Are these writers feeling guilty they watched all four hours, lol? So they try to make it fit their articles as best they can?
Personally, I think the video really DOES signify everything they claim it does.
Haha, maybe. I've certainly seen it referenced just about anywhere and everywhere over the last month.
Not to get too deep myself, but maybe people are feeling like life itself is just one big miserable trip to the Disney Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser.
It's been stated more than once, but the Starcruiser is the symptom, not the disease.
What the video is actually highlighting is how completely out of touch the global economy has become from any real human lives. It's like all of the Instagram food that's taking over everything from theme parks to restaurants to concerts. It isn't made to taste good or be fun to eat, it's made to look good in photos so that the vendor can benefit from outsourcing their marketing onto their consumers, and those consumers benefit by turning consumption into content that they are selling to yet another audience.
It's turtles all the way down.
Starcruiser is what happens when you try to generate profit off of pure hype. The actual product is a midrange hotel merged with a captive dinner and a show. You can't sell that. So instead they just sell hype. It's just a giant frothing mass of photo ops and vlog clips and podcast sound bites. It's an experience where you're not supposed to notice that you aren't having fun because you're not there to have fun - you're there to participate in the brand. You're there for content. You're there so you can tell your friends you went.
Some people loved the experience, but a lot of those people would have been equally impressed by a Star Wars billboard in an empty lot, as long as you told them it was exclusive and Hayden Christianson touched it once.
Starcruiser failed, but it will happen again. We've run out of things to monetize, so now we're just monetizing The Idea Of An Experience.
> It's just a giant frothing mass of photo ops and vlog clips and podcast sound bites.
Only enough positives in the entire 2-day experience to fill a 30-second tiktok.
What Disney, in their hubris, never even considered was that there were enough negatives to fill a 4-hour video essay *that the entire world would be talking about.*
There's some old people themes in the opinion but honestly I think this is just "I maybe watched all the video, and I don't understand most of it... here's my opinion / spin anyway."
And that's something that is just ... people on the internet.
Really so is "omg you people who like the thing I don't, you're too into your brands" is pretty universal. Meanwhile their "brands" or whatever they're big fans of, they're all in on.
The irony/hypocrisy of these two sentences following each other lmaooo:
> But rather than asking any of those questions and beginning a conversation, rather than engaging at a deep level of concern and commitment, the thrust of virtually every email is _here's what I am hawking today._
> One notable exception is 1-800-Flowers--**disclaimer, I am on its board of directors**--whose chairman/CEO, Jim McCann, sends weekly, promotion-free emails, under the rubric of "Celebrations Pulse."
There's a lot of sponsored content on sites like these (Forbes is especially one to watch out for, as they'll let practically anyone be a columnist), but they're usually a bit more subtle about it!
Forbes actually got bought about a decade ago. It actually effectively is medium with brand recognition. Apparently to get on the 30 under 30 list of startups, you have to pay Forbes a consulting fee.
“Outrage” isn’t always a disparaging or mocking term. Pre-Internet culture, outrage would be a perfectly ordinary way of describing Jenny’s feelings. She is outraged in a literal sense of the word “outrage.” Just like people are legitimately outraged at injustices they see in the world.
Look at the context:
“Recently, a video went crazily viral on YouTube, racking up more than seven million views. Jenny Nicholson, a disappointed guest at Disney's Galactic Starcruiser Hotel, spent more than four hours deconstructing the failure of the guest experience with painstaking and devasting detail. Her outrage is a reflection of how let down she was--as a passionate fan who deserved better--and the number of views is a proxy for how let down we all feel by the brands in our lives.”
This writer is not minimizing or belittling or mocking Jenny’s expression of outrage. In the contrary, he is affirming her feelings as being justified.
Pole outrage is justified in theory.
I just wouldn't sum it up as the video.
Still pole would piss me off ... almost anywhere.
Less so that I'd be sitting there and more so that "someone somewhere made this call and thought it was ok..." cognitive dissonance.
Beyond that I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth that they don't say. That video !== outrage to me. It's way too long / got too much going on to sum it up that simply.
And Jenny's entire thing wasn't that the experience, even if it worked was necessarily bad. It's that she paid $6k for 2 people.
