Jim Hill got kicked out of Disney Land

[All Aboard]

Also, allowing one person to run a tour

But, that's the point I'm trying to make. They allow many people to run a tour - the internationals, Michael's VIP's, etc. And, Michael is in direct competition with Disney's own VIP tour service. If you read his website, he comes right out and tells you that he used to do them for Disney, knew he could do it better than them, and started his own company. I'd say he's "stealing" more from Disney than Jim Hill is.

My beef here is that Disney has selected Jim Hill as the one tour that they DON'T allow. And, it's because they don't like the content.

Yes, it's their property, yes they make the rules, yes Jim has to obide. But, I really do believe that since it's Jim, they targeted him.

For the record, I sit the fence when it comes to his opinions. But, then again, I'm very centrist on most things.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm also far from a Jim Hill "fan". I don't even read his stuff very often.

But I'm with Greg on this. It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal. That doesn't mean that I think the upper echelons at Team Disney are having daily meetings on how to counter Jim Hill. But somebody, and maybe its just a mid-level manager, got tired of it and singled him out.


And really, Mr. Cricket, the archived article doesn't exactly support the position that he is consdidered a non-entity by Disney. If he had been denied access from the beginning, maybe. But they singled him out by pulling his credentials at the last minute. That's not something that happens to a single "non-entity".

Further, unless he was lying, they TOLD him he was being singled out due to his remarks printed in the Wall Street Journal.

Clearly, SOMEBODY at Disney considers him an entity.

 

[Luv2Roam]

The difference I see with MICHAEL'S VIPS service is that is a service Disney does not offer. If they did, then it may make a difference. MICHAEL'S appears to be a concierge service that starts with an itinerary and even includes other parks besides Disney. It would not surprise me if MICHAEL'S has to pay a fee to the companies where he offers tours.
Personally I would rather take a sanctioned behind the scenes Disney tour.

 

[DVCconvert]

No big surprise to me really. JHM (Jim) was granted Media status, but closed out of attending the Philadelphia Freedom and stockholders meetings last year.
I recall reading his press about being closed out. IMHO, "God" Ei$ner had JH on his craplist as JHM has not been "policatically correct" enough for "God". Other points here are valid too, but that's how I see the bottom line in this case.

 

[what]

I would think that lawyers could definately argue that it is illegal to go on Disney property giving a tour and charging your customer which is actually their customer. I think it is pretty strange that this guy seems to think what he is doing is somehow ok. Seems others think it is ok as well. This guy is flirting with disaster. I never heard of this guy before so I admit I don't know all of his dealings with Disney. I have never seen a international group giving a "tour" before. Not saying it doesn't happen. I have seen them hold up signs to gather people but never a tour. There is copyright laws and I would guess that the parks would fall under those. Time spent in their park is a product that they sell and you cannot profit directly legally on that product. I would agree that most people who profit off them aren't big enough as a single entity for them to be able to go after but as a whole it definately hits their profit margin. I would also say if you do profit from them, ruffling of feathers or in this case fur, may not be a wise idea. Something like don't bite the hand that feeds you. I don't think anybody would expect to be able to create a Disney tshirt and expect to be able to sell them on property. A tour is a product when it comes to this, Disneyland is not public property. After thinking about it, technically, I think he could even face a lawsuit if he didn't charge because what he was doing has commercial value.

 

[rwodonnell]

I would think that lawyers could definately argue that it is illegal to go on Disney property giving a tour and charging your customer which is actually their customer. I think it is pretty strange that this guy seems to think what he is doing is somehow ok. Seems others think it is ok as well.

Well it's not clear from his description of the events that he ever took their money. If the tour was pre-paid, we can assume that the original trio that never got their tour with him are the ones that paid.

I have never seen a international group giving a "tour" before. Not saying it doesn't happen. I have seen them hold up signs to gather people but never a tour.

What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me. As others have mentioned, there are other businesses that do this as well (Michaels VIP was mentioned).

As to your other points, there may be legal issues, and he may be biting the hand that feeds him, but Disney's response still has the appearance of singling out one guy because they don't like him.

 

[DancingBear]

Disney's spokeperson states that only Disney cast members can give tours of Disneyland. I suppose that policy spills over into Central Florida.

Does that mean this guy is in violation of Disney policy. Or, does it go under the "point a to point b" category because he's not the author of a Disney website?

Sounds like point-to-point to me:

He or she guides your family through the most fun, 'best of the best' attractions, ensuring that your wait is minimized at all times. Our Private Guides begin each day with a mental itinerary of what's best, but they also know that no plans are 'set in stone.' They never forget that this is your vacation! (It takes experience to remain flexible ...)

You avoid the infamous lines & crowds because your Private Guide knows 'when' to be 'where.

 

[Cricket2]

I'd say he's "stealing" more from Disney than Jim Hill is.

I suppose that now that this sort of thing is in the public light, we may see others shut down as well. It would be the fair thing to do.

