The Most Corporatized Place on Earth

I'm sure you've heard about the "Happiest Place on Earth." Actually, I'm sure you've probably visited the "Happiest Place on Earth."

Disneyland invites thousands of guests (literally, from anywhere between 30,000-70,000 a day) through its gates to have a fun-filled day with long lines, mediocre food and blazing 90 degree weather.

Well then, is it really the "happiest place on earth" like the PR campaign says so?

Maybe for the guests who don't mind cramming their way through crowds and crowds of people-- but not so much for the employees (excuse me, I mean "cast members").

I have recently become a cast member myself this summer to fulfill what I would call my "secondary dream" in life by becoming a cast member at Disneyland.

Disneyland was always my special place; it easily outnumbered my hometown or even a vacation to Hawaii. There was something magical about the place while growing up that I couldn't seem to grasp but always made me want to go back.

And I'm not the only one.

Many of the cast members I have talked to so far about their experience working at Disneyland have said that they applied and took the job for the same reason -- it was a dream of theirs, and Disneyland had a special place in their heart too. But now Disneyland is far from their favorite place, which is only to be expected. Like one of my co-cast members said, "That's what you think. But now you see the real truth."

And I have seen the real truth. Disneyland is more depressing than happy any day, far from what they advertise to the guests. Practically all the cast members I have talked to are lost in life, and working at Disneyland is their security blanket (please note that this is a generalization, and just what I have witnessed and felt so far as an employee). I have heard multiple times the same answer to why they work there: "Well, I have a college degree, but I hired in here and never left."

I've even heard from others that they want to quit before they hit the three year mark so they don't become what Cast Members call a "lifey" (i.e. one that stays employed at Disneyland he or she's whole life). The whole Walt Disney Company is based on the concept of "seniority." So, if one is a "new hire" like myself, you barely get any hours and are stuck with all the closing shifts because you have low seniority. Thus, they practically want you to become a "lifey" because by gaining those three years of seniority you will be able to pick your work schedule and hours. In other words, it's like Mickey Mouse's mouse trap.

The reason why I am blogging about this subject is because their PR tactics are far from having anything to do with social good, unlike Walt Disney's beginning PR tactics in the summer of 1955 when Disneyland opened (please excuse the very long post).

Walt Disney envisioned a magical place that was fun, educational and embraced cultures from around the world and America. Employees were part of this magic, and really made a difference by helping educate the guests.

For example, call this PR or not (Walt Disney tried to make a relationship with the guests when Disneyland opened by making the situations in Disneyland real) but the Rivers of America used to be river water from all the famous rivers in America. Also, It's a Small World (you know, the extremely beautiful but yet repetitively obnoxious ride) opened with children from all around the world and all different cultures adding water from their homeland into the ride to show that it "really was a small world."

Likewise, Disneyland had animatronic presidents that would talk to kids about American history. The park also used to have a ride that would take you through a microscope and into the human body. And the old Submarine Voyage taught children about the aquatic ecosystem and nature under the sea.

But what's the Submarine Voyage now?

A "Finding Nemo" ride -- all geared towards the little kids who love Finding Nemo and will do anything to see Nemo.

Does that have ANY educational purpose? Watching Dori chase Nemo on an underwater projector? If you think so, maybe you should take another biology class.

That's just one example of how Disneyland has become more corporatized than "happy" and how working there really doesn't have as much meaning as it would have back in the 50's and 60's.

Oh, I forgot to mention. The newly renovated "It's a Small World" that opened up last winter now has actual Disney characters incorporated into the ride like Ariel and Alice in Wonderland. Will someone PLEASE tell me what that has to do with the concept of "it's a small world" and cultures coming together? Isn't Alice in WONDERLAND, not the actual world? What does Alice in Wonderland have in common with a Native American, Muslim, or Asian culture? Absolutely nothing. Get her OUT of the ride!

I have to stare at Remey from the movie Ratatouille in the window of my restaurant every day. If I remember correctly, New Orleans Square is part of Disneyland because it was one of Walt Disney's favorite places and was one of the most interesting places in America that he wanted to teach people about. But I guess for some reason now it's an advertising place from the movie Ratatouille. Anything to make people want to spend more money in the park, like a little kid saying, "Oh mommy, there's Remey! Let's eat at New Orleans Café!"

