostly accurate.



The difference is you are comparing a smaller subset - while I compared against all events. The events you compared only represent 223 slots - wreck it ralph alone was a bigger event then those two combined. that's why your numbers are so different.

You compared two events and found 35 people in common between those two events. But when you extend that.. you find that commonality drops to 13 when you go beyond two events. And of those 13, 9 were at both BoG and Splitsville. So if you want to talk habitual repeaters, you need to look beyond just 'one' offense - and at BoG that is 9 out of 98, (~10%) and 9 out of 125 (~7%) at Splitsville. Again - a very small minority.

If you want to look at it event by event...

BoG had 44 out of 98 'first timers' - 44.8%
Splitsville had 67 out of 125 'first timers' - 53.6%
Wreckit had 227 out of 229 'first timers' - 77.2%
Marathon had 39 out of 40 'first timers' - (lifestylers don't run!) - 97.5%
Holloween had 107 out of 150 'first timers' - 71.3%

Now not all is equal.. first, the more events you have, the more potential for overlap you have of course. So later events are more 'prone' to it if you haven't explictly done anything about it. Second, not all events were equally desirable (Marathon for instance).




Nope - only 13 have made it to more than 2 events. And the drop off between 2 events, and three is huge (70 vs 13)



I see 33 names in common between BoG and Splitsville. But if you say BoG, Splitsville, AND WreckIt.. that number drops to 13.



You conclusion is weak and flawed. It's not looking at the whole picture and relies too much on extrapolation. It's akin to seeing people working Monday and Tuesday.. so you conclude people work every day of the week because you saw them working both days you sampled.

The last two events had a much higher percentage of repeats compared to previous ones - but by looking beyond those two events, you can see it's not the same people hogging all the slots. And the ones that are only two time repeaters... if they are blogsphere people.. their presence as an individual SUCKS. That doesn't bode well for the theory that the events are dominated by hand-picked people for their social media presence.

It's possible that I've done the alignment wrong. I'd rather take this discussion to a PM, if you don't mind, as I don't really want to publicly post lists of people's names.

 

[wdwmagic]

forum privileges, it would likely stoke their egos to be named for being remembered. "Gone but not forgotten." And yet the website continues, so apparently their presence and membership was not so essential. As it turns out, many people are able and eager to post photos of goings-on in the parks and to provide news updates.

Absolutely! The site continues, and has done for the last 15 years, to provide near daily updates on the front page of the site. And despite what those who say forums are dead (basically those that have tried to start rival forums and failed to get them off the ground), the forum is doing better than ever. Over 70,000 registered members and 5.1 million posts.

 

[ptaylor]

You conclusion is weak and flawed. It's not looking at the whole picture and relies too much on extrapolation. It's akin to seeing people working Monday and Tuesday.. so you conclude people work every day of the week because you saw them working both days you sampled.

The last two events had a much higher percentage of repeats compared to previous ones - but by looking beyond those two events, you can see it's not the same people hogging all the slots. And the ones that are only two time repeaters... if they are blogsphere people.. their presence as an individual SUCKS. That doesn't bode well for the theory that the events are dominated by hand-picked people for their social media presence.

The whole exercise of comparing lists is flawed. What you need to do is to see who is actually at the event. Those who are not named will be there as guests of someone who was able to get on the list.

 

[flynnibus]

The whole exercise of comparing lists is flawed. What you need to do is to see who is actually at the event. Those who are not named will be there as guests of someone who was able to get on the list.

Who is there as guests is irrelevant to the discussion of limited capacity and who those slots are being given to. Guests are not taking a RSVP slot from another potential person. They are capacity that is set aside for all attendees.

 

[ptaylor]

Who is there as guests is irrelevant to the discussion of limited capacity and who those slots are being given to. Guests are not taking a RSVP slot from another potential person. They are capacity that is set aside for all attendees.

Not at all irrelevant because there are people out there who are coordinating with others to be a guest. What I am saying is that there are far more repeat attendees than you realize from your comparisons because they are deliberately working it to attend as a guest of another attendee. They may not be taking up direct slots, but by arranging this way they are taking up spaces at the event.

 

[flynnibus]

Not at all irrelevant because there are people out there who are coordinating with others to be a guest. What I am saying is that there are far more repeat attendees than you realize from your comparisons because they are deliberately working it to attend as a guest of another attendee. They may not be taking up direct slots, but by arranging this way they are taking up spaces at the event.

Again - the point is about 'contention' for space - not 'who is there'. There is a whole 'nother dimension of people who are there without even needing to RSVP.. but the topic in discussion is not 'whose present' but 'people being hand-picked and in turn excluding non-social media people'.