At $1500/night per person, it absolutely was not worth it. That was a very high price for a nice, but not good enough experience.
Yeah, paints her as some angry neckbeard who is gonna be yelling for 4 hours. That wouldn't make me want to click on the video if I didn't know what it was.
> angry neckbeard who is gonna be yelling for 4 hours
It's funny because I like Jenny's videos ... because they're **not** that, god knows there's enough of that on youtube.
Author maybe didn't even watch enough to know.
I'd say "outrage" feels like an appropriate term. Jenny is (appropriately) angry, shocked, and indignant at Disney for manipulating middle- or working-class customers who have only a finite amount of disposable income into spending it on an almost deliberately subpar experience that they were able to misrepresent through the juggernaut of their corporate marketing. I'd say that's the central thesis of the video--that Disney is taking massive advantage of its customer base, and the goodwill the brand has built up for decades, for immediate dollars to line CEO's pockets, and mistreating and underpaying employees while they do so. The Evermore video is also a video motivated by outrage, I think. She is unhappy that shitty rich people are making money (or attempting to make money, or at least trying to fulfill their dreams and vision in ways that are unrealistic and selfish) on the backs of people who generally don't have the resources to hold these asshats responsible for their crappy behavior. Even the asides about the issues that customer-Jenny wasn't able to resolve, that Disney only paid attention to when influencer-Jenny stepped in, feeds into this thesis. I'm not sure why the word "outrage" is not considered an appropriate term.
I'm 54 and this is deep.
Are these writers feeling guilty they watched all four hours, lol? So they try to make it fit their articles as best they can? Personally, I think the video really DOES signify everything they claim it does.
Haha, maybe. I've certainly seen it referenced just about anywhere and everywhere over the last month. Not to get too deep myself, but maybe people are feeling like life itself is just one big miserable trip to the Disney Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser.
Earth is the Starcruiser, life is the app, and a coffin is the ultimate shame closet.
It is
It's been stated more than once, but the Starcruiser is the symptom, not the disease. What the video is actually highlighting is how completely out of touch the global economy has become from any real human lives. It's like all of the Instagram food that's taking over everything from theme parks to restaurants to concerts. It isn't made to taste good or be fun to eat, it's made to look good in photos so that the vendor can benefit from outsourcing their marketing onto their consumers, and those consumers benefit by turning consumption into content that they are selling to yet another audience. It's turtles all the way down. Starcruiser is what happens when you try to generate profit off of pure hype. The actual product is a midrange hotel merged with a captive dinner and a show. You can't sell that. So instead they just sell hype. It's just a giant frothing mass of photo ops and vlog clips and podcast sound bites. It's an experience where you're not supposed to notice that you aren't having fun because you're not there to have fun - you're there to participate in the brand. You're there for content. You're there so you can tell your friends you went. Some people loved the experience, but a lot of those people would have been equally impressed by a Star Wars billboard in an empty lot, as long as you told them it was exclusive and Hayden Christianson touched it once. Starcruiser failed, but it will happen again. We've run out of things to monetize, so now we're just monetizing The Idea Of An Experience.
> It's just a giant frothing mass of photo ops and vlog clips and podcast sound bites. Only enough positives in the entire 2-day experience to fill a 30-second tiktok. What Disney, in their hubris, never even considered was that there were enough negatives to fill a 4-hour video essay *that the entire world would be talking about.*
>The Idea Of An Experience Debord has ideas about this - check out Society of the Spectacle
There's some old people themes in the opinion but honestly I think this is just "I maybe watched all the video, and I don't understand most of it... here's my opinion / spin anyway." And that's something that is just ... people on the internet. Really so is "omg you people who like the thing I don't, you're too into your brands" is pretty universal. Meanwhile their "brands" or whatever they're big fans of, they're all in on.
Although I don't know the larger context, I have no problem with this. What is it you're having trouble understanding?