No matter how much Disney changes and molds into a profit hungry beast, I will still love it. But I would like to confirm that working for Disney's PR team (as my father has suggested to me many times) will NOT cut it. The park does not have its educational purpose anymore. Connecting with the public by submitting press releases about the new "Finding Nemo" Submarine ride, or announcing in a press conference that Johnny Depp will now be featured as an animatronic character in the Pirates of Caribbean ride (which, may I please remind you was Walt Disney's favorite ride that they completely butchered by commercializing it with Jack Sparrow) does no good for society except persuade them to spend about $90 to visit the park. If kids can't learn from it, it is not doing society any good. If only Disney's CEOs now realized that it isn't all about profit, but rather education and magic like Walt Disney did in the beginning then maybe I would have a different opinion. But for now, I'd like to call Disney the most "corporatized place on earth" instead of the "happiest place on earth"; I think my fellow Cast members would agree.

At least some of us will always remember Walt Disney's original ideals.

Literature Review

The relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists has been a conflicted, and yet symbiotic relationship. Various studies have centered on what is regarded as a 'source-reporter relationship' -- an ongoing relationship between the two professions where PR practitioners try to "manage the news and journalists try to manage the sources in different direction for their needs" (Shin 2006). Previous studies are concerned with the perceptions of each profession, the origin of conflict between professions, how conflict would be characterized, and what factors (education, personal, experience, etc) impact the perceived relationship between both professions.

White and Shaw (2003) proposed that journalists who have taken undergraduate or graduate classes in public relations tend to have a less negative perception of PR practitioners, and journalist educators' perceptions of PR tend to be more positive than expected. Negative perceptions of PR may be rooted in journalism culture by exploring the history (and previously deceiving) profession of PR in the late 1800's.

A couple interesting points this study made when defending PR practitioners was that the author noted that many [good] PR efforts are not visible outside the organization and therefore not acknowledged when discussing the PR profession. What is acknowledged by journalists is mainly that PR is all about media relations (in other words, publicity) and PR practitioners will do whatever it takes to earn some space in print or broadcast media (hence, the stereotype of 'spin doctors' and 'obstructionists'), which is actually quite different from the overall practice of public relations.

Both professions in this study acknowledged that "journalists depend on public relations-originated material due to "inadequate staffing levels in most newspapers." Thus, it may be noted that dependency is changing due to the changing world of journalism, which could be a good or bad change depending on a PR practitioner's ethics and morals.

Other than journalism educators and journalists, Pincus, Rimmer, Rayfield and Cropp (1993) previously surveyed business, news and sports editors of major California newspaper publications about their perceptions of PR practitioners. Sports editors were more prone to PR practitioners, whereas news editors were more skeptical. These differing opinions could influence the relationship between different PR practitioners and editors. Non-profit PR practitioners may have a harder time exchanging an information subsidy rather than sports PR practitioners, even though the issue proposed in the non-profit news release may be more relevant, newsworthy and meaningful.

More importantly, however, two recent studies were done on actual conflict within the source-reporter relationship. These may be the most relevant because of their timeliness and proximity to the issues of 21st century journalism, especially the fact that many major publications are combined under one corporate umbrella. Shin (2006) presented a paper at the International Communication Association Convention based on the organization-public relationship (i.e. PR-journalist relationship). This study "integrates conflict and conflict resolution models to the contingency theory in PR." The contingency theory is elaborated by a relational scale of pure advocacy to pure accommodation in the source-reporter relation. The study analyzed the different strategies journalists and PR practitioners use to respond to conflict in the relationship between the professions. It was concluded that various factors influence conflict in the relationship, like struggle for power, resources and ethnocentrism. Journalists are more likely to escalate any nature of conflict in the relationship, while PR practitioners are likely to negotiate and accommodate with journalists and organization's views. However, with the changing structure of journalism, journalists may approach conflict in the source-reporter relationship like PR practitioners generally do and try to accommodate with the PR practitioner's needs, as well as the newspapers needs.