If you show up as a guest - you aren't excluding someone else from getting 'on the list'. So unless the named person is being picked BECAUSE of who their planned guest is.. it's not relevant. That would be a way to further muddy 'hand picking' people.. but entries are not required to name their guest. But it would be a slick way of saying 'hey pick me, I'm bringing ricky as my guest!' if you volunteered that info. All depends on how they look at requests.

 

[flynnibus]

It's possible that I've done the alignment wrong. I'd rather take this discussion to a PM, if you don't mind, as I don't really want to publicly post lists of people's names.

With tahqa's validation.. I have refined numbers from my earlier list (he/she found matches I skipped due to name variations)

That makes my totals now
12 4peaters (vs 11)
15 3peaters (vs 13)
67 2peaters (vs 70)
480 first-timers (vs 484)

Hey, less than 10% margin of error.. I'll take that for 2am work with limited validation

So BoG
25 of 98 (25.5%)- have been to more than 2 events
42 of 98 (42.8%)- one and done

Splitsville
23 of 125 (18.4%)- have been to more than 2 events
67 of 125 (53.6)- one and done

WreckIt
25 of 294 (8.5%)- have been to more than 2 events
225 of 294 (76.5%)- one and done

Holloween
19 of 150 (12.6%) - have been to more than 2 events
107 of 150 (71.3%)- one and done

 

[ptaylor]

Again - the point is about 'contention' for space - not 'who is there'. There is a whole 'nother dimension of people who are there without even needing to RSVP.. but the topic in discussion is not 'whose present' but 'people being hand-picked and in turn excluding non-social media people'.

If you show up as a guest - you aren't excluding someone else from getting 'on the list'. So unless the named person is being picked BECAUSE of who their planned guest is.. it's not relevant. That would be a way to further muddy 'hand picking' people.. but entries are not required to name their guest. But it would be a slick way of saying 'hey pick me, I'm bringing ricky as my guest!' if you volunteered that info. All depends on how they look at requests.

It sounds like you are looking at this differently. I don't think that the list is being hand picked. My criticism is of the people signing up for these events, not Disney, as I believe they are just going on first-come-first-served for the list.

I don't think it is fair that some attend media previews, media openings, and then also sign up or attend as a guest of another at the blog events. Why do they have to monopolize everything being offered? That is my point.

 

[flynnibus]

It sounds like you are looking at this differently. I don't think that the list is being hand picked.

Yes, you are talking something different. My posts were specifically to address the contention that the 'deck is stacked' and social network people are hogging all the meet-up capacity.

I don't think it is fair that some attend media previews, media openings, and then also sign up or attend as a guest of another at the blog events. Why do they have to monopolize everything being offered? That is my point.

I don't disagree - as stated in a post previously...

So I don't have a problem with him saying it was work and he can't relax the same way as if it were purely a personal thing he wasn't looking to document. But hopping into a limited capacity event, which basically duplicates what they did on the Mouse's dime already, and mysteriously so reliably.. which blocks others from having a chance.. I think is crap and selfish.

 

[GLaDOS]

My view on this debacle:

The blogger and twitter community is so hilariously toxic. Everyone talks crap constantly on everyone, that I think it's hilarious when there are those people's "friends" on here calling people big meanies. Seems like there are some that can dish it out but can't take it.

I've learned to not listen or trust reviews from those that continuously get things for free. I don't care if their reviews are attempts at being partial, NONE of them admit all the perks they get for free. There's no disclosure. I can't trust what people say when they're getting free rooms (including people who live in freaking Orlando!), spa treatments, food, and drink.

 

[flynnibus]

My view on this debacle:

The blogger and twitter community is so hilariously toxic. Everyone talks crap constantly on everyone, that I think it's hilarious when there are those people's "friends" on here calling people big meanies. Seems like there are some that can dish it out but can't take it.

This is not blogger/twitter - that is just 'drama' you see inside any community. That is what you get when you take a bunch of people from different things and keep them huddled together. The personalities will clash - and some will take it out in an online format.

It's not about social networking - but typical 'high school' behavior within a community of people. Add into it that you have a bunch of 'extremes' instead of professional people.. and the problem is exaggerated.

Me? I don't do drama. I don't do it in my family, why on earth would I get motivated to do it in a hobbist setting? It's not worth my time or emotion.

I've learned to not listen or trust reviews from those that continuously get things for free. I don't care if their reviews are attempts at being partial, NONE of them admit all the perks they get for free. There's no disclosure. I can't trust what people say when they're getting free rooms (including people who live in freaking Orlando!), spa treatments, food, and drink.

So mount an effort to get them reported enough to the FTC. With a volume of complaints, they will look into it. One or two won't do it - but a volume of reports along with FACTS will.

That's the problem right now - how do you prove the special treatment?