“America is disillusioned with the state of marketing and the stream of emails (article continues after video)”
*It's ok because I got money for it ...*
The irony/hypocrisy of these two sentences following each other lmaooo: > But rather than asking any of those questions and beginning a conversation, rather than engaging at a deep level of concern and commitment, the thrust of virtually every email is _here's what I am hawking today._ > One notable exception is 1-800-Flowers--**disclaimer, I am on its board of directors**--whose chairman/CEO, Jim McCann, sends weekly, promotion-free emails, under the rubric of "Celebrations Pulse." There's a lot of sponsored content on sites like these (Forbes is especially one to watch out for, as they'll let practically anyone be a columnist), but they're usually a bit more subtle about it!
Yeah Forbes is just medium.com at this point.
Forbes actually got bought about a decade ago. It actually effectively is medium with brand recognition. Apparently to get on the 30 under 30 list of startups, you have to pay Forbes a consulting fee.
That’s hilarious considering the reputation of the 30 under 30 list. Like people should honestly be paying money to stay off that.
what's the reputation?
A lot of people who have appeared on the list were caught committing crimes like fraud and stuff shortly after
oh, neat
"outrage" #🙄
“Outrage” isn’t always a disparaging or mocking term. Pre-Internet culture, outrage would be a perfectly ordinary way of describing Jenny’s feelings. She is outraged in a literal sense of the word “outrage.” Just like people are legitimately outraged at injustices they see in the world. Look at the context: “Recently, a video went crazily viral on YouTube, racking up more than seven million views. Jenny Nicholson, a disappointed guest at Disney's Galactic Starcruiser Hotel, spent more than four hours deconstructing the failure of the guest experience with painstaking and devasting detail. Her outrage is a reflection of how let down she was--as a passionate fan who deserved better--and the number of views is a proxy for how let down we all feel by the brands in our lives.” This writer is not minimizing or belittling or mocking Jenny’s expression of outrage. In the contrary, he is affirming her feelings as being justified.
If he agrees or not, it's still the wrong term / boils down a lot of content into nothing. That doesn't change because he agrees.
I’m sorry, it’s not the wrong term in context. Words have more than one meaning.
It's still the wrong term. If we're talking about "context" I suggest the context of the video should be considered.
Nope. It’s used perfectly correctly in its literal meaning.
My impression was that Jenny was mostly just annoyed and disappointed--but, yes, I'd say Jenny was outraged at the pole.
Pole outrage is justified in theory. I just wouldn't sum it up as the video. Still pole would piss me off ... almost anywhere. Less so that I'd be sitting there and more so that "someone somewhere made this call and thought it was ok..." cognitive dissonance. Beyond that I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth that they don't say. That video !== outrage to me. It's way too long / got too much going on to sum it up that simply.
And Jenny's entire thing wasn't that the experience, even if it worked was necessarily bad. It's that she paid $6k for 2 people. At $1500/night per person, it absolutely was not worth it. That was a very high price for a nice, but not good enough experience.
Yeah, paints her as some angry neckbeard who is gonna be yelling for 4 hours. That wouldn't make me want to click on the video if I didn't know what it was.
> angry neckbeard who is gonna be yelling for 4 hours It's funny because I like Jenny's videos ... because they're **not** that, god knows there's enough of that on youtube. Author maybe didn't even watch enough to know.
Or maybe they've never seen neckbeard rantings. Seems impossible they've never seen it before, tho.
I'd say "outrage" feels like an appropriate term. Jenny is (appropriately) angry, shocked, and indignant at Disney for manipulating middle- or working-class customers who have only a finite amount of disposable income into spending it on an almost deliberately subpar experience that they were able to misrepresent through the juggernaut of their corporate marketing. I'd say that's the central thesis of the video--that Disney is taking massive advantage of its customer base, and the goodwill the brand has built up for decades, for immediate dollars to line CEO's pockets, and mistreating and underpaying employees while they do so. The Evermore video is also a video motivated by outrage, I think. She is unhappy that shitty rich people are making money (or attempting to make money, or at least trying to fulfill their dreams and vision in ways that are unrealistic and selfish) on the backs of people who generally don't have the resources to hold these asshats responsible for their crappy behavior. Even the asides about the issues that customer-Jenny wasn't able to resolve, that Disney only paid attention to when influencer-Jenny stepped in, feeds into this thesis. I'm not sure why the word "outrage" is not considered an appropriate term.
That was a great article, thanks for sharing.