About Me

My photo
I am an attorney practicing in Hartford, Connecticut. A particular focus of mine is the legal needs of the amusement and tourism industry. My focus on the amusement industry derives from my pre-law career as an operations manager with Cedar Fair Entertainment Company and Universal Orlando. Having started my career as a ride operator at Cedar Point in 1992, I progressed through the seasonal ranks and ultimately became the Manager of Ride Operations and Park Services at Worlds of Fun in Kansas City. I also worked in Universal's operations department during the construction and development of Islands of Adventure. Today, I am an active member of the New England Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions and the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions. I have been invited to speak at amusement industry meetings and seminars and have worked on a variety of matters relating to this industry.

Legal Disclaimer (because, you know, I'm a lawyer)

This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice (or any legal advice). By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher and / or author nor can such a relationship be created by use of his Blog / Web Site. By using thisBlog / Web Site you understand that any statement on the blog site are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Wiggin and Dana LLP. By using this blog site you understand that the Blog/Web Site is not affiliated with or approved by Wiggin and Dana LLP. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state or jurisdiction. This blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Regardless, the hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Curing The Crisis Of Credibility And Kicking The "Carnie" Connotation

 A few days ago, my friend and former colleague, Matt Heller, posted some interesting and spot-on thoughts on professionalism on his excellent leadership blog.  Matt makes the point that “the perception of safety is largely determined by what we see and experience,” and to support this point he attached this photo capture from a travel channel program on amusement parks, asking the question, “is this really how you want your facility portrayed on TV, or at all?”  

Matt’s point is very well taken.  Appearance and professionalism matter when it comes to the perception of safety. However, it doesn’t just stop at the perception of safety.  Rather, these same issues – appearance, cleanliness, and professionalism - also have a real impact on the perception of credibility – and this is a crucial issue to getting the best result possible in every form of legal proceeding.


I’m going to be blunt about something.  The amusement industry (particularly the carnival segment) has a public image problem.  Not that the public doesn’t love our facilities, but in the context of the professional business and legal community, our industry as a whole is generally not as well regarded in terms of professionalism, sophistication, and business acumen as other more “traditional” businesses like banks, real estate, or manufacturing.  I routinely find myself explaining to well-educated professionals that the amusement industry is not populated by toothless, uneducated, and frequently intoxicated “rednecks” who have no concern for the safety of our guests.  The word “carnie,” and all its negative connotations, frequently comes up.  Is it a stereotype.  Absolutely.  Is it unfair?  Undoubtedly, as are all stereotypes.  Is it real?  Unfortunately, yes (check out this blog or this more recent blog** if you don’t believe me.).   And because of it, I’ve seen numerous instances in legal proceedings, i.e. investigative proceedings, depositions, legislative hearings, court appearances, or administrative matters, where the amusement industry faces a tough sell before anyone even opens their mouths.  So what do we do about it?

** Update 9/1/11.  Note that, as originally published, this link referred to a blog posting making fun of "carnies."  The blog author, however, received one negative comment from one of my readers and requested that I remove the link to his blog.  As you can see in the comments section below, I refused.  Apparently dissatisfied with my refusal, the blogger has apparently changed all references to "carnies" in his piece to "lawyers."  I point this out only to clear up any confusion as to why I would link to a piece that now makes very little sense in light of its references to "lawyers" instead of "carnies."  Of course, the blogger in question is free to edit his blog however he sees fit, within legal constraints, so I have made no request (and will make no request) that he alter his content.**

The answer is really relatively straightforward.  If you want the public (especially judges, jurors, or legislators) to take the message seriously, it must be delivered in a manner they deem professional.  Just as the overall appearance of your facility and your documents influences the public perception of safety, so too does personal appearance, professionalism, and attention to detail reflect on credibility in a legal proceeding.  Do it right, and your message will be more willingly received and seriously considered – in short, you will be more credible and persuasive.  Do it wrong, and you could be sunk before you ever start.  A few examples I have personally seen might help illustrate my point.   