In 2009, another paper was presented on the source-reporter relationship at the International Communication Association Convention that added more to Shin's study focusing on behavioral and verbal conflict in the source-reporter relationship. The results were quite surprising, supporting that both professions agree with each other that they have experienced similar behavioral and verbal conflict with each other. PR practitioners, however, believed that they had experienced more conflict rather with journalists than journalists believed they had experienced with PR practitioners. Thus, this may be an opening in the source-reporter relationship because journalists don't see as much conflict, which could potentially make journalists more open to information subsidies.

___________________________________________________________

Although these are in-depth and well researched studies, I would like to compliment this research by investigating how the downsizing of newsrooms and peril of journalism in the 21st century will affect the source-reporter relationship. Will journalists be more open to (and dependent on) information subsidies? Will they be forced to because of economic constraints? If so, will they be a little less skeptic of the PR profession? Will PR evaluate their work based on individual ethics and morals, and present journalists with honest and necessary information?

Thriving for Patients

Bureaucracy, rule bound, limited, hassle, cost focused, profit, uncompassionate and paper work.

Those are just a few words that are associated with healthcare by the general public. Healthcare companies usually do not have a ravishing and helpful image among patients.

Yummy, money, profit, wealth!

But what if a company actually really did care about your well-being and promoted healthy living and had a positive image? Would you be excited to apply for healthcare with that company? Would truly believe that your well-being was their first priority?

A couple of nights ago at the dinner table I was talking to one of my friends (who is a PR major) about PR and social change. We discussed what kind of routes you could take with PR to help society -- like nonprofits, healthcare, etc. (you get the gist). I asked her if she had any suggestions on campaigns she learned about in any of her PR classes that I could research. She suggested Kaiser Permanente's "Thrive" Campaign, saying that it was "a really good PR campaign." The $40 million "Thrive" campaign appeared for the first time during the 2004 Olympics with nothing but a picture of broccoli. The commercial stated (in summary),

"We stand for broccoli. For pilates. And dental floss. We believe in the treadmill and its siblings Stairmaster, and elliptical. In SPF 30 we trust. We stand for safe sex, seat belts, and mammograms . . ."

The whole gist of a remarkably brilliant campaign was to show that Kaiser, a [hence] health care company really cared not only about "protecting" one's life, but also cared enough to advocate and condone healthy living. I definitely have to give the PR practitioners credit who worked on this campaign credit; the campaign is very creative.

Not surprisingly, Kaiser launched this campaign to "change perceptions among people whom might not be familiar with the organization's benefits or might have negative impressions about the company," said a PR practitioner who worked on the Thrive campaign to the Oakland Tribune. Well, there you have it. A PR practitioner hard at work, glitz n' glammin' Kaiser Permanente's image to the mass media.

The quote sounds so constructed and easily brushes over the facts -- the real reason why Kaiser launched this campaign -- which many that formerly worked for Kaiser would consider it to be a "dirty PR tactic."

According to a Kaiser presentation on "Brand Positioning Discussion," a key bullet point states:

"75% of people who are offered Kaiser Permanete probably or definitely would not consider us for their health care coverage. The goal of all our communications and operational efforts is to positively impact these negative perceptions."

Translation: 75% of people will reject Kaiser. How can a positive image help us profit? If Kaiser is really worried about the amount of people that will not consider them for health care then why would they spend millions of dollars on this PR campaign? Just compare the two quotes. Obviously the 75% was left out of the quote to the Oakland Tribune -- 75% of people is a lot, and Kaiser knows that and that those people equal an abundance of money!

I understand one would never quote the 75% in any interview with the media because it will give the health care company bad publicity. But if it's all about profit for these health care companies (we can't forget Michael Moore's movie Sicko) I would have to believe that inviting the public into a friendly campaign for health isn't really about helping others. Kaiser's last PR campaign before Thrive, "KP Promise" was actually not that successful with recruiting new patients.

This kind of throws me off thinking that working with the health system and PR could help society. If Kaiser had as many patients (or clients, as you may call them) that they need, do you think they would have launched the Thrive campaign?

I'm thinking no.