My beef here is that Disney has selected Jim Hill as the one tour that they DON'T allow. And, it's because they don't like the content.

I'd guess that no matter who ran the tour, once the ladies complained, they would be sunk. The fact that it was Jim was probably the only reason we know about it. It may have happened in the past and we never heard about it. I don't think he is being singled out at all. I guess others are seeing it differently.

It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal.

I agree with you somewhat because the ladies most likely wouldn't have complained if the content was all balloons and lollypops based. Other than that, it is an effect of him ripping them off.

And really, Mr. Cricket, the archived article doesn't exactly support the position that he is considered a non-entity by Disney. If he had been denied access from the beginning, maybe. But they singled him out by pulling his credentials at the last minute. That's not something that happens to a single "non-entity".

Agreed. I was off a bit on what I remembered form the incident. Someone saw or heard what he said and they didn't like it for sure and that put him in the limelight without question. Although without hearing both sides of the story, it's sort of difficult to know if they pulled the "credentials" because he was simply biased or that they really thought he was an agent of the dark side with Roy and therefore truly couldn't be considered true "press" (which I don't think he is any more than any of us are).

Further, unless he was lying, they TOLD him he was being singled out due to his remarks printed in the Wall Street Journal.

Even if we take his word as truth and assuming he didn't leave anything out of the story, there is still no way of knowing as I just said that it was the comments themselves that got the pass pulled or the fact that they didn't want someone having press access who wasn't actualy considered press.

I don't know how you get access like that to begin with, but if it's some generic form anyone can fill out, I can see Disney giving blanket approval to someone like him until they find out that he isn't really "press" in the traditional sense of the word, which could support my "Jim is a nobody" comment. I suppose we will never know.


I would like to know if they take away his annual pass

 

[crusader]

He writes articles and publishes them on-line which gives him limited credentials in today's media asylum. I'll bet Deb Wills has quite a bit of clout.

Disney pulled him in Phila. because they can control the politics of access to some degree, and his form of publicity is not typically favorable to the company. The SaveDisney campaign was enough to deal with last year. Jim Hill was very easy to eliminate from the fray.

But again, and I can't emphasize this enough, he knew he was on borrowed time - particularly with last year's events. He wasn't smart about it. Disney would have continued to allow him to come and go and manage his site etal had he played by the rules. I doubt the company concerns themselves with his fans. He should have left it at that and not ventured toward the mainstream guest. Critical mistake.

 

[All Aboard]

He should have left it at that and not ventured toward the mainstream guest.

Again, I don't think he has. I think that his tour participants are the fringe. (Which we qualify as, by the way.)

 

[crusader]

Yeah, I always knew I was on the 'fringe' - nice to see I've got some company!!

And I agree, his tours would include this caliber. If he's really operating this way, then I don't see how the complaints arise?

 

[WDW_DV]

Of course all of this could have been avoided if he had simply checked to see that these three ladies matched the no-shows on his roster for the tour...

 

[WDSearcher]

I do also want to state that Jim should get quite a bit of credit for taking one on the chin and getting back up to his feet without throwing a tantrum (yet). I really thought he would have freaked out afterwards.

It depends on where you read. Some articles have him saying that Disney was "being so serious, so Disney, so polite and professional." In others: "The next thing I know, I've got an Anaheim police detective advising me that - should I decide to continue with my tour - the park's security staff could have me escorted off property. Worse yet, they could have me arrested. Which - at least to my way of thinking - is not the best way to end a visit to The Happiest Place on Earth."

I think he really wants to throw a tantrum, but deep down knows that what he was doing wasn't really something he should be doing. If someone started writing a column very much like his, with its own wry commentary and "inside track," but also included all the unflattering Jim Hill info out there, and then put it under a web address like jimhilllmedia.com, my thinking is that he'd be a tad bit ornery too.

 

[WDSearcher]

No big surprise to me really. JHM (Jim) was granted Media status, but closed out of attending the Philadelphia Freedom and stockholders meetings last year.
I recall reading his press about being closed out. IMHO, "God" Ei$ner had JH on his craplist as JHM has not been "policatically correct" enough for "God". Other points here are valid too, but that's how I see the bottom line in this case.

That may be, but I think part of what Jim likes is to be "closed out" of things. If he's let in, he has the same story everyone else has. When he gets closed out, he has a whole different story, and it gets to feature him. He wasn't the only press guy who didn't get a pass in Philly. And, frankly, he could have gotten in on his own as a Disney stockholder, simply by reserving a ticket. So why he didn't just do that -- if it truly was the story he was after -- is beyond me.

 

[WDSearcher]

What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me.

Well, sure. But they impart info they got from Disney ... or from the tour books. They're not giving up stories told by Imagineers, or rumors about what happened once in Space Mountain. Jim's tour, as I understand it, included not just normal Disney info, but stuff he's gleaned from retired animators and Imagineers, and things that he's heard about, and his opinions on things. It's a "behind the scenes / behind the dirt" kind of thing. A tour for real, true Disney fanatics who have read all the books, seen all the specials, and want to know stuff that's outside that. It's not, "And here we have It's A Small World, which was one of the original attractions at the 1964 Worlds Fair ... "

I would imagine that Disney would prefer that Jim not be telling stories related by retired CMs or spreading rumors about happenings back in the "Walt years." Jim isn't always completely accurate in his stories and rumors -- he regularly does a "what I got wrong" column on his site -- and he's not alway objective in his thoughts and descriptions of how Disney works.

I think that's what makes it different than a foreign tour group or a concierge VIP service. And I think that's what makes Disney not appreciative of his efforts.

 

[Sk8Leigh]

I don't see why Disney should have to allow him to give any kind of tour on their property. If they want to stop the tours just because they don't like what he's saying, I think that's fine. It's their property. Free speech issues don't apply, IMO, because that only relates to what the government can stop you from saying. I don't think they could stop him if he was charging people to come over to his back yard and listen to his Disney "history" (although I'm really not even sure about that), but if he's doing it on their property, I think they have every right to make him stop. And if it's only because they don't like what he's saying, so be it.

 

[All Aboard]

A tour for real, true Disney fanatics who have read all the books, seen all the specials, and want to know stuff that's outside that. It's not, "And here we have It's A Small World, which was one of the original attractions at the 1964 Worlds Fair ... "

Precisely! And that's why Jim is not competing against Disney.

This is solely about content.

 

[DVCconvert]

WD....

That may be, but I think part of what Jim likes is to be "closed out" of things. If he's let in, he has the same story everyone else has. When he gets closed out, he has a whole different story, and it gets to feature him. He wasn't the only press guy who didn't get a pass in Philly. And, frankly, he could have gotten in on his own as a Disney stockholder, simply by reserving a ticket. So why he didn't just do that -- if it truly was the story he was after -- is beyond me.

Are you sure he's a stockholder??? I thought I read something he wrote that said he was not!????

AND....just wondering, why haven't you commented on the 'NEWS of the day' Found here?......CLICK

...I KNOW you have a sense of humor!

 

[what]

Well it's not clear from his description of the events that he ever took their money. If the tour was pre-paid, we can assume that the original trio that never got their tour with him are the ones that paid.

Well he clearly had a price on his site for the tour. Whether he received payment I have no idea. But I'm sure a small company like Disney might have enough resources to gather such info. Like I said, it could and would be argued that even if he didn't receive monies that the tour has commercial value to them.

What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me. As others have mentioned, there are other businesses that do this as well (Michaels VIP was mentioned).

As to your other points, there may be legal issues, and he may be biting the hand that feeds him, but Disney's response still has the appearance of singling out one guy because they don't like him.

I said I have never seen such a tour. I did admit I have seen people gather at a sign being held up but I have never seen these people follow in a group all over Disney. Maybe I am just not as perceptive as some. Though I would like to think that I would notice a group of individuals with somebody dropping some Disney knowledge on them. I didn't dispute that it happens. My observation is that I have seen them gather at a destination. Mostly at bus stops actually. Kind of like when you go on a field trip in school. Personally I wouldn't have called such a field trip a tour. Like I said I'm sure it happens though. Still doesn't mean in anyway that he wasn't breaking any laws. Seems to me his tours would still be going on if not for some bad luck. Unless you think the ladies don't really exist. Not that any of it matters, if Disney did/does want to single him out they will. He won't have to worry about it if he doesn't break any laws. They have the right to kick people out of the parks. I have seen them do it before. It was hardly a nice experience for the ones involved either. You would have thought they murdered someone. Were they being obnoxious, loud, rude, and using vulgarity? Yep. Did they deserve to be kicked out? Absolutely. But, the manor in which they were treated was unreal. That was along time ago and maybe things have changed with security. It seems to me he at least was treated pretty fairly considering they could have banned him completely if they wanted too.

 

[Bob O]

The reason the women complained is because they wanted a meal(and were too dumb not too realize it wasnt a disney tour) and probably they wanted the sanitzed version of disney that you will find on alot of web sites(escpeically most things on this site that are posted by the people who control the site).
Disney was within there rights to do what they did, which doesnt mean it was the right thing to do. Jim Hill's site gives one alot of interesting reading and info you dont find alot of places(PS it would be nice if somone on this site in a official capacity did the same thing rather than parrot the disney company line).
By there action in this case and the annual meeting it shows the current disney regime will go to great lengths to squash different viewpoints.
And disney makes alot of money off foreign tour groups, so they look the other way and dont care if these groups run roughshod over the park and ruin the enjoyment of other guests. If disney wanted a better park experience they wouldnt bother with a small group like hill's but would control the large brazilian tour groups which cause nothing but trouble as they run thru the parks in a uncontrollable manner.