  • Several years ago, I attended a legislative hearing on a state bill that would make mechanical bulls legal when they previously were not.  A small group of local carnival owners / operators testified at the hearing against the bill.  These individuals presented themselves wearing ripped jeans, overalls, grungy shirts, and baseball caps.  At a legislative hearing within the walls of the State Capitol.  They didn’t have to say a word because, frankly, it didn’t matter what they said.  The legislator’s preconception that these were nothing but “carnies,” in every negative sense of the word, was all but confirmed by the time they walked from the entrance to the hearing room to the table to testify.  The audience openly grumbled (some laughed) at their appearance and the legislators could not have taken them less seriously. 

  • In another instance, I was present for legislative testimony given by an upper level manager at a fixed site amusement park.  While this manager dressed absolutely appropriately for the situation (i.e. suit and tie), the presentation was unorganized.  The testimony itself was internally inconsistent and ineffective at making the point desired.  It seemed unrehearsed and consequently unpolished and unprofessional.  Further, the manager seemed to be surprised when the legislators asked questions about the park’s position and was unprepared to give cogent answers.

  • Last year, I had a case where witnesses on both sides were faced with many many (did I mention many) documents that reflected poorly on credibility.  Emails and business documents laced with profanity, jokes, personal attacks, rude comments leveled toward the other side, and generally sloppy record keeping.  Rather than focus on the merits of the case, these documents caused everyone to spend an inordinate amount of time in court trying to rebuild the credibility of their clients– who, based on the condition and content of the documents, appeared vindictive and apathetic about professionalism and details.

The point is simple.  We must keep in mind that, unless you happen to be a highly placed executive in the industry or are affiliated with the “big boys” that have instant name recognition and thus tend to avoid the public image problems I have been talking about, it is vital to keep appearance (both personal appearance and the appearance of your facility and documentation) at the front of your mind whenever dealing with the public and especially in legal proceedings.  Ask yourself:

Who Is A More Credible Representative Of This Operation?
ü      Are your employees dressed professionally when on the job?  Do they have a uniform and appear well groomed?  Or do they look like they just slept in their car and came to work?  Credibility starts with day-to-day operation and it is important to build a message of confidence with each of our guests – one of them may be a potential plaintiff.

ü      Have you you or your lawyer reviewed your documents, including internal emails (hint, there’s no such thing) to ensure that they reflect professionally on your operation?  Are they free of personal comments, profanity, or other unprofessional language?  Are they free of inordinate (i.e. beyond normal "wear and tear" from being used as expected) amounts of dirt, mud, food, drink, and water stains (see Matt's photo above for what not to do!).  If documents must be kept out in the elements, such as at a ride location, try keeping them in a watertight container or, at least, in a plastic sleeve to protect them and keep them looking as good as possible.  Its much better to present a court with documentation that shows nothing more than normal, everyday use than to ask the judge or jurors to focus on pertinent data hiding within a a crumpled up, creased document filled with extraneous comments, doodling, and food / beverage stains. 

ü      If asked to speak or testify, either in court, at a legislative hearing, or with the media, have you rehearsed your comments and anticipated questions that might be asked so that your answers are clear, succinct, and comprehensible?  Its worth it in many instances to involve an attorney in this preparation process (I happen to know a good one).  At the very least, get the input of a public relations professional in your organization.

ü      Are you or your employees dressed professionally for those appearances.  Unless your attorney advises otherwise, these are not usually the times to show up in anything except your Sunday best.  Short of a tuxedo, its hard to overdress for a court appearance.  Conservative business attire sends a message to the Court that you are just as professional and sophisticated in your business as every other business person the judge deals with in other cases.  The word “carnie” never enters the mind and the message will be more willingly received and considered.    

Remember that, in the court of law and the court of public opinion, the content of your message sometimes only matters as much as how it is delivered.  To maximize the persuasive value of your position, and gain the most advantage you can in persuading a judge, jury, or the public to adopt your position, you have to not only talk the part, but look the part.

5 comments:

  1. Erik: The points you make are great for deposition and court appearances. I have a problem with the records issue you raise. When I worked at Universal Studios Hollywood I had to review the maintenance records for every ride and attraction. The ones that were pristine were generally suspect. The ones with greasy finger marks or coffee stains were more credible. I do a lot of accident investigations as an expert. One thing that I look for is good record keeping. I see terrible stuff from some large parks and great stuff from some of the carnivals. I can walk onto a carnival midway and tell you if this is a good show or bad show just by the set-up and condition of the rides and joints. It is much more difficult to walk up on an amusement park midway and make the same assessment. Defects in maintenance are much more difficult to detect. Last March I became a member of the International Risk Reduction Group for Aging Amusement Rides. There were several "Carnies" at the kick-off meeting. Their dress was casual but business-like and their contributions to the meeting were well accepted by the engineers, inspectors and ride manufactures in attendance. Your point is well taken. Improper dress can blind the viewer to the worth below the surface. When it comes to recodes, particularly daily pre-opening inspections, I will take a good check list that is dirty over a pristine piece of paper. That subject is covered in a class I teach a class at the annual NAARSO Safety Forum on the Forensic Assessment of Documents

    ReplyDelete
  2. David - good point, and one that I probably should have been more precise about in my article. In fact, I just revised it to make it more clear. The point isn't necessarily that documents be pristine, but that they do not show undue lack of concern. I buy that a document that looks "used" in a way that it should be can be more credible than a document that looks like it has never seen the light of day on a midway or maintenance shop. My concern is more for those things that show that some attention and concern was paid. The biggest culprit on this that I've personally seen is 1) editorial comments written on operations and maintenance records - usually in an attempt to be funny (sometime out of frustration or anger), but they always come across poorly later, and 2) documents with an extreme amount of wear - i.e. the maintenance checklist that is covered in oil, has obviously been stepped on several times, run over by an Antique Car (tire mark to prove it) and that has a cigarette burn in the corner. That kind of wear is well beyond what one would normally expect and does not reflect well - particularly to those outside the industry.

    The other point I would make goes to your observation that

    "There were several "Carnies" at the kick-off meeting. Their dress was casual but business-like and their contributions to the meeting were well accepted by the engineers, inspectors and ride manufactures in attendance."

    I think those of us in the industry have far fewer problems looking past the outward appearance and hearing the message instead. The point I'm making in the article is that, as an industry, we may have to put our fate in the hands of people who are not familiar with what we do and hold some preconceived notions of the type of people involved in day-to-day operations. Recognizing the existence of these preconceptions allows an opportunity to take steps to address them. Those same individuals who were well received at the kick-off meeting, might not have been so warmly received sitting down with a regulator, legislator, or judge who lacks the background and experience we have.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brad,

    I appreciate the time you took to raise your concerns, however I do not believe that it is necessary for me to remove the link to your blog from this article and therefore I am going to respectfully decline to do so. The point of linking to your blog (and the other I also linked to) was to present examples in the public domain of societal stereotypes regarding the amusement and carnival industry. Regardless of its intended humor (which, by the way, is quite clear from the first paragraph of your piece and was not lost on me), your piece relies on this stereotype to make your point. In other words, absent the stereotype, there is no potential humor in your piece. It can only be humorous so long as everyone recognizes the stereotype you focus upon. To that extent, your piece illustrates my point perfectly and therefore I will not remove this link.

    Additionally, as I am sure you understand as a fellow blogger, I am not responsible for the comments of my readers on your blog. The fact that I linked to it no doubt facilitated their familiarity with your blog, but their comments represent their opinions, not mine. I therefore cannot change the content on my blog simply because of the opinions expressed by my readers on your site. Nor would I expect you to change your site if the situation were reversed.

    I trust you will understand and respect this decision.

    Best Regards,

    Erik Beard

    ReplyDelete

Please Note: If you are using Firefox or Internet Explorer, you may encounter difficulty posting comments unless you have 3rd Party Cookies enabled. If you cannot post comments, please enable 3rd Party Cookies and try again. If that does not work, please let me know at erikhbeard@gmail